ML21071A177

NRC-2018-000831 - Resp 10 - Interim, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed, Part 11 of 14

ML21071A177
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/04/2021
From:	NRC/OCIO
To:
Shared Package
ML21071A165	List: ML21071A166 ML21071A167 ML21071A168 ML21071A169 ML21071A170 ML21071A171 ML21071A172 ML21071A173 ML21071A174 ML21071A175 ML21071A176 ML21071A177 ML21071A178 ML21071A180
References
NRC-2018-000831
Download: ML21071A177 (220)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:From: Hardies Robert To: van Walle Eric Cc: Rudland David: Hjser Matthew Subject : RE: RE: program on materials of decommissioned pressure vessels Date: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:34:26 AM Note to requester: Attachment is Attachments: NRC staff from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation docx immediately following. Hi Eric, Our plans are rudimentary at this time. We have ideas but the current state of our program is somewhere between conceptual and exploratory. I've copied Matt Hiser on this email and he is involved in a current project to identify what types of materials would be of interest when harvesting from reti red plants. He is planning a workshop in late fall/early winter and I am sure he would like you to attend or part icipate in some way. Dave and I met with Jan Bens in March and after that p ut together a conceptual scoping proposal and I have attached that. The NRG is cutting back on staff and budget, but harvesting materials from decommissioned plants has always enjoyed great interest and priority from senor level management, so it should not really be very difficult to secure funding , but there is no current funding. We met with NRA (Japan) this week and they are very interested in our nebulous plans too. I am retiring soon, so Dave Rudland or Matt Hiser is likely to be the long term point of contact on this project. Robert Hardies Senior Level Advisor for M at e rials Engineering Division of Engi neering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission Office Phone 301 415-5802 (b)(6) .Ce.UL  ! From: van Walle Eric [mailto :eric.van.w alle@sckcen.be] Se nt: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 3:17 AM To: Hardies, Robert <Robert.Ha rd ies@nrc.gov> Cc: Rudland, David <David.Ru dla nd @nrc.gov>

Subject:

[Externa l_Sender] RE: program on mat erials of decommissioned pressu re vessels

Dear Bob,

dear Dave, Unfortu nately I missed Dave at the PVP meeting. My mail discussion w ith Tom Rosseel indicated that there is a US program on t he Zion mat eria l, but I reckon t his is under OR NL leadership, and t hat t his is t he only material t hat is under f utu re investigation. Does t his mea n t hat USN RC is not involved? Does US NRC have a description of the conceptual program you me ntion Bob? I w as asked to have a meeting w it h ou r Regulat ory Body next w eek, but I am st ill a bit puzzled on how thi ngs might be orga nized/looked at from US- side. It would be good to underst and your approach. Kindly, Eric. From: Hardies, Robert [mailto :Robert.Hardies@orc.gov] Sent: dinsdag 12 juli 2016 16:46 To: van Walle Eric Cc: Rudland, David

Subject:

RE: program on materials of decommissioned pressure vessels

Dear Eric,

Of course I remember you. Mark has kept me posted on your rapid career arc. It is great to hear from you again. The NRC does not have an active program. Instead I would call it a conceptual program. We would like to recover some materials from retired plants. Jan Bens met with us last April and indicated there was interest in Belgium to do the same. We have also met with the Swiss, who indicate they have similar goals. Dave Rudland is currently the Branch Chief in our Office of Research who is most likely to be heading up this activity. He will be at the PVP meeting. Perhaps you two could arrange to meet there. Best Regards, Robert Hard ies Senior Level Advisor for Materials Engineering Division of Engineeri ng Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu lation U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission Office Phone 301 415-5802 (b)(6) . . . ..Cell! ********

• I From: van Wa lle Eric [mailto*erjc van walle@sckcen be]

Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 6:30 AM To: Hard ies, Robert <Robert Hardjes@nrc ~ov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] program on materials of decommissioned pressure vessels Importance: High Dea r Bob, I wonder whether you still know me afte r so many yea rs of silence ... I was quite active in ASTM on RPV-issues and stil l today t he subject is very close to my heart. Since more than ten years now I became t he Director-General of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, SCK.CEN in Mol, Belgium. As this Centre is the on ly one in Belgium and covers most nuclear subjects from A to Z, I st ill spend a little bit of my t ime to RPV's. Most work is done by Rach id Chaouad i w hom you have met before also. I also know you are well aware of the Doe l3/Ti ha nge2 Belgian NPP-situation and of course USN RC has followed it closely. I stil l have a lot of contacts with M ark Kirk, I guess working in your team. The reason of t his ema il is t hat I am looking for inform at ion on how to participate in the work t hat t he US is pla nning/executing today on decomm issioned RPV's. Our regulat ory body and TSO would support this kind of activity and! of course also from the viewpoint of our NPP' s and the Centre, we have an inte rest. Moreover, we still have the BR2 reactor ful ly operational and ou r state-of-t he-art labs. These are interesting tools to use besides the ela borate experience our teams have on RPVs. So, my question is simple: can we, and if yes how, participate in t he ongoing US decomm issioned RPV program. Whom do I need to get in touch with, what are the conditions, are t here any meetings where we could participate? I leave on Saturday for the PVP meeting in Vancouve r. Rachid comes later also t o the meeting in Chicago. Hope to hea r from you soon, Kindly, Eric.

NRC staff from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (R. Hardies, G. Carpenter) and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (D. Rudland) met with Jan Bens, Director General of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC), the Belgian nuclear regulatory authority, during the Regulatory Information Conference, Wednesday, March 9, 2016. The purpose of the meeting was to explore the potential for collaborating on performing research on reactor pressure vessel steel from retired nuclear power plants. In principal, both FANC and NRC agree that research on salvaged actual plant materials would prove to be valuable. Both parties plan to continue informal discussion. The NRC is currently participating in collaborative programs to retrieve and test reactor vessel internals materials from the retired Cabrera plant in Spain. The NRC is interested in testing reactor pressure vessel materials, but has no current programs to retrieve or test material. There is no current funding and no current user need request to address planning, retrieval or testing . FANC is considering programs to retrieve and test materials. Any program to retrieve and test reactor pressure vessel materials would address several general topics, including planning, acquisition and testing , as follows:

1) Planning During the past three years five plants in the U.S. have shut down permanently, and another three have announced their intent to shut down prior to 2020. Other countries also have plants that have or plan to shut down permanently. Each retired plant provides an opportunity to harvest materials that have accumulated extensive service exposure. Testing such materials can provide information on the progression of materials damage mechanisms. The resulting information can be used to inform inspection programs or provide information useful for evaluating suitability for continued operations.

An initial task prior to testing reactor pressure vessel materials from retired plants is identifying available plant materials and comparing those materials to existing research needs. Different sponsoring organizations or participating countries may have different research priorities. For example, some countries may be most interested in testing forged reactor pressure vessel material. Other countries may be most interested in the most highly irradiated, most radiation sensitive materials available. Finding materials in a plant that satisfy the needs of multiple sponsoring organizations represents the most economical use of sponsorship funding. . Typical activities included in this phase include identifying a point of contact at the plant, retrieving materials information about the plants from the point of contact, then determining if the plant has material worth salvaging for research purposes. For those plants that have materials of interest, determine the decommissioning plans to identify the timeframe when the materials could be retrieved. Since many plants enter periods of safe storage that may last decades, the planning must provide for future notification to

both the decommissioning and the acquiring organizations in order to ensure the salvage operation is added to the decommissioning plan and the acquiring organizations are able to plan sufficiently far in advance to secure funding for the acquisition.

2) Acquisition The timing for the acquisition phase depends on tlhe outcomes from the planning phase.

A few years before the acquisition, the point of contact at the acquiring organization needs to communicate to participating organizations. All participating organizations need to identify sources of funding and secure the funding. Some participating organizations may have budgetary cycles that may take several years of advance planning. Once all participating organizations are identified and funding is secured a single organization needs to centralize funding and begin a single point acquisition activity. Inter-organizational contracting agreements need to be established and executed. The contracting organization needs to begin negotiations with the supplying organization far enough in advance so that the supplying organization can identify accurate availabilities and can provide estimates that permit budgetary planning. It may be advantageous to have the acquiring organization be located in the same country as the supplying organization. Arrangements for transportation of harvested radioactive materials needs to be planned, contracted, and executed.

3) Testing The type of testing that is required will depend on the material and degradation mechanism that is to be investigated. The type of test facility will depend on the level of radioactivity in the harvested material. All sponsoring organizations will need to agree on the test program scope. The lead organization will need to contract with a test facility and arrange to have a test report prepared.

The NRC expects to continue discussions to work out details of a program to acquire and perform research on reactor pressure vessel materials from decommissioned plants.

From: Frankl, Istvan Note to requester: Attachment is Sent: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 18:25:55 +0000 immediately following. To: Brady, Bennett Cc: Iyengar, Raj;Hull, Amy

Subject:

RE: Revised User Need Request for SUR Attachments: 2016 NRR UNR - SLR Memo (IF).docx

Bennett, I am fine with overall scope of the draft UNR and have attached my minor editorial revisions of the memo.

Thanks, Steve F.

From: Iyengar, Raj Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 4:27 PM To: Brady, Bennett <Bennett.Brady@nrc.gov>; Bloom, Steven <Steven.Bloom@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov> Cc: Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Revised User Need Request for SLR

Bennett, I am OK with the write-up. It captures the recent discussions on documentation quite well.

I have forwarded the attachments to Steve Frankl, just in case he has any comments. My recommendation is for NRR to go ahead with the internal concurrence on this UNR and if RES staff has any insights, we could share those during the development of the UNR response from RES. We would like to receive this UNR from NRR during Jan of 2017 (after we brief Bill Dean - currently scheduled for Jan. 12).

Amy, Feel free to provide any comments, if you have not already provided .

Raj From: Brady, Bennett Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 2:58 PM To: Bloom, Steven <Steven.Bloom@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj <Ra j.lyengar@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Allen

<Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Revised User Need Request for SLR All , I have revised the user need request and transmittal memo. I added a forth task for documentation that I hope will meet the request Mike Weber had. Please provide me your comments and changes. Bennett Bennett M. Brady Senior Project Manager Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 0 11 - 08 301-415-2981

Qffioial Woe 9ftl'J Seiisiti,e liite111al l11fo1111alio11 December MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Weber, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: William Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

RESEARCH ASSISTANCE ON POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL ISSUES DURING THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD OF EXTENDED OPERATION The purpose of this memorandum is to request specific resea rch products to facilitate the evaluation of future applications for a license to operate during the subsequent license renewal (SLR) period (i.e., 60 to 80 years). These products should build upon analysis methods, tools, and expertise developed as part of ongoing and new research activities, focused specifically on aging effects during the SLR period. This request is a continuation of tasks- performed in response to UNR-NRR-2010-006, "Request for Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Support in Developing Technical Information to Support Evaluating the Feasibility of License Renewal Beyond 60 Years" (ADAMS Accession No. ML092470525). The new support should focus on research activities addressing the most significant technical issues as discussed in the ~RM [ Co mmented [IF1]: Please identify.

~ ONTACT: Bennett M. Brady, NRR/DLR[                                                               Commented [IF2]: You may want t o add phone number.

Qffloial lclee 011ly 6e11siti,e late111al l11fou11al1011

QUlcial ll&e 0AIV i&A&illrre IRteia,u,I lnf0PMftti0ii Specifically, NRR is requesting RES support to: Hold NRC/industry workshop(s) on the status of domestic and international research activities and operating experience to address issues discussed in the subsequent

    . license renewal guidance documents, Develop and implement a long-term strategy and database for obtaining information on materials degradation from harvesting ex-plant components from decommissioning as well as from operating plants,

• Continue to develop domestic and international partnerships to share expertise, capabilities, and resources related to aging management research for SLR, and
• Use the products from the above three tasks to develop documentation of the status of research for the significant technical issues for subsequent license renewal.

Additional details are provided in the Enclosure "Research Assistance on Potential Significant Technical Issues during the Subsequent Period of Extended Operation." Resources NRR requests RES to provide the specific resources (contract dollars and FTE) needed to complete the various tasks during the period of activity. Intended Use of RES Products The requested RES products will provide confirmatory research on the technical bases for industry research products related to aging degradation and identified in the staff's review of SLR applications. Coordination and Schedules This request has been coordinated with RES staff in the Division of Engineering. Based on this, we expect that the requested work could be completed within the requested timeframe. We are prepared to work with your staff to further develop a mutually acceptable technical approach and schedule for this activity, and to engage industry on this important matter. In addition, the Directors of the lead Divisions in each of our Offices, Jane Marshall (Acting) (NRR/DLR) and Brian Thomas, (RES/DE), have discussed and agreed with the scope and schedules of the tasks in this request. ~ ONTACT: Bennett M.Brady, NRR/DLR] [ Commented [IF3]: can t his be deleted? QNloial lcloe 9ftly &eftoiti, e lnte,,.al ll1fo111,etio1,

8fficial l:19C 8uly 6Cii9iti,e liitCiiidl l11fo11ualio11 Priority This request is rated as high priority based on NRR office priority ranking for reactor activities. Points of Contact For NRR, the contact is Bennett Brady the Subsequent License Renewal and Operations Branch/Division of License Renewal. For RES, the contact is Amy Hull, Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch, Division of Engineering. Additional Information None.

Enclosure:

Research Assistance on Potential Significant Technical Issues during the Subsequent Period of Extended Operation

~ONTACT: Bennett Brady NRR/DLR4                                                                    [ Comment ed [IF4]: Can this be deleted?

Qffloial lcloe 811ly 6e119iti,e l11te1ual l11fo11.:al1011

8fficial tJse e,1Iy

• Se11silioe I111eInal I11ruI11Iat1011 Priority This requ,est is rated as high priority based on NRR office priority ranking for reactor activities.

Points of Contact For NRR, the contact is Bennett Brady, ............ , Division of License Renewal. For RES, the contact is Amy Hull, Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch, Division of Engineering. Additional Information None.

Enclosure:

User Need: Evaluate the Aging Management of Systems, Structures, and Components for Subsequent License Renewal Period DISTRIBUTION: ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML OFFICE NRR/DLR NRR/DLR: BC NRR/DLR: SL NRR/DLR: D INRR: OD NAME BBrad SBloom AHiser JMarshall WDean DATE 8ffieiel l:Jse 81*1) &eusitiue luter11el lidorn,etioR

Note to requester: Attachment s From: Moyer, Carol are immediately following. Sent: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 22:55:59 +0000 To: Hull, Amy;Brady, Bennett Cc: lyenga r, Raj;Tregoning, Robert

Subject:

RE: onlly received cover m emo: Current User Need Request Attachments: UNR Memo Draft 20161223.docx, UNR Enclosure Draft 20161223.docx The ADAMS package ML16358A427 contains the two attached files - the memo, dated 12/22/16, and the enclosure, dated 12/23/16. Carol From: Hull, Amy Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:30 PM To: Brady, Bennett <Bennett.Brady@ nrc.gov> Cc: M oyer, Carol <Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj <Raj .lyengar@nrc.gov>; Tregoning, Robert

       <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

only received cover memo: Current User Need Request Thanks Bennett for the cover letter (the actual UNR did not come through). I tried to get into ADAMS via Citrix and get out the current UNR that is referenced in the memo but it is not working. Please can somebody send me the most recent UNR? - the last version I have is from 12/12/2016 (see attached). From: Moyer, Carol Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 3 :14 PM To: Brady, Bennett <Bennett.Brady@nrc.gov>; Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov> Cc: Iyengar, Raj <Raj.lyengar@n rc.gov>; Tregoning, Robert <Ro bert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Current User Need Request Thanks for the update. Carol From: Brady, Bennett Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 3:12 PM To: Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol <Carol.Moyer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Current User Need Request It is currently with Allen ~nd Allen i~ bus~ with requests from everyone, including me,I *f 5 b)( ) (b)(6) J... .- p on t look for It anytime soon. .___ ____. Bennett

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael F. Weber, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

RESEARCH ASSISTANCE ON POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL ISSUES DURING THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD OF EXTENDED OPERATION The purpose of this memorandum is to request specific research products to facilitate the evaluation of future applications for a license to operate during the subsequent license renewal (SLR) period (i.e., 60 to 80 years). These products should build upon analysis methods, tools, and expertise developed as part of ongoing and new research activities, focused specifically on aging effects during the SLR period. In a previous user need request, UNR-NRR-2010-006, "Request for Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Support in Developing Technical Information to Support Evaluating the Feasibility of License Renewal Beyond 60 Years," (ADAMS Accession No. ML092470525), the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) assisted the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NNR) in developing information for consideration in the SLR guidance documents. This new user need request focuses on research activities on the technical issues discussed in the SLR guidance documents and in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) to SECY 14-0016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14241A578). Specifically, NRR is requesting RES support to:

• Hold NRG/industry workshop(s) on the status of domestic and international research activities and operating experience to address issues discussed in the SLR guidance documents,
• Develop and implement a long-term strategy and database for obtaining information on materials degradation from harvesting ex-plant components from decommissioning as well as from operating plants, CONTACT: Bennett Brady, NRR/DLR (301)415-2981

M. Weber

• Continue to develop domestic and international partnerships to share expertise, capabilities, and resources related to aging management research for SLR, and
• Use the products from the above three tasks to develop documentation of the status of research for the significant technical issues for SLR.

Additional details are provided in the Enclosure "Research Assistance on Potential Significant Technical Issues during the Subsequent Period of Extended Operation." Resources NRR requests RES to provide the specific resources (contract dollars and full-time equivalent staff) needed to complete the various tasks during the period of activity. Intended Use of RES Products The requested RES products will provide confirmatory research on the technical bases for industry research products related to aging degradation and identified in the staff's review of SLR applications. Coordination and Schedules This request has been coordinated with RES staff in the Division of Engineering (DE). Based on this, we expect that the requested work could be completed within the requested timeframe. We are prepared to work with your staff to further develop a mutually acceptable technical approach and schedule for this activity, and to engage industry on this important matter. In addition, the Directors of the lead Divisions in each of our Offices, George Wilson NRR/Division of License Renewal (DLR) and Brian Thomas (RES/DE), have discussed and agreed with the scope and schedules of the tasks in this request. Priority This request is rated as high priority based on NRR office priority ranking for reactor activities. Points of Contact For NRR, the contact is Bennett Brady, Subsequent Renewal, Guidance, and Operations Branch, DLR. For RES, the contacts are Amy Hull and Carol Moyer, Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch, DE.

M. Weber Additional Information None.

Enclosure:

Research Assistance on Potential Significan t Technical Issues during the Subsequent Period of Extended Operation

M. Weber RESEARCH ASSISTANCE ON POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL ISSUES DURING THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD OF EXTENDED OPERATION DATED DISTRIBUTION: Non-Public AHull, RES MHiser, RES

    !Frankl, RES CMoyer, RES BThomas, RES GWilson , NRR RidsNrrDlrRpb 1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsNrrDlr Rerb Resource RidsNrrDlrRsrg Resource ADAMS ACCESSION Nos.:

ML16357A689 (memo), ML16358A414 (enclosure), ML16358A427 (packaqe) *concurred via email OFFICE LA:RPB1 :DLR* SPM : NRR:DLR BC:NRR:DLR SL:NRR:DLR D:NRR:DLR D:NRR NAME IBetts BBrady SBloom AHiser GWilson WDean DATE 12/27/2016 1/4/2017 1/ /2017 1/ /2017 1/ /2017 1/ /2017 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

User Need RESEARCH ASSISTANCE ON POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT TECHNICAL ISSUES DURING THE SUBSEQUENT PERIOD OF EXTENDED OPERATION

Background:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff (NRG or staff) has recently completed the draft guidance documents for subsequent license renewal (SLR). The draft guidance documents (draft NUREG-2191, Volumes 1 and 2, [ADAMS Accession No., ML16274A389 and ML16274A399, respectively] , "Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Report" and the draft NUREG-2192, [ADAMS Accession No. ML16274A402] "Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" were issued for public comment in December 2015. As preparation for drafting these guidance documents, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) conducted three audits to investigate the effectiveness of aging management programs (AMPs) used in the plant operating period from 40 to 60 years. The findings from the first two audits are documented in the report titled, "Summary of Aging Management Program Effectiveness Audits to Inform Subsequent License Renewal: R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant and Nine Mile Point N uclear Station, Unit 1" (ML13122A007). The summary of the third audit can be found in the August 5, 2014, report, "H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, Aging Management Program Effectiveness Audit" (ADAMS Accession No. ML14017A289). RES also published on June 15, 2016, the "Review of Aging Management Programs: Compendium of Insights from License Renewal Applications and from AMP Effectiveness Audits Conducted to Inform Subsequent License Renewal Guidance Documents" (ADAMS Accession No . ML16167A076), which provides the staff's observations from reviewing license renewal applications and from the AMP audits. RES also completed the Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment (EMDA) in cooperation with the Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program. The resultant reports, NUREG/CR-7153, EMDA, Vol. 1-5" (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14279A321, ML14279A331, ML14279A349, ML14279A430, and ML14279A461), describe the conclusions from an expert elicitation process to identify the most significant aging degradation technical issues for nuclear power reactor operation beyond 60 years. These four most significant technical issues were also outlined in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) on SECY 14-0016, "Ongoing Staff Activities to Assess Regulatory Considerations for Power Reactor Subsequent License Renewal" (ADAMS Accession No. ML14241A578).

• Reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement at high fluence
• Irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking of reactor internals and primary system components
• Concrete and containment degradation
• Electrical cable qualification and condition assessment The aud its and EMDA volumes provided NRC with over 800 suggestions for changes to the license renewal guidance and aging management program activities found acceptable for operation from 60 to 80 years.

Staff in several NRR divisions and RES' Division of Engineering (DE) participated in over ninety

expert panels to review these suggestions along with the staff's own suggestions for changes to license renewal guidance documents for the first license renewal. The expert panels dispositioned the recommendations for the guidance for SLR and drafted the NUREG-2191 and NUREG-2192. After the draft guidance documents were issued for public comment, the staff held many public meetings with stakeholders and the public to discuss the proposed revisions and the bases for the revisions. In these meetings the staff provided information and clarifications on the proposed changes to the guidance documents, and solicited feedback on the documents. The NRC staff has responded to the public comments and will publish the documents in final form in mid-2017. To support their SLR applications, applicants need to demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed for an operating period from 60 to 80 years and to address the significant technical issues listed above. The NRR would like RES' assistance in holding meetings on these issues, participating and interacting with the DOE and other industry organizations, cataloguing the materials needed for research, and documenting the status and products of research for SLR. Description of Scope and Tasks

1. Hold NRC/industry workshop(s) on the status of domestic and international research activities to address and evaluate the status of aging degradation issues identified in in the SRM on SECY 14-0016 and in the GALL-SLR Report Need: In February 2008, the NRC and the Department of Energy (DOE) first co-sponsored a "Workshop on U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Life Exten sion Research and Development" (ADAMS Accession No. ML080570419), which requested stakeholder input into aging management research areas for "Life Beyond 60." Since then, there have been multiple domestic and international workshops/meetings on the research activities and operating experience that may impact aging management of systems, structures, and components (SSCs) for an SLR period. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will sponsor a meeting in France in October 2017.

These meetings have been helpful in facilitating technical discussions, disseminating knowledge and information, enabling the understanding of technical challenges, and paving the path forward for resolution of the challenges and issues related to materials degradation during the SLR period. As the NRC staff prepares for the review of SLR applications, there is a need for continued engagement with the domestic industry, DOE, and other federal organizations, academia, international partners, and interested public stakeholders through workshops focused on the status and resolution of the most significant technical issues outlined in the GALL-SLR and the SRM. Request RES is requested to facilitate a minimum of two international activities (either a workshop, conference, symposium, or meeting), one in the early fall 2018 on the mechanical issues and one in late spring 2020 on the concrete and cables issues. These meetings should address:

• the state of knowledge on the technical issues requested in the SRM on SECY 14-0016,
• on-going research on materials degradation issues and aging management of these issues, as discussed in the GALL-SLR, and
• new operating experience from the initial license renewal period (or the long term operation period for international plants).

These activities should be specifically targeted toward the resolution of technical issues for effective aging management of SSCs during the SLR period. Deliverable: The deliverables include the international activities (either a workshop, conference, symposium, or meeting) and summary reports on the research insights and knowledge gained on the four major issues identified in the SRM on SECY 14-0016 for SLR. Prior to the meetings, RES should provide a draft agenda and proposed presenters. The information from these activities should be documented in a NUREG/CP report, if appropriate, or by other sufficient means, including, at a minimum, a summary of the activity with all relevant contributions (e.g., presentations or p,apers) and research insights and knowledge, due 6 months after each meeting. Schedule: The effort should continue until the completion of the deliverables from the second activity, tentatively scheduled for late spring 2020.

2. Develop and implement a long-term strategy for obtaining information on materials degradation from decommissioned nuclear power plants, as well as from ex-plant components from operating plants Need: The NRC performs confirmatory research to inform and develop the technical bases for regulatory decisions related to AMPs for SLR. Historically, this research has included testing virgin materials under simulated aging conditions, as well as testing and characterization of ex-plant materials harvested from nuclear power plants. Ex-plant materials are valuable because they have been exposed to actual in-service plant operating conditions (temperature, irradiation, coolant, etc.), unlike virgin materials tested under simulated conditions in the lab. Testing ex-plant materials also reduces the uncertainty associated with the applicability of the aging conditions. Therefore, this effort is expected to provide fundamental insights on reactor materials degradation and information addressing potential technical issues or identified gaps to support anticipated future NRC needs. It will also inform the value of existing databases based on simulated aging conditions by assessing their applicability to in-service conditions.

Based on the recent experience of recovering materials from decommissioned plants, such as Zion, Crystal River, and Zorita (Spain), the efforts of planning, coordination, and eventual harvesting of these materials could be resource-intensive and time-challenging. Future efforts to retrieve materials from decommissioned plants should be focused on the highest value SSCs by proactively developing a strategic database for obtaining unique and significant materials aging degradation information from ex-plant components. Such a database will enable the NRC to focus its harvesting efforts and expeditiously obtain materials and components from plants to be decommissioned in the near future and develop information and knowledge to assess the efficacy of the AMPs. Request: RES is requested to: A. Develop a database which identifies and prioritizes the materials, components, and operating conditions that are needed to address the four significant issues outlined in the SRM on SECY 14-0016, and that, due to challenges in simulating actual

service conditions, may be best addressed by harvesting either from plants that are entering decommissioning or ex-plant components from operating plants. B. Develop a process to evaluate the components from plants that are entering decommissioning or ex-plant components from operating plants that would be appropriate candidates for harvesting, and to ensure that timely contact is made with the plant owner to facilitate any harvesting targets that may be identified. C. Use the process developed in item B to evaluate the suitability of components from plants that are currently either under decommissioning or replacing components that may be of interest. D. Continue to implement the process developed in item Bas components become available from additional plants. Deliverable: RES should provide the database for NRR review, and summarize the priority listing in a letter report. Likewise, items B and C should be documented in a letter report. Item D is a continuing item that should be summarized in a letter report or e-mail a:s appropriate. Schedule: Items A and B should be completed within 18 months of issuance of this user need request. Item C should be completed within 24 months of issuance of this user need request. Item D is an activity that should continue 36 months from the issuance of this user need request.

3. Continue to Develop Domestic and International Partnerships to Share Expertise, Capabilities and Resources Related to Aging Management Research for Long-Term Operations Need: Various domestic and foreign research organizations, government agencies, utilities and research organizations are presently engaged in aging management research, the results of which may be of value to the NRC regarding plant operations during the SLR period. Additionally, the Electric Power Research Institute is engaged with various international research organizations to develop data on aging mechanisms/effects. As such, it benefits the NRC to be engaged in domestic and international research partnerships in order to evaluate all available operating experience and relevant research, leverage resources, and minimize unnecessary duplication of efforts. It would be advantageous to the NRC to develop partnerships with these entities such that the various research programs could be better coordinated and focused on high-priority needs.

Request: RES is requested to continue to develop agreements with domestic and international partners to collaborate on aging management research that results in information to help inform agency decisions regarding SLR applications. RES should evaluate products and reports from these organizations that may be provided to NRC in support of generic or plant-specific issues. Deliverable: RES should provide to interested NRR branch chiefs (from the Division of Engineering (DE) and the Division of License Renewal (DLR)) and senior staff relevant products (e.g., trip reports, meeting summaries, papers, presentations, reports and other information) from interactions with domestic and international organizations. In addition, relevant findings from recent interactions, the status, and future plans should be discussed as a standing agenda item during the quarterly interface meetings between RES/DE, NRR/DLR and NRR/DE. Schedule: These products should be provided to NRR in a timely manner; the effort should continue until the closure of this user need request. A quarterly report (or slides) for

presentation at the Director/Deputy Di rector Quarterly Interface Meeting should be provided five days before the meeting.

4. Documentation and Compilation of Results from Tasks 1, 2, and 3 on the status of research results in support of the Commission's direction to the staff Need: In the SRM to SECY 14-0016 , the Commission directed the staff to keep the Commission informed on the progress in resolving the fou r significant technical issues related to SLR. The SRM also directed the staff to keep the Commission informed regard ing the staffs readiness for accepting an application and any further need for regulatory process changes, rulemaking, or research.

Request: RES is requested to annually prepare a document summarizing the products from tasks 1, 2, and 3 of this user need request to discuss the accompl ishments of RES and national and internationa l partners in addressing the four major technical issues in the SRM and other research activities that may be used in reviewing applications for SLR. The annual report should be at a sufficiently high level to be used to support briefings for the Commission or Advisory Comm ittee on Reactor Safeguards, Commission Assistants' Notes, reporting to the public and interested stakeholders , or other requests for briefings on SLR . Schedule: Annual report to be provided in the first quarter of each calendar year beginning in the first quarter of calendar year 2018 discussing the research activities of the previous year supporting SLR.

Note to requester: Attachment is immediately following. From: Hiser, Allen Sent: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 13 :07:34 -0500 To: Moyer, Carol;Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

PliM Paper and Presentation Attachments: Trip Report - 2017-10-23 to 27 - IAEA PLiM Conference - Wilson & Hiser.doc Importance: High Can you send me the ADAMS numbers for your PLiM paper and presentation? Have these been made public? If not, is there a reason that they are not public? Also, please take a look at the attached draft trip report and provide any feedback (I will get the harvesting contact information to you on 11/27). Thanks!

6fficial l:lse 011ly Sensitir,e h:iterAal lnior~atic;in NRC INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL TRIP REPORT Traveler, Office, Division, Phone Number: George A. Wilson, NRR, Division of Materials and License Renewal, 301-415-1 183 Allen L. Hiser, Jr., NRR, Division of Materials and License Renewal, 301-415-5650

Subject:

IAEA 4th International Conference on Nuclear Power Plant Life Management (PLiM) Dates of Travel and Countries/Organizations Visited: October 21-28, 2017 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Lyon Convention Centre (Centre de Congres de Lyon) Lyon, France Desired Outcome: Improved international understanding, cooperation and coordination on aging management for long term operation (LTO), and informed international counterparts on NRC's confirmatory research efforts related to LTO and subsequent license* renewal (SLR). Results Achieved: The NRC participants made five separate presentations during the conference (including a keynote speech and two prepared by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research), chaired two technical sessions, moderated a discussion session, and manned a poster. The N RC also prepared five papers for the conference, one for each of the* presentations. The NRR presentations emphasized the need to combine the limited scope license renewal review of Part 54 and the on-going regulatory process to ensure plant safety during the period of extended operation. The poster and presentation from RES on harvesting of aged materials received some inquiries, which will be sent to RES. Summary of Trip: The IAEA 4th International Conference on Nuclear Power Plant Life Management (PLiM) followed similar conferences held in 2002, 2007 and 2012 (co-hosted by the NRC and DOE). Although this conference has been held on a five year basis, the discussion on the last day was to increase the frequency to every 3 years, due to the high level of activity and interest in this area, with the next conference likely to be held in Japan in 2020. The NRC participants made five separate presentations during the conference (including a keynote speech and two prepared by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research), chaired two technical sessions, moderated a discussion session, and manned a poster. Attachment 1 provides a listing of these items. The objectives of the conference were to:

• Emphasize the role of PLiM programmes in assuring safety and improving reliable nuclear power plant (NPP) operation;
• Identify the economic impacts of PLiM and LTO programmes, as well as methodologies for their evaluation;
• Provide key elements and good practices related to the safety aspects of ageing, ageing management and LTO; Q#ieial l:lse OAl'.J Se11silive lute, 11al l11fu1111al1011

Official Use 811ly

• Sensitive lute, nal h,forrnatieA
• Provide a forum for information exchange on national and international policies, as well as on regulatory practices, and for the demonstration of strategies, including their application in ageing management and PLiM programmes for operating and new NPPs; and
• Assist Member States in further developing their PUM programmes taking consideration of lessons learned and of impacts from the Fukushima Daiichi accident.

The conference included a number of presentations and discussions in six topical areas. These areas were:

• Sessions 1-1 to 1-6: Approaches to Plant Life Management
• Sessions 2-1 and 2-2: Economics of Plant Life Management
• Sessions 3-1 to 3-9: Ageing Management and Preparation for Long Term Operation
• Sessions 4-1 to 4-3: Configuration and Modification Management for Safety Enhancement
• Sessions 5-1: Human Factors and Management Aspects
• Sessions 6-1 to 6-4: Regulatory Approaches to Ageing Management and Long Term Operation The final program agenda and copies of each of the presentations (including keynote speeches and summaries of each of the sessions) are available on an internal Sharepoint site. Due to the four parallel sessions during each time slot, the NRC participants could not experience each presentation.

The conference featured presentations by utility staff, plant personnel, technical support organizations, researchers and regulatory staff. The presentations described plant status and plans for long term operation, specific activities taken to address certain plant issues, economic aspects of LTO and regulatory approaches for LTO. The discussion during the conference addressed a couple of common themes:

• There is considerable interest internationally by utilities to extend the operating period of their plants beyond their license or design periods.
• Plant economics and the local political environment are important factors in plant's pursuing LTO.
• Public transparency by the regulator was identified as a possible contributor to increasing public confidence as cited in some cases as inadequate, with the overall U.S. regulatory process and the license renewal process in particular cited as model approaches.
• Many countries use the NRC license renewal approach as their plants exceed their design life, and also use the IAEA periodic safety review (PSR) every 10 years to assess and improve plant safety levels.
• The use of the IAEA International Ageing Lessons Learned (IGALL) report, and IAEA peer reviews (such as Safety Aspects of Long Term Operation or SALTO) and workshops, were cited as providing a substantial benefit for both plants entering LTO and regulators.

The "summary and conclusions" from each session are provided in Attachment 2. Pending Actions/Planned Next Steps for NRC:

1. NRC will continue to support IAEA activities in the area of LTO and aging management on a case-by-case basis.

2. NRC will continue to support the IAEA IGALL program on a case-by-case basis.

O#iGial I lliie ORiy SeR&i&i>ce IR&erRal lRlor~a&iQR

Official Use 011ly = Se11silive l11ten1al h1fo11uatio11

3. NRC will consider performing additional "Workshops on Review of License Renewal Applications, " such as in China in spring 2018.

Points for Commission Consideration/Interest: No points for Commission consideration/interest. Official Ilse Only SeA&iti><e IAternal lnier~atien

Official Use 011ly

• Se11silive l11te111al hafoiiuatioa.

Attachment 1 NRC Presentations and Papers at the 4 th PliM Conference

1. G. Wilson, "Assuring Safe Subsequent License Renewal for Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors in the USA," keynote speech (ADAMS Accession No. ML17285A717) and paper (ADAMS Accession No. ML17285A712).

2. A. Hiser, "From 40 to 60 to 80 years - Lessons Learned and Approach to Subsequent License Renewal in the USA," presentation (ADAMS Accession No. ML17285A660) and paper (ADAMS Accession No. ML17285A499).

3. A. Hiser, "Applying the United States License Renewal Approach to an International Environment," presentation (ADAMS Accession No. ML17285A678) and paper (ADAMS Accession No. ML17285A687).

4. C. Moyer, et. al (presented by A. Hiser), "Regulatory Research on the Aging Management of Structures, Systems and Components in Nuclear Power Plants Supporting License Renewal,"

presentation (ADAMS Accession No. ML ) and paper (ADAMS Accession No. ML).

5. M. Hiser, et. al (presented by A. Hiser), "Harvesting of Aged Materials from Operating and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants," presentation (ADAMS Accession No. ML ) and paper (ADAMS Accession No. ML).

Official l:Jse 011ly Se11silive l11te111al 111ru1111al1011

O#ieial Use 0Aly SeAeitir.*e IAtemel h,ForMetio1,

6. Attachment 2

SUMMARY

AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EACH OF THE SESSIONS Session 1 - Approaches to Plant Life Management:

• A MP of NPPs are continuously developed & updated to account for latest technical issues new regulatory requirements.
• Above process supported by corresponding research , which includes construction of new test facilities (if needed) and harvesting of aged material from decommissioned plants, and technical means (setup & expansion of databases, e.g. EQ).
• Regulatory requirements are also further developed & updated to account for latest operating experience.

Session 2 - Economics of Plant Life Management:

• Research and participant questions confirm economic conditions impacting energy prices is an immediate and long-term challenge to success of LTO.
• It is important for those countries that identify a pathway to success in improving economic conditions, the informat ion be shared.
• Learn from existing platforms for transparency, trust and improving perception of nuclear.
• Further interaction and discussion is needed to address the imminent challenge of obsolescence of nuclear plant components.

Session 3 - Ageing Management and Preparation for Long Term Operation:

• IGALL is developing into a strong reference base for NPPs AM, TLAA practice and OPEX from some MS still need to be added/completed;
• Japan , US, France, perform a large research programme. These research results woulld be a good contribution to the improvement of database of !GALL;
• SALTO PR service is a good procedure to help the MS for the preparation of their LTO programme. This programme should be widened among the MS;
• It could be interesting to investigate the influence of vibratory fatigue on small bore piping at a more general level within IAEA (!GALL);
• Perform EAF testing on industrial scale components so as to exhibit the margins incorporated in the codified approach covering environmental fatigue;
• There is a need to continue information exchange on material and structural integrity issues and share it through !GALL and other IAEA MSs;
• There is a need for discussions (WS , Safety Standards) for common understanding of LTO technical detailed tasks (scope setting, AMR of active and passive components, TLMs) {how to do/implement that);
• Continuous improvement for AMP implementation:

            -   Share best pra,ctices and lessons learned for AMP implementation. More active participation in !GALL.
            -   Share results a nd lessons learned from SALTO reviews

• Provide training for 'new' AMP users to ensure technology transfer and development of human resources for IGALL use and sharing operating experience Official Ilse Only Sensitive Internal lotormatioo

Q#i&ial l:Jae O1'tl;p SeP.sitive l11lea1al l11furr11alio11

• Coordination, collaboration and leveraging of research results to support LTO
• IAEA should consider how to promote modernization and economic efficiencies to support LTO Session 4 - Configuration and Modification ion Management for Safety Enhancement:
• LTO programs have gained from studies directed at improved understanding of NOT techniques and technologies available, their benefits and shortcomings. From which, further development of promising NOT techniques for specific applications can be improvements and further developed.

An important consideration is for researchers to look beyond their research fields or industries for potential solutions.

• International collaborations and shared "lessons learned" have proven invaluable for large project efforts for LTO.
• New condition monitoring technologies as well as repair/ mitigation techniques being developed are starting to show the potential for significant economic benefits for plant life extension.
• Managers need to understand that multidisciplinary teams are needed in addressing scientific gaps, or engineering problems. Solutions to problems cannot be compartmentalized into one area of focus.
• Ageing and long-term operation of l&C is a crucial topic for NPP. Modernization through digital systems could be a solution that may improve performance and the obsolescence management.

Session 5 - Human Factors and Management Aspects:

• As an area with increasing importance for LTO,

           -   Well-organized! HRO,
           -   Obsolescence with particular attention to analogue technologies,
           -   Configuration management and knowledge management for knowledge transfer from generation to generation ,
           -    New technologies to support knowledge management.
           -   To collect and organize knowledge based on experience of wider range, global cooperative work is essential Session 6 - Regulatory Approaches to Ageing Management and Long Term Operation :

• A variety of approaches are used for regulation of LTO; many of these approaches either reference or are based on IAEA standards and guides (SSR-2/2, draft SSG-48, SRS-82, SVS-26).
• Openness between the regulator and the utility is important to gain a common understanding of the LTO preparation by the plant and to the regulator's needs to ensure a successful LTO review process.
• Public transparency by the regulator was identified as a possible contributor to increased public confidence.
• The IGALL report is used in some cases by the regulator as a tool for LTO evaluations.
• A proposal for IGALL phase 4 was suggested: Organize an IGALL Working Group on regulatory aspects of safe LTO (Guideline for self-assessment against IAEA Safety Standards, and How to perform assessment of a plant specific Ageing Management Review ... )
• Use of IGALL, and SALTO peer reviews and workshops, were cited as providing a substantial benefit for plants entering LTO and for regulators as well.

Offlclal Use O11ly - Se11sltlve l11te111al h1fu1111at1011

From: International Travel Sent: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 06:54:05 -0500 To: NRRlnternationalTravel Resource;RES International Travel Dist;Rodriguez, Veronica;Quinones-Navarro, Lauren Cc: Hiser, Allen;Wilson, George

Subject:

NRR - Trip Report Notification - IAEA 4th International Conference on NPP Life Management Greetings, The Trip Report for the trip, IAEA 4th International Conference on NPP Life Management has been submitted by Hiser, Allen. Regards, iTravel Administration Team Trip Name IAEA 4th International Conference on NPP Life Management Trip ID: 3799 Travelers: Hiser, Allen;Wilson, George Travel Dates: 10/21/2017 - 10/29/2017 Destination: Lyon, France Trip Report ML17317A529 Results Achieved: The NRC participants made five separate presentations during the conference (including a keynote speech and two prepared by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research), chaired two technical sessions, moderated a discussion session, and manned a poster. The NRC also prepared five papers for the conference, one for each of the presentations. The NRR presentations emphasized the need to combine the limited scope license renewal review of Part 54 and the NRC's on-going regulatory process to ensure plant safety during the period of extended operation. The poster and presentation from RES on harvesting of aged materials received some inquiries, which will be sent to RES.

• This is an auto distribution sent from the combined International Travel SharePoint Svstem.

For questions, please communicate with your Office point(s) ofcontact

Note to requester: Attachments are From: Frankl, Istvan immediately following . Sent: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:54:40 +0000 To: Bloom, Steven Cc: Hiser, Allen;Morey, Dennis;Burton, William;Brady, Bennett;Wittick, Brian;lyengar, Raj ;Hull, Amy;Purtscher, Patrick;Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

New UNR for SLR Attachments: 2016 NRR UNR - SLR-Draft Memo.docx, 2016 NRR UNR - SLR Draft Enclosure.docx

Steve, Finally we have completed the draft of the new UNR for SLR. I have also attached the draft memo for your use.

Please send us your comments and revision before initiating concurrence review with NRR management. Once I get your final draft we will brief RES/DE management.

Thanks, Steve F.

Offi~ial W&e Only Sen&iUve lnterRal IRfeFfflatieR June xx, 2016 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Weber, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: Bill Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR RESEARCH ASSISTANCE TO EVALUATE THE AGING MANAGEMENT OF SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES, AND COMPONENTS FOR SUBSEQUENT LICENSE RENEWAL The purpose of this memorandum is to request specific research products to facilitate t he evaluation of the feasibility of future applications for a subsequent license renewal (SLR) period (i.e., 60 to 80 years). These products should build upon analysis methods, tools, and expertise developed as part of ongoing and new research activities , focused specifically on aging effects during the SLR period. This request will continue some research currently being performed in response to UNR-NRR-2010-006, "Request For Office Of Nuclear Regulatory Research Support In Developing Technical Information On Materials Degradation and Aging Management To Support Evaluating The Feasibility Of License Renewal Beyond 60 Years And Long-Term Operations (LTO)," (ADAMS Accession No.: ML092470525). CONTACT: I NRR/DLR Official Use Onl~ Sensitive Internal Information

Official Use Only Sensiti>.*e Internal lnfQr:i:Ra&ioA Specifically, NRR is requesting RES support to:

• Hold NRG/industry workshop(s) on status of domestic and international research activities and operating experience to address and evaluate the status of materials degradation issues, identified in NUREG/CR-7153, "Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment (EMDA), Vol. 1-5" reports (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14279A321, ML14279A331, ML14279A349, ML14279A430, ML14279A461 ), for SLR,
• Provide RES staff assessments of the current knowledge and disposition of materials degradation issues identified in the EMDA reports,
• Develop and implement a long-term strategy for obtaining information on materials degradation from harvesting ex-plant components from decommissioning as well as from operating plants,
• Continue to develop domestic and international partnerships to share expertise, capabilities and resources related to aging management research for LTO, and
• Provide technical assistance, on emergent issues, for preparation of review of anticipated SLR applications.

Additional details are provided in the Enclosure "User Need: Evaluate the Aging Management of Systems, Structures, and Components for Subsequent License Renewal." Resources NRR requests RES to provide the specific resources (contract dollars and FTE) needed to complete the various tasks during the period of activity. Intended Use of RES Products T he requested RES products will provide the technical basis for disposition of the techn ical issues related to materials degradation raised in the EMDA reports and further enable the staff to better prepare for the review of the early SLR applications. Coordination and Schedules This request has been coordinated with RES staff in the Division of Engineering. Based on this, we expect that the requested work could be completed within the requested timeframe. We are prepared to work with your staff to further develop a mutually acceptable technical approach and schedule for this activity, and to engage industry on this important matter. In addition, the Directors of the lead Divisions in each of our Offices, Jane Marshall (Acting) (NRR/DLR) and Brian Thomas, (RES/DE) have discussed and agreed with the scope and schedules of the tasks in this request. CONTACT: , NRR/DLR O#ieial Use Only Sen&iU><e IAterAal IAfor:n:1atioc

Official Use Onl, SeR&iUve IAterRal lotocrnalioo Priority This request is rated as high priority based on NRR office priority ranking for reactor activities. Points of Contact For NRR, the contact is .... ... .... . , Division of License Renewal. For RES, the contact is Raj Iyengar, Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch, Division of Engineering. Additional Information None.

Enclosure:

User Need: Evaluate the Aging Management of Systems, Structures, and Components for Subsequent License Renewal Period CONTACT: , NRR/DLR Official Use Only - 5eositive loieroal lofori:RatieA

Official I IHl Oi:ily, Sei:i&itive li:iteri:ial li:iforri:iatioi:i Priority This request is rated as high priority based on NRR office priority ranking for reactor activities. Points of Contact For NRR, the contact is ... ... ... ... , Division of License Renewal. For RES, the contact is Raj Iyengar, Corrosion and Metallurgy Branch, Division of Engineering. Additional Information None.

Enclosure:

User Need: Evaluate the Aging Management of Systems, Structures, and Components for Subsequent License Renewal Period DISTRIBUTION: ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML OFFICE NRR/DLR NRR/DLR: BC NRR/DLR: SL NRR/DLR: D NRR: OD NAME POC DATE OHieial l::lse Only* Sensitive l11la111al l11fm111atlon

User Need Evaluate the Aging Management of Systems, Structures, and Components for Subsequent License Renewal

Background:

Although the NRC staff can accept subsequent license renewal (SLR) applications now, the review would be based on guidance provided in NUREG-1800, Revision 2, "Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" and NUREG-1801 , Revision 2, "Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report - Final Report." Because this guidance applies to plants operating from 40-60 years, additional review would be needed to ensure that the applicant addressed issues anticipated during 60-80 years of plant operation for SLR. Such reviews would be longer and more resource-intensive. To improve the efficiency of SLR application reviews, the NRC staff has undertaken several activities to revise the guidance documents. These activities include reviews of aging management practices, plant audits, technical information exchanges with industry and Department of Energy (DOE), and confirmatory research . In cooperation with the DOE Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, the NRC completed NUREG/CR-7153, "Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment (EMDA), Vol. 1-5" (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14279A321 , ML14279A331, ML14279A349, ML14279A430, ML14279A461) to identify the most significant technical issues for nuclear power reactor operation beyond 60 years. The EMDA ranked the significance, current knowledge, and uncertainty associated with aging-related degradation phenomena that could affect systems, structures, and components (SSCs) over 80 years of operation. As outlined in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) on SECY 14-0016, the major technical issue areas are:

• Reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement at high fluence;
• Irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking of reactor internals and primary system components;
• Concrete and containment degradation; and
• Electrical cable qualification and condition assessment.

The NRC staff conducted several audits to investigate the effectiveness of aging management programs (AMPs). The findings are documented in the report titled , "Summary of Aging Management Program Effectiveness Audits to Inform Subsequent License Renewal: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1" (ML13122A007). The development of SLR guidance was based on NUREG-1800 and NUREG-1801, the understanding gained from the audits, NUREG/CR-7153 {EMDA), an evaluation of domestic and international operating experience of nuclear plants, lessons learned from staff review of previous license renewal applications, and assessment of recent research findings. Draft SLR guidance documents were issued in December 2015, as draft "Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Report," (NUREG-2191, Volumes 1 and 2) and draft "Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" (SRP-SLR) (NUREG-2192). Since the draft guidance documents were issued, the staff has held several public meetings with stakeholders and the public to discuss the proposed revisions and bases for the revisions. The most recent meetings were held on January 21 and February 19, 2016. Going forward, the NRC staff will continue to lead outreach activities to stakeholders and the public in order to 1

provide information on the proposed changes to the guidance documents, solicit feedback on the documents, and revise the documents, as appropriate, to reflect stakeholder and public feedback. The final guidance documents are expected to be issued in mid-2017. To support the review of an SLR application, an applicant will need to demonstrate how the effects of aging will be managed, including those associated with the technical issues listed above. Although the industry is conducting research to address these major technical issues for SLR, not all the research will be completed before the first application is submitted. For those issues that the industry has not yet developed a generic technical basis to support its resolution , the NRC will request applicants to address the technical issues with plant-specific programs in their SLR applications. The staff will review these plant-specific programs that address the SLR technical issues, but anticipates a longer application review process in these cases . The requested research described below would provide information to support the staff in effectively evaluating AMPs and developing staff positions on the technical issues identified in EMDA reports. This effort will also augment the staff's preparedness for the evaluation of the feasibility of future applications for an SLR period. These requested products should build upon analysis methods, tools, and expertise developed as part of ongoing research activities and new research activities focused specifically on aging effects during an SLR period. Description of Scope and Tasks A. Hold NRC/industry workshop(s) on status of domestic and international research activities and operating experience to address and evaluate the status of materials degradation issues identified in the EMDA reports for SLR. Technical Need: In February 2008, the NRC and DOE first co-sponsored a "Workshop on U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Life Extension Research and Development" (ADAMS Accession Number ML080570419), which requested stakeholder input into aging management research areas for "Life Beyond 60." Since then, there have been multiple workshops/meetings on the research activities and operating experience that may impact aging management of SSCs for an SLR period. These meetings have been helpful in facilitating technical discussions, disseminating knowledge and information, enabling the understanding of technical challenges, and paving the path forward for resolution of the challenges and issues related to materials degradation during the SLR period. As the NRC staff prepares for the review of SLR applications, there is a need for continued engagement with domestic industry, DOE and other federal organizations, academia, international partners, and interested public stakeholders through workshops focused on the status and resolution of major technical issues outlined in the SRM and identified in EMDA. Deliverable: RES staff should facilitate several workshops/meetings on operating experience from the initial license renewal period , research results on materials degradation issues, and aging management of SSCs during the SLR period. These meetings should be specifically targeted toward the resolution of technical issues for effective aging management of SSCs during the SLR period. RES staff should provide an annual technical letter report summarizing the understanding gained through the workshops/meetings. The summary should include the status of domestic and international research activities in addressing materials degradation issues and aging management practices during the SLR period. The report should also discuss (1) areas of progress and issues resolution, (2) areas of insufficient progress that may warrant additional NRC-driven 2

interactions, and (3) any newly identified technical issues that should be considered . Schedule: The effort should last no more than 36 months from the period of inception of this user need request. B. Provide RES staff assessments of the current knowledge and disposition of materials degradation issues identified in the EMDA reports Technical Need: As mentioned earlier, the EMDA reports identified significant technical issues for nuclear power reactor operations beyond 60 years related to materials degradation. These issues fall under the following four topical areas, as outlined in SRM on SECY 14-0016:

• Reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement at high fluence;
• Irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cr.acking of reactor internals and primary system components;
• Concrete and containment degradation; and
• Electrical cable qualification and condition assessment.

The NRC, DOE, and industry are addressing the key technical issues related to materials degradation at NPPs. In order to gain better understanding of the materials aging and degradation mechanisms and their implications of structural and compo nent integrity, DOE and the industry have initiated numerous research activities on the four major technical areas. The NRC staff conducts confirmatory research, through several user need requests on specific technical issues, to independently verify licensee data, determine safety margins, and explore uncertainties. In addition, the NRC research will support and increase the efficiency of staff review of SLR applications. To fully support the staff review of the SLR applications, RES should develop staff assessments of the current knowledge and disposition of materials degradation issues related to the four major technical areas. The assessments should also include recommendations on the need for:

• any interim staff guidance (ISG) to address aging management issues, and
• new regulatory guidance and/or revision of existing regulatory guides (RGs) to address uncertainties in knowledge and/or potential non-conservativism.

Deliverable: Deliver a technical letter report that summarizes the current knowledge and disposition of materials degradation issues identified in EMDA. T he report should also include recommendations on the need for any new or revised guidance to address component integrity of aging structures. Schedule: The effort should last no more than 36 months from the period of inception of this user need request. The initial draft report should be completed by the end of FY 2018. C. Develop and implement a long-term strategy for obtaining information on materials degradation from decommissioned NPPs, as well as from ex-plant components from operating plants. Technical Need: The NRC performs confirmatory research to inform and develop the technical basis for regulatory decisions related to aging management programs for 3

SLR. Historically, this research has included testing virgin materials under simulated aging conditions, as well as testing and characterization of ex-plant materials harvest,ed from nuclear power plants. Ex-plant materials are valuable because they have been exposed to actual in-service plant operating conditions (temperature, irradiation, coolant, etc.), unlike virgin materials tested under simulated conditions in the lab. Testing ex-plant materials also reduces the uncertainty associated with the applicability of the aging conditions. Therefore, this effort is expected to provide fundamental insights on reactor materials degradation and information addressing potential technical issues or identified gaps to support anticipated future NRC needs. It will also inform the value of existing databases based on simulated aging conditions by assessing their applicability to in-service conditions. Based on the recent experience of recovering materials from decommissioned plants, such as Zion, Crystal River and Zorita (Spain), the efforts of planning, coordination and eventual harvesting of these materials could be resource-intensive and time-challenging. Future efforts to retrieve materials from decommissioned plants should be focused on the highest value SSCs by proactively developing a strategic database for obtaining unique and sig nificant materials aging degradation information from ex-plant components. Such a database will enable the NRC to focus its harvesting efforts and expeditiously obtain materials and components from plants to be decommissioned in the near future and develop information and knowledge to assess the efficacy of the AMPs. Deliverable: RES should develop a database covering the four topical areas outlined in SRM on SECY 14-0016 and containing information on:

• research gaps for SLR that may be best addressed by harvesting due to challenges in simulating actual service conditions, and
• materials that can be harvested from to-be-decommissioned NPPs and ex-plant components from operating plants to better inform the NRC's AMPs and aging-related regulatory oversight and to better plan research activities.

RES should deliver periodic reports assessing the effectiveness of such programs and recommending any improvements for the SLR period. Schedule: The effort should last no more than 36 months from the period of inception of this user need request. D. Continue to Develop Domestic and Internationa l Partnerships to Share Expertise, Capabilities and Resources Related to Aging Management Research for Long-Term Operations (LTO) Technical Need: Various domestic and foreign research organizations, government agencies, utilities and research organizations are presently engaged in aging management research, the results of which may be of value to the NRC regarding plant operations during the SLR period. Additionally, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is engaged with various international research organizations to develop data on aging mechanisms/effects. As such, it benefits the NRC to be engaged in domestic and internationa l research partnerships in order to evaluate all available operating experience and relevant research, leverage resources and minimize unnecessary duplication of efforts. It would be advantageous to the NRC to develop partnerships 4

with these entities such that the various research programs could be better coordinated and focused on high-priority needs. Deliverable: Continue to develop agreements with domestic and international partners to collaborate on aging management research that results in information to help inform agency decisions regarding SLR and long-term operations. Integrate as appropriate the results of these collaborative research and information exchanges from international partnerships into Tasks A and B. Provide an annual summary of international collaborative research results and status of interactions (e.g., references to meeting minutes, presentations, technical reports, etc.), highlighting international activities and results that may affect SLR. Schedule: The effort should continue until the closure of this user need request. E. Provide technical assistance, as needed, for preparation of review of SLR applications. Technical Need: As the NRR staff prepares for the anticipated SLR application in FY18, technical assistance from RES staff on emergent issues may be needed. Such issues may include, but not restricted to, providing an assessment of effect of specimen size on the prediction of component performance, technical support for aging management program audits, public meetings related to communication efforts, and confirmatory reviews of licensee submittals. Schedule: This effort, as needed, should continue until the closure of this user need request. 5

Note to requester: Attachment From: Hull, Amy is immediately following. Sent: Thu, 8 Sep 201617:10:47 +0000 To: Frankl, lstvan; lyengar, Raj Cc: Tregoning, Robert

Subject:

my comments attached .... : 2016 NRR UNR - SLR Draft Enclosure-Bennett-CMBdocx - hiser - Bennett 8-22-2016.docx, 2016 NRR UNR - SLR-Draft Memo-Bennett comment.docx Attachments: 2016 NRR UNR - SLR Draft Enclosure-Bennett-CMBdocx - hiser - Bennett 8 2016.abh.docx ... I think the UNR looks good. I made a few minor comments, corrections. See track changes, attached. I am happy to see Task 2. the strategic harvesting such an important patt of the UNR. Removing the task 011 disposition documents seems OK to me. That work can be derived as part of Task I.

---

Original Mcssage-----

From: Frankl, Istvan Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:03 PM To: Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj <Raj.lyengar@nrc.gov> Subject RE: Emailing: 2016 NRR UNR- SLR Draft Enclosurc-Bennctt-CMBdocx - hiser - Bennett 8 2016.docx, 2016 NRR UNR - SLR-Draft Memo-Bennett comment.docx

Amy, Yes. That would be helpful which reminds me to schedule our next meeting.

If you are still interested, please follow up on status of the branch going out for lunch once a month.

Thanks, Steve

---

Original Message-----

From: Hull, Amy Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:50 PM To: Iyengar, Raj <Raj .lyengar@nrc.gov>; Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Emai ling: 2016 NRR UNR - SLR Draft Enclosure-Bennett-CM Bdocx - hiser - Bennett 8 2016.docx, 2016 NRR UNR - SLR-Draft Memo-Bennett comment.docx I will look at the latest iteration now or tomorrow morning. I just got out of the 3WFN training on the NUREG template roll-out. It should make life much easier. I can distribute copies of the handouts at the next CMB meeting if you want.

---

Original Message-----

From: Iyengar, Raj Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 I:47 PM To: Frankl, Istvan <Istvan.Frankl@nre.gov> Cc: Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Emailing: 2016 NRR UNR - SLR Draft Enclosure-Belll1ett-CMBdocx - hiser - Bennett 8 2016.docx, 2016 NRR. UNR - SLR-Draft Memo-Bennert comment.docx l am waiting to see if Rob or Amy will have any comments. l will schedule a meeting for next week.

From: Frankl, Istvan Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 10:56 AM To: Iyengar, Raj Cc: Hull, Amy

Subject:

RE: Emai ling: 2016 NRR UNR - SLR Draft Enclosure-Bennett-CMBdocx - hiser - Bennett 8 2016.docx, 2016 NRR UNR - SLR-Draft Memo-Bennett comment.docx Raj, What is the latest status with the draft? Did you get any feedback? (b)(6)

      . . ..L_
             .* * *--**-* * *-* *-**-**-* * - -------------....!Piease schedule alignment meeting ASAP.

Thanks, Steve.

              -----Original Message-----

From: Iyengar, Raj Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 12:50 PM To: Hull, Amy <Amy.Hull@nrc.gov>; Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Hiser, Matthew

              <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>

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

Subject:

FW: Emailing: 2016 NRR UNR - SLR Draft Enclosure-Bennett-CMBdocx - hiser - Bennett 8 2016.docx, 20 16 NRR UN R - SLR-Draft Memo-Bennett comment.docx Attached is the revised UNR (draft) from DLR. Note that DLR removed the task on disposition documents. Please take a look and let me know if you want to see any changes. 1 will try to schedule a meeting for tomorrow.

              -----Original Message-----

From: Brady, Bennett Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 12:30 PM To: Iyengar, Raj <Raj.lyengar@nrc.gov> Cc: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Bloom, Steven <Steven.Bloom@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Emailing: 2016 NRR UNR - SLR Draft Enclosure-Bennett-CMBdocx - hiser - Bennett 8-22-20 16.docx, 2016 NRR UNR- SLR-Draft Menno-Bennett comment.docx Raj, Attached are the revised new UNR for SLR and the cover transmittal memo. Allen rewrote the UNR and I made minor changes. I have not given it to Steve Bloom yet. .___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,I wanted to get it back to you for your edits. (b)(6k Give me a call if you would like to discuss. Bennett

User Need Evaluate the Aging Management of Systems, Structures, and Components for Subsequent License Renewal

Background:

The NRC ~taftj (staff) has recently completed the draft guidance documents for subsequent Commented [HA1]: A collective noun-such as staff license renewal (SLR), the araft SLR guiaance aocurRenls which were issued for public or committee-takes a singular verb when the group acts as a whole but a plural verb when Its members or comment in December 2015~ The-fdraft NUREG-2191. Volumes 1 and 2. "Generic Aging parts act separately (e.g., the RES staff has decided to Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) RepG!=tReport:," (NUREG recom-mend Sandia's findings [the decl-sion is a 2191 , \lolurRes 1 ans 2) and draft NUREG-2192. "Standard Review Plan for Review of collective action]; how-ever, the RES staff have Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" (SRP-SLR) (~IUREG returned to their offices [each member must act 2492j}. These guidance documents were developed in a multi-year and multi-step process.as separately In such a situation)). Be careful to ensure that a verb and pronoun reference to the same dessrieed eelow.NRG ex13erts in the aging degradation of various stn;clures, systerRs and collective noun are either both singular or both plural-comrionents 13artici13aled in over ninety ellpert rianels to reyiew 0'Ier 800 corRments that were as w ith have and their in the second ex-ample. ~ e r a t i o n in d e ¥ ~ guidance for 013eration from 60 to 80 years. Staff from the---GffiGe-Of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) were memeers of most of these 8llfl8rl rianels, as well as staff rneff'leers frofR-el~RR-eillisions. The e x ~ ~ 0 R e d IR&SO-GOffiffiORl&-aRa-draft.ea-tl:l&-Aew-gui(jaMO-fGf..SbR In one of the key steps. the NRC completed the Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment (EM DA} iSem&-of-U-1e-80Q..oomm61'\ts-oame-frn~~J)QOOeo-Matooals DegraeatieA Oss0ssm0Rt ~EMO) study ani RES' assistanee in the Aging Management Pn~sram (AP1P) E-ffeeti,,onoos Audits at Ouoo J)lants in t~o ~ Q ef oxtonaee&flo~atioo-. ~n cooperation with the Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program. The resu ltant reports, the ~IRG completed NUREG/CR-7153, "Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment (EMDA), Vol. 1-5" (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14279A321, ML14279A331, ML14279A349, ML14279A430, ML14279A461 ). describe the conclusions from an expert elicitation process to le-identify the most significant aging degradation technical issues for nuclear power reactor operation beyond 60 years. The EMDA ranked the significance, current knowledge, and uncertainty associated w ith aging-related degradation phenomena that could affect systems, structures, and components (SSCs) over 80 years of operation. As outlined in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) on SECY 14-0016, the major technical issue areas are:

• Reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement at high fluenc0i
• Irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking of reactor internals and primary system components;
• Concrete and containment degradation;-aoo
• Electrical cable qualification and condition assessments In another key step. staff from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES _}_alse-assistee-iA-conducted three audits to investigate the 1

effectiveness of aging management programs (AMPs) used in the plant operating period from 40 to 60 years. The find ings from the first two audits are documented in the report titled, "Summary of Aging Management Program Effectiveness Audits to Inform Subsequent License Renewal: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 1" (ML13122A007) . The summary of the third audit can be found in the August 5, 2014. report, "H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant. Unit 2. Aging Management Program Effectiveness Audit" (ADAMS Accession No. ML14017A289). In addition on June 15. 2016, the staff issued the Technical Letter Report, "Review of Aging Management Programs: Compendium of Insight from License Renewal Applications and from AMP Audits Conducted to Inform Subsequent License Renewal Guidance Documents," (ADAMS Accession No. ML16167A076), which provides the staff's observations from reviewing and the AMP audits. As part ef the exf)ert panels. ReS e>Jaluateeln addition, an assessment of domestic and international operating experience of nuclear plants, lessons learned from staff review of previous and fill.assessment of recent research findings, were considered in the development of the SLR guidance documents. The draft guidance documents were developed by NRCthe staff with experience in addressing aging degradation The staff-wl:le participated in over ninety "expert panels." . These panelswhich included staff members from the NRR Division of License Renewal and other NRR divisions. as well as staff from Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research IRES). The expert panels dispositioned more than 800 inputs. which Somo ef tho 800 somments came from the RES Exf)aneee Mat.erials-DegFadalioo A&SeS6ffi81lt--{EMDA) study,._-and R~ssistaRce-in-the Aging Managomont Pmgram (AMP1glaffectiveness 2 Audits at three plants in the perie1 ef exten1e1 8f)&Fatkm. aM-fmm the review of operating experience and other SiAG&-After the draft guidance documents were issued for public comment, the staff J:las held several public meetings with stakeholders and the public to discuss the proposed revisions and bases for the revisions. !DJTh~AgS-Were-J:leld-On-JaAua!¥-24-aRd P'ol:lruary 19. 2016. I thei)Urposos ef those meeting§ the staff woro oulroash aGtivitios le stakehelders and the pvl3liG-le-provideg_ information and clarification on the proposed changes to the guidance documents, and IG--6GliGitsolicited feedback on the documents, and revise the dos1a1ments, as appropriate, le re~est stakeholder and pul:llis feedl:lask. The fin a I guidanse des1a1rnents are expested to 13e issued in mid 2017. The NRC staff is currently evaluating the public comments and developing fina l versions of the guidance documents. These documents will be issued in final form in mid-2017. To support their 61;1WQrt lhe reYiew of an-SLR application, aA-applicant§ will-need to 2

demonstrate that J:law--the effects of aging will be adequately managed for an operating period from 60 to 80 years, including aging effects tRes&-associated with the technical issues listed above. Although the industry is conducting resea rch to address these major technical issues for SLR, not all of the research will be completed before the first application is submitted. [For those issues that the industry has not yet developed a generic technical basis to support its resolution and the staff has not provided generic guidance for aging management, tl=le-NRG will reE11:1est applicants will need to address the technical issues with plant-specific programs in their SLR applications. The staff will review these plant-specific programs--tl'la+-aaGFeS&-Ule-Sl:-R-t&GAAiaal Commented [HA2): Not true in all cases, since GALL- ~ . but anticipates a longer application review process in these cases. SLR has identified generiuc approaches to address some of the issues. The requested research desGJ"ioed-below-would-provide2 information to support the staff in effectively evaluating AMPs and developing staff positions on the technical issues identified in EMDA reports and in the subsequent license renewal guidance.'-This effort will also augment the staffs preparedness for the evaluation of future applications for an SLR period. These requested products should build upon analysis methods, tools, and expertise de,veloped as part of ongoing research activities and new research activities focused specifically on aging effects during an SLR period. Description of Scope and Tasks 1A.- _ Hold NRC/industry workshop(s) on status of domestic and international research activities and operating experience to _ address and evaluate materials degradation issues identified in ~he EMDA reports , with particular focus on the issues Identified in the GALL-SLR and in the SRM on SECY 14-0016_for SLR. Commented 1B11-3]: To be of use to NRR. the workshops should focus on the issues identified in the Technical Need: In February 2008, the NRC and DOE first co-sponsored a "Workshop on GALL-SLR and in SRM on SECY 14-00 16 U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Life Extension Research and Development" (ADAMS Accession Number ML080570419), which requested stakeholder input into aging management The EMDA would have been more useful for subsequent license renewal had it been more in line research areas for ' Life Beyond 60." [S ince then, there have been multiple domestic and with GALL components and issues. international workshops/meetings on the research activities and operating experience that may impact aging management of SSCs for an SLR period, with the next such meeting to be sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in France in the October CMB: Revised. Please change as you see flt. 2017. Commented [B84]: I thought RES was a sponsor for three large International meetings. I attended the third These meetings have been helpful in facilitating technical discussions, disseminating one that was held by IAEA in Salt Lake City. But I knowledge and information, enabling the understanding of technical challenges, and paving thought RES was a sponsor. the for resolution of the challenges and issues related to materials degradation during the SLR period. As the NRC staff prepares for the review of subsequent CMB: I do not have the details. Hence not captured , We can add this Information, If needed. license renewal applications (SLRAs), there is a need for continued engagement with the domestic industry, DOE, and other federal organizations. academia, internat ional partners. and interested public stakeholders through workshops focused on the status and resolution of major technical issues outlined in the GALL-SLR, the SRM, and in EMDA. Request: RES is requested to facilitate a minimum of two international activuties {either a workshop. conference. symposium, or meeting) in the early fall 2018 and in late spring 2020 to address: 3

• operating experience from the 1initial license renewal period (or the long term operation period for international plants) the state of knowledge on the relevant technical issues

                                                                                                       =.

Commented IHAS): I am skeptical of this task. We to identify more specific deliverables _ Commented [BB-6): I think this is an activity we should

• on- oin research on materials de radation issues and a in mana ement of these support but I am not sure how this would be received in issues. in particular as related to the SLR period the current NRC climate of frugality.

CMB: This was speclflcally requested by Allen These activities sh * **

• oward the resolution of Hiser and agreed upon (in a broad sense) in our t hnic I i sue for the SLR erio . meetings with DLR during the course of Deliverable: ~aff..soould-.facilitato several workshapslmeetiAg&--Oll-OIJ&ffilmg development of this UNR.

Commented [HA7]: I am skeptical of this task. We

                                                                                                       ~ to identify more specific deliverables Commented [BB-8]: I think this is an activity we should experience from tho initial license renewal period, research resu lts on materials support but I am not sure how this would be received in degradation issues, and aging management of SSCs during tho SLR period.                   the current NRC climate of frugality.

Those meetings sheuld ee specifically targeted teward the resolution of technical issues for CMB: This was s peclflcally requested by Allen effective aging management of SSCs during the SLR period!. The deliverables include the Hiser and agreed upon (in a broad sense) in our meetings with DLR during the course of international activities (either a workshop, conference. symposium. or meeting). development of this UNR. Prior to the meetings. RES should provide a draft agenda and proposed presenters. The information from these activities should be documented in a NUREG/CP report. if appropriate. or by other sufficient means. including. at a minimum. a summary of the activity Commented [BB-9): We need very explicit deliverables such as an agenda coordinated with NRR, proposed with all relevant contributions (e.g.. presentations or papers) available for sub sequent speakers, presentation slides, and a report that addresses aging management programs that may lead

   .Yfil!,.RES staff should provide an annual technical letter report summarizing the                  to revision of our guidance documents understanding gained through tho workshopstmeetings. The summary should include the status of domestic and international research acti11ities in addressing materials degradation       CMB: Totally agree. During the process of issues and aging management practices during tho SLR period. The report should also                developing the workshops, we will work closely with DLR to ensure agenda, schedule, speakers are aiscuss (1) areas of progress ana issues resolution, (2) areas of insufficient progress that       agreed upon by all of us. We will mention the may warrant additional NRG dri11en interactions, and (J) any newly identified technical            close collaboration and alignment with DLR in our issues that should ee considered.                                                                  response to the UNR. The draft Internal report will be sent to NRR for review and comment. If NRR wants to make the final report public, that will be fine. As mentioned before, all milestones will be Schedule: The effort should continue u ntil the completion of the deliverables from the             tracked.

second activity. tentatively scheduled for late spring 2020.Jast-oo-mGf&-tl:laR-,a9-ffiooll=\&-frnm Commented [BB-10]: The previous UNR for SLR also the period of inception of this user need re11~mst. had a task to hold public workshops on aging management research with a deliverable after each meeting to provide a technical letter report after each meeting. To my knowledge, all we got was a two-page ~B . 1Pre¥ieo RES staff assessments ef tho Gwrro nt knewloago ana aisposition of memo from Gene Carpenter. materials aegraaatien isswos ieentified in tho EMDA reperts, with partiGwlar feGws en CMB: We will make sure these deliverables, with t ho isswos ieontifioa in t ho GALL SL R ana in SRM on SECY 14 0016 f or SLR1 due dates, are specifically stated in our response. l As soon as the UNR (and the RES response) Is put In place, CMB will add milestones In our Op Plan to Technical ~leea: As mentionea earlier, the EMDA reports identified significant technical tract the deliverables. DLR will have access and issues for nuclear power reactor operations eeyond 60 years related to materials can view the updates on the RES OpPlan. degradation. These iss1Jes fall under the following four topical areas, as 01Jtllined in the SRM on SECY 14 0016: Commented [HA11]: I suggest deleting this. --ReaGtoF-j)fOSSllFO-'IOSSeH'lOIJtfGn-emlmttlemenl-al-RigA..fiuen66i Commented [BB-12]: Again, it would be more useful to

• lrraaiation assistea stress sorrosion craskin!I of roaster internals ana primary system NRR if the assessment of issues focused on the issues components; in the GALL-SLR and in the SRM to SECY 14-0016 CMB: Added the emphasis on SRM.

4

• Concrete ane containment ee§raeation; ane Electrical caelo qualification ane coneition assessment.

Tho ~JRC, DOE, ane ineu&try are aeeressin§ tho key technical issues related lo materials degradation-at nUGlear J,Owor l)lanl&{N~n omer lo-gain bolter understanding-of tho materials a§iR§ ane GO!Jraeation mochanisms ane their implications of slrnet.iral ane GGm~egrity, DOE; and tho industry have initiated numerous research aclivitios-GR tho tour major lochnical aroas. Tho ~JRC staff coneucts confirmatory rosoaFGh, lhrou!Jh so¥oral user nooe requests on specific technical issues, to ineoponeonlly ¥ority licensee data, determine safely mar§ins, and exf)lore uncertainties. In addition, the NRG research will support ane increase tho efficiency of staff ro~*iow of SbR apf)lications. To fully support the staff's review of the SbR applications, RES shoule eevelop staff assessments of the current knowlee§e ane eisposition of materials ee§raeation issues rel alee to the tour major technical areas. The assessments shoule also incluee recommeneations on the neeG fer: ow-rogulatOf'f"9uidanco-andJor r~ision of existing regulatory-guides (-RGs) to-address uncertainties in knowleG§0 anetor potential non consorvatwisffi, Commented 1B11-13]: the assessment of issues boliveraelel: Deli¥er a technical lotter report that summarizes the c1Jrrenl knowlod§e ane focused on the issues in the GALL-SLR and in the o isposilion of malorials Ge!Jraealion iss1Jes ieentiliee /R EMQ,1\-wilh partic1Jlar fec1Js on tt:ie SRM to SECY 14-0016 iSSIJ0S ieontifiog in tho GALL SLR ane in SRM on SECY 14 QQHl for SbR. Tho report CMB: Added the emphasis on SRM. sho1Jld also inclu(Je recommendations on the need for any new or re,*iseEI Jt1iElance to I think DLR is very good at identifying ISGs and aggress component inte§rity of a§in§ strnct1Jres. revisions to our regulatory guidance. Furthenmore, ISGs may discontinued. ScheElule: The effort sho1JIEI last no more than 36 months from the perioe of inception CMB: Reference to ISG deleted. of this user neeEl request. The initial Elrafl report shoulEl ee completeEl l:ly the ens or FY Commented 1B11-14]: Need more specifics on what ~ 1 NRR is getting. Is this an annual report? C.- _Develop and implement a long-term strategy for obtaining information on CMB: This will be a final report (after Incorporating materials degradation from decommissioned NPPs, as well as from ex- plant NRR comments on the draft report). During the process of developing the report, RES will work components from operating plants. with NRR closely, with frequent updates and meetings. Commented 1B11-1 SJ: Or in the GALL-SLR and SRM? Technical Need: The NRG performs confirmatory resea rch to inform and develop the technical basis for regulatory decisions related to aging management programs for CMB: See change. _SLR. Historically, this research has included testing virgin materials under simulated aging Commented 1B11-16]: Why so long? conditions, as well as testing and characteriz ex-plant materials l=lbarvested from CMB: The final report will capture the insights and nuclear power plants. Ex-plant materials are valuable because they have been exposed to Information gathered from the current research actual in-service plant operating conditions (temperature, irradiation, coolant, etc.), activities (conducted by DOE, EPRI, industry, and NRC) on the SRM technical Issues. Many of the

            . Testing ex-plant materials also reduces the uncertainty associated with the               activities (cables, Internals, selected concrete activities, RPV) are expected to produce results applicability of the aging conditions. Therefore, this effort is expected to provide                 over the course of the next two years. We fundamental insights on reactor materials degradation and information addressing potential          understand that some of the activities may not be completed (some concrete act ivities, hlgh-fluence

_techn ical issues or identified gaps to support anticipated future NRG needs. It will also testing of vessel internals etc.) in two years. For these, we will provide a status update and _inform the value of existing databases based on simulated aging conditions by assessing recommendations, If necessary, for any additional their applicability to in-service conditions. research that indust ry or DOE (or NRC) may want to consider. 5

- Based on the recent experience of recovering materials from decommissioned plants, s uch as Zion, Crystal River, and Zorita (Spain), the effo rts of planning, coordination, and eventual harvesting of these materials could be resource-intensive and time-challeng ing. Future efforts to retrieve materials from decommissioned plants should be focused o n the highest value SSCs by proactively dev eloping a strateg ic database for obtaining unique and s ignificant materia ls aging degradation information from ex-plant components. Such a d atabase will enable the NRC to focus its harvesting efforts and expeditiously obtain materials and components from plants to be decommissioned in the near fut ure and deve lop information and know ledge to assess the efficacy of the AMPs. Request: RES is requested to: A. Develop a database which identifies and prioritizes the materials. components. and operating conditions that are needed to address the four topical areas outlined in the SRM on SECY 14-0016. and that. due to challenges in simulating actual service conditions. may be best addressed by harvesting either from plants that are entering decommissioning or ex-plant components from operating plants. B. Develop a process to evaluate the components from plants that are entering decommissioning or ex-plant components from operating plants that would be appropriate candidates for harvesting. and to ensure that timely contact is made w ith the plant owner to facilitate any harvesting targets that may be identified. C. Use the process developed in item B to evaluate the suitability of components from plants that are currently either under decommissioning or replacing components that may be of interest. D. Continue to implement the process developed in item Bas components become available from additional plants. Deliverable: RES should provide the database for NRR review. and summarize the priority listing in a letter report. Likewise. Items Band C should be documented in a letter report . Item D is a continuing item that should be summarized in a o r e-mail as appropriate. de><elofl a database so,,eriAg the foyr toi:iisal areas 01a1tliAed ffi..tf:\e..SRM-oo-SECY 14 0016-aA<l-ooAtainiAg.il:ffermat~ Commented [BB-17]: I think this would be a useful product and might reduce research costs by focusing

• researsh gaf)s for SLR that may be best addressed by harvestiAg dYe to shalleAges iA only on the material for which research is needed.

simylaliAg aGtYal servise GOAditiOAS, an!l A lso, as we learned from the concrete samples from Zorita there is a timing issue in that you have to be

• materials-that-Gan-b&-hai:vested-from to-be-<leGOmmissioneEI NPPs-and ex-plaAt ready to be specific what Is needed and in a relatively comf)oAeAts from oi:ieratiAg i:ilaAts to eelter iAform the NRC's aging mar1agemer1t pregrams specified by the provider.

tAMP&j-a11<l-agir\g-relateckegllia~8f&igl:lt-8Ad-to.better plan reseaFGh-aGtivmes,I CMB: This Is our position, as well. Commented [HA1 8]: Suggest that we add confirming current approaches Schedule: Item A and B should be completed within 18 months of issuance of this user need request. Item C should be completed within 24 months of issuance of this user need 6

request. Item D is an activity that should continue The effort shoicJIEl last no mom than 36 months from the period of inseptionissuance of this user need request. 0 3.- Continue to Develop Domestic and International Partnerships to Share Expertise,

 - *capabilities and Resources Relatedl to Aging Management Research for Long-Term Operations (LTO)

Teshnisal Need: Various domestic and foreign research organizations, government agencies, utilities and research organizations are presently engaged in aging management research, the results of which may be of value to the NRC regarding plant operations during the SLR period. Additionally, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is engaged with various international research organizations to develop data on aging mechanisms/effects. As such, it benefits the NRC to be engaged in domestic and international research partnerships in order to evaluate all available operating experience and relevant research, leverage resources, and minimize unnecessary duplication of efforts. It would be advantageous to the NRC to develop partnerships with these entities such that the various research programs could be better coordinated and focused on high-priority needs. Request: RES is requested to continue to develop agreements with domestic and international partners to collaborate orn aging management research that results in information to help inform agency decisions regarding SLR operating periods. Deliverable: Contin1cJe to eevelop agreeFRents with doFReslis and international partners le Gollaeorate on aging FRanageFRent researsh that reslcllls in inforFRalion to help inform agensy desisions regarding SLR and long term operations. Integrate as appropriate the reslcllts of these sollaeerati¥e reseaFGh and informalien oxshangos freFR intornatienal partnerships inte TasKs /\ and B. RES should pP.rovide to interested NRR branch chiefs (from DE and DLR) and senior staff relevant products (e.g .* trip reports, meeting summaries. papers. presentations. reports and other information) from interactions with domestic and international organizations. In addition. relevant findings from recent interactions and future plans should be discussed as a standing agenda item during quarterly meetings between RESIDE. NRR/DLR and NRRIDE. 81'\-aflfW~ational Gollaoerati¥0

    -i:eseorsh results and status of iAtoraotions (e.g., referenses to FReoting FRiAulos, f)f060fltatiorls,teahniea~tGt,-higAli§htlng-internatiORal-a61wities-aA<k06ulffi-that FRay affost S                                                                                    Comme nted [B11-1 9]: We had a similar task in the previous UNR and a deliverable of an annual summary of international collaborative research but I don't recall getting any reports.

Schedule: These products should be provided to NRR in a timely manner ffort should continue until the closure of this user rneed request. CMB: Again, we will make sure a ll the delivera bles and schedules are specified in our response to the UNR. And we w ill track t he milestones. Comme nted [HA20]: We need to be more specific on task and deliverables 7

From: RES_lnternational_Mailbox Sent: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:00:00 +0000 To: Hiser, Matthew Cc: RES_lnternational_Mailbox

Subject:

FW: NRR-Trip Report Notification - Nuclear Tech Symposium and Bilateral Meeting with SSM Hi Matt, Just touching base that you were contacted by Dave and got all that you need based on his trip report. NRR contacted us to make sure IPT knew Dave was going to coordinate with you. Lisa-Anne From: RES_ lnternational_Mailbox Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:16 PM To: Rud land, David <David .Rud land@nrc.gov> Cc: Culp, Lisa <Lisa.Culp@nrc.gov>; RES_ lnternational_Mailbox <RES International Mailbox.Resource@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NRR - Trip Report Notification - Nuclear Tech Symposium and Bilateral Meeting wit h SSM "On the Margins" David Rudland discussed with Danie l Kjellin of SSM details of his weld residual stress analyses of strip clad plate. Mr. Kjellin had problems w ith the material properties used for elastic modulus as a function of temperature. Dr. Rudland agreed to send him the publically available material property sets from the NRC international weld residual stress round robin effort. David Rudland discussed with Peter Ekstrom of SSM details of the SSM harvesting program for the recent and upcoming decommissioning of the Swedish plants. Dr. Rud land agreed to get Dr. kstrom in contact with Matthew Hiser from NRC RES to investigate the possibility of collaboration on harvesting materials. From: Quinones-Navarro, Lauren Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 5:01 PM To: Emche, Danielle <Danielle.Emche@nrc.gov>; RES_lnternational_Mailbox <RES International Mailbox.Resource@nrc.gov> Cc: Rodriguez, Veronica <Veronica.Rodriguez@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: NRR - Trip Report Notification - Nuclear Tech Symposium and Bilateral Meeting with SSM Good afternoon, I would like to highlight this trip report from NRR since it contains some follow-up items that involve RES (see "On the Margins" section) and OIP may receive follow-up request on the meeting topic.

Thanks, Lauren From: International Travel [ma ilto:SVCportaladmin@nrc.gov]

Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 1:12 PM To: NRRlnternationalTravel Resource <NRRlnternationalTravel.Resource@nrc.gov>; RES International Travel Dist <RES1nternationa1Tr@nrc.gov>; Rodriguez, Veronica <Veronica.Rodriguez@nrc.gov>; Quinones-Navarro, Lauren <Lauren.Quinones-Navarro@nrc.gov> Cc: Rudland, David <David.Rudland@nrc.gov>

Subject:

NRR - Trip Report Notification - Nuclear Tech Symposium and Bilateral Meeting with SSM Greetings, The Trip Report for the trip, Nuclear Tech Symposium and Bilateral Meeting with SSM has been submitted by Rudland, David. Regards, iTravel Administration Team Trip Name Nuclear Tech Symposium and Bilateral Meeting w ith SSM Trip ID: 4429 Travelers: Rudland, David Travel Dates: 11/12/2017 - 11/llS/2017 Destination: Stockholm, Sweden Trip Report ML17326A508 The NRC participant made one plenary presentahon Results Achieved: during the symposium, and two formal presentations to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) on probabilistic fracture mechanics in risk-informed decision making and license renewal activities. In addition , the participant had several discussions with Finnish a11d Swedish regulators on ongoing technical issues, and had informal technical discussions on topics such as:

• LBB, analysis and acceptance criteria
• Macro carbon segregations in reactor components
• Vessel internal integrity issues, including IASCC and baffle bolt cracking
• sec crack growth rates in un-irradiated piping made of stainless steel and Ni-based alloys
• sec initiation.

The results from these discussions allow the NRC to verify that its technical and regulatroy processes are inline with the international regulatory community. For the topics discussed, the NRC and SSM are aligned in the technical areas, but continued discussions are needed to gain full alignment on risk-informed thinking activities.

• This is an auto distnbution sent from the combined International Travel SharePoint Svstem.

For questions/ please communicate with your Office point(s) of contact.

• V§fflsrff"~'r .£*ttFBRMA 778ti BFF.&'TC:EAt 1:/SC Btlt Y*
• Note to requester: Attachment immediately following.

From: Frankl, Istvan Sent: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:27:38 +0000 To: RES_DE_CMB

Subject:

ACTION: Topics for Materials Exchange Meeting May 22-26 Attachments: 2018-05-22 agenda draft.docx Importance: High

All, The attachment is the latest NRR draft agenda. We will need to provide input for AM methods and have responsibility for the 30 minute time slot on 5/23 for "Status of Related Research" in CMS. If you have comments on the draft agenda, please send them to me by COB Friday.

For AM I want to make sure that we are aligned with our counterparts in NRR/NRO on the proposed presentation(s) and presenter(s). (Amy, please get back to me on this.) For our 30 minute time slot we can cover summaries of some or all topics proposed earlier. Here is the list:

1. Harvesting - Current plans and activities

2. IAD - confirmatory testing plans

3. PWSCC Crack Growth - Current research plans and results

4. Status Update on the PWSCC Initiation Program

5. Status of Confirmatory Research for SLR/LTO At this stage, I will ask the respective leads to draft about 3 summary slides for each of the above topics.

Thanks, Steve From: Rudland, David Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 6:22 AM To: Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Ruffin, Steve <Steve.Ruffin@nrc.gov>; Collins, Jay

<Jay.Collins@nrc.gov>; Cumblidge, Stephen <Stephen.Cumblidge@nrc.gov>; Davis, Robert <Robert.Davis@nrc.gov>; Tsao, John <John.Tsao@nrc.gov>; Poehler, Jeffrey <Jeffrey.Poehler@nrc.gov>; Fairbanks, Carolyn <Carolyn.Fai rbanks@nrc.gov>; Hovanec, Christopher <Christopher.Hovanec@nrc.gov>; Yee, On <0n.Yee@nrc.gov>; Cheruvenki, Ganesh <Ganesh.Cheruvenki@nrc.gov>; Hoffman, Keith <Keith.Hoffman@nrc.gov>; Medoff, James <James.Medoff@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj <Raj.lyengar@nrc.gov>; Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>; Mitchell, Matthew <Matthew.Mitchell@nrc.gov>; Rezai, Ali <Ali.Rezai@nrc.gov> Subject : FW: 2018-05-22 agenda draft Everyone

Please take a look at the draft agenda for the materials meeting and let me know if you have any comments. We are still determining who will be making what presentation. Can I please get your comments by April 30? Ali, did Allen talk with you about getting the meeting set up? Thanks Dave David L. Rudland, Ph.D. Senior Technica l Advisor for Nuclear Power Plant Materials Division of Materials and License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulat ory Commission Mail Stop: OWFN-11F01 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Office: (301) 415-1896 (b)(6) <::;gJJ;. . . . . J * **  ! Email: david.rudland@nrc.gov From: Dyle, Robin [mailto:rdyle@epri.com) Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 9 :00 PM To: Hiser, Allen <Allen.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Rud land, David <David.Rudland@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) 2018-05-22 agenda draft Gents - here is a first c ut at the agenda. I'll let the 2 of you coordinate with your peers. I sent a c opy to the industry leads for their review and comment. We c an adjust a s need ed. I' m not sure this bunch will interested in the advanced non-LWRs. If we need more time for other items we could reduce the time for that topic. Also we are very light on Thursday morning so we can stretch out some items or finish Wednesday afternoon. Thoughts? Robin Dyle Office: 205-426-5371 (b)(6) C::eU:l I

      *** This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from di sclosure under applicable law.

Un less otherwise expressed in this message by the sender or except as may be allowed by separate written agreement between EPRI and recipient or recipient's employer, any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others of this message is prohibited and this message is not intended to be an electronic signature, instrument or anything that may form a legally binding agreement

with EPRI. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and permanently delete all copies of this message. Please be advised that the message and its contents may be disclosed, accessed and reviewed by the sender's email system administrator and/or provider. ***

Tuesday, May 23, 2018 Time Presentation Topic Presenter Organization 0830 Introduction and Welcome NRC - Wilson 0845 BWRVIP update Odell - BWRVIP 0915 Mitiqation, BWRVIP-62 update Odell - BWRVIP 0945 NRC OLNC review status Poehler - NRC 1000 Break 1015 BWRVIP SLR update Lunceford - EPRI 1040 BWRVIP OE (may be in overview) 1100 Primary Systems Corrosion Research update Demma - EPRI 1200 Lunch 1300 PWROG MSC update Wax - PWROG 1330 MRP Update Hoehn - MRP 1415 Thermal Fatique update Crooker - MRP 1445 Break 1500 Peeninq confirmatory research status Alley - NRC 1515 RES status on Weld Residual Stress NUREG Benson - NRC 1540 xLPR status and NRR plans Hovanec/Kalikian/Homiak - NRC 1600 NRR independent flaw evaluations Collins - NRC 1620 Use of xFEM to simullate 3-D PWSCC flaw qrowth Collins/Facco - NRC 1640 VHP nozzle intearity - beyond NDE aspects Colli ns - NRC 1700 Public comment 1715 Adjourn

Wednesday, May 23, 2018 Time Presentation Topic Presenter Organization 0830 PWR vessel internalls (MRP- 227, Rl update and RAI NRC and Industry responses, NRC status on MRP-227, Rl review and action item status, status of SLR work) 0915 Guide cards - OE and quidance chanqes Wax - PWROG 0945 Baffle Former Bolt issues (OE update, testing NRC and Industry update, guidance changes, NRC assessment of quidance chanqes) 1030 Break 1045 Upper shelf J- R testinq Hardin - EPRI 1105 BWRVIP ISP Palm - EPRI 1130 NRC RPV topics (Appendix H status, Appendix G NRC work on small flaws, CMAC disposition, FAVOR long-term maintenance status etc.) 1215 Lunch 1315 Weldinq Proqram uodate and Code applications McCracken - WRTC 1415 Excavate and Weld repair issues 1440 Additive Manufacturinq Gandy - EPRI and NRC 1530 Break 1545 Status of Related Research RES-Corrosion and Metallurqy 1615 Status of Related Research RES-Component Integrity 1645 Materials/Component Integrity issues for Advanced NRC non-LWRs 1715 Public comment 1730 Adjourn

Thursday, May 24, 2018 Time Presentation Topic Presenter Organization 0830 Codes and standards update NRC 0900 GALL-SLR status Hiser - NRC 0930 Discussion, Capture Action Items NRC and Industry 0945 Public Comment 1000 Adjourn

Note to requester: Attachment is From: Frankl, Istvan immediately fo llowing. Sent: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 16:23 :04 +0000 To: Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

FW: Monthly report for NRC-HQ-60-17-T-0002 Attachments: Ex-plant_MLSR_(08-2018).pdf FYI From: Chen, Viren [1] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 10:21 AM To: Rao, Appajosula <Appajosula.Rao@nrc.gov>; Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov> Cc: Biwer, Bruce M.<bmbiwer@anl.gov>; Dority, Dayna <Dayna .Dority@nrc.gov>; ContractsPOT Resource <ContractsPOT.Resource@nrc .gov>; Natesan, Krishnamurti <natesan@anl.gov>; Alexandreanu, Bogdan <abogdan@anl.gov>; Farmer, Mitchell T. <farmer@anl.gov>; Grandy, Ch ristopher <cgrandy@anl.gov>; Rog lans-Ribas, Jordi <roglans@anl.gov>; Prokop, Karen Christine <kprokop@anl.gov>; Mendoza, Rosa <rmendoza@anl.gov>; NRC Fiscal Treasury <NRC@fiscal .treasury.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Monthly report fo r NRC-HQ-60-17-T-0002

Sri, Please find the attached monthly report on ex-plant material testing for August 2018.

Viren

MONTHLY LETTER STATUS REPORT Reporting Period Start Date Reporting Period End Date 07/21 /2018 08/20/2018 NRC Agreement Number Task Order Number (if applicable) Common Cost Center Code N RC-HQ-25-14-D-0003 NRC-HO-60-17-T-0002 Project Title Testing of Irradiated Ex-Plant Materials in Environment Period of Performance Start Date Period of Pe rformance End Date 1/ 11 /2017 12/31 /2019 COR Telephone E-mail Appajosula S. Rao 301 -415-2381 Appajosula.Rao@nrc.gov DOE Laboratory UChicago Argonne, LLC Argonne National Laboratory DOE Site Address 9700 Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439 Principa l Investigator Telephone E-mail Yiren Chen 630-252-6670 Yiren_chen@anl.gov Financial Status Section A. Overall Funding Current Month Cost: $ 45,844 Total Ceiling Amount: $1 ,189,000 Total Amount of Funds Obligated to Date: $ 1,188,646 Total Amount of Funds Expended to Date: $426,409 Percentage of Funds Expended to Date: 35.9% Balance of Obligated Funds Remaining : $ 762,237 Total Estimated Encumbered Costs:($ 6,030) Balance Available Less Estimated Encumbered Costs: $ 768,267 B. DOE Laboratory Acquired Property N/A C. NRC-Funded Software Developed N/A Page 1 of 30

Argonne spending plan update NRC Agreement Number NRC Agreement Modification Number NRC Task Order Number NRC Task Order NRC-HQ-25-14-O-0003 1 NRC-HQ-60-17-T-0002 Modification Number Project

Title:

Testing of Irradiated Ex-Plant Materials in Environment FY 2018 October November December January February March April May June July August September Estimated

               -     $20,000    $20,000       $51 ,000     $51 ,000     $51,000     $51 ,000    $51,000    $51 ,000    $51 ,000 $51 ,000        $51 ,000 Cost Revised       -        -          -              -            -           -            -           -          -           -        -

Actual - $17,864 $8,651 $25,491 $22,392 $38,074 $70,388 $65,145 $60,095 $72,465 $45,844 Variance (%) -10.7 -56.7 -50 -56 -25 38 28 18 42 -10 Total FY

                                                                                                                                                 $499,000 Cost FY   2019 October November   December      January       February      March       April        May       June         July   August        September Estimated
            $60,000  $61,000    $60,000 Cost Revised Actual Variance (%)

Total FY

                                                                                                                                                 $241,000 Cost Page 2 of 30

Technical Status Section A. Deliverables/Milestones Schedule Task Description Planned Revised Completion Actual Completion Date Date {if aoolicable) Completion Date 1 CGR, J-R curve tests Dec 2018 2 Technical letter report Dec 2018 B. Progress During Reporting Period

• Removed the specimen B1CT10 (~ 40 dpa) and install the specimen A3CT04 (<

1dpa) in cell 1.

• Continued the test on Specimen ACT03 (~15-20 dpa) in cell 2.

C. Travel None D. Description of Estimated Encumbered Costs N/A E. Anticipated and Encountered Problem Areas We removed the sample B1CT10 and try to re-tap the threads. The effort was unsuccessful, and the DCPD reading remained unstable. We have removed the sample and initiated a new test on Specimen A3CT03 in cell 1. The removed specimen B1 CT1O will be tested in the cell 2 system after the current test in cell 2 is complete. F. Plans for the Next Reporting Period

• Continue the test on Specimen ACT03 ( ~15-20 dpa) in cell 2.
• Start the cyclic test on Specimen A3CT04 in cell 1.

Page 3 of 30

Testing of Irradiated Ex-Plant Materials in Environment Technical Status

1. Background and objective The performance of structural materials subjected to reactor core environments is critical for the sate and economic operation of commercial light water reactors (LWRs). Exposed to both energetic neutron bombardment and corrosion of high-temperature coolant, the reactor core internal materials undergo significant microstructural changes during power operations. Various irradiation effects, such as irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking , irradiation embrittlement, radiation-induced segregations, void swelling, etc. can occur at LWR temperatures and irradiation doses, leading to deteriorated mechanical properties, elevated cracking susceptibility, and even geometrical instability of reactor core internals. Due to the potentially serious impact on the safety and operation of LWRs, material degradations are of great interest to reactor aging management and regulation.

To develop guidelines for subsequent license renewal, the mechanisms of irradiation-induced degradations must be identified and technique data must be obtained. It has been recognized that knowledge and data gaps are present in the existing information and technical bases. In particular, fracture toughness (FT} and crack growth rate (CGR) data are critically needed for evaluating the extent of irradiation embrittlement and developing disposition curves of cyclic and IASCC growth rates. To fill the data gaps in irradiation-induced degradations, ex-plant materials harvested from decommissioned nuclear power reactors are of great importance. The Zorita Power Plant was a pressurized water reactor (PWR) decommissioned after approximately 38 years of operation. The maximum neutron fluence received by the reactor vessel internals was estimated to be over ~50 dpa. Materials obtained from this decommissioned reactor offer an excellent opportunity to examine core internal materials exposed to a real PWR irradiation and coolant environment, and thus are invaluable for the subsequent license renewal beyond 60 years. The objective of this work is to conduct the CGR and J-R curve tests on irradiated ex-plant materials in simulated LWR environments, and obtain the CGR and FT data that can be used directly in supporting the technical evaluation of the subsequent license renewal. The microstructure of the ex-plant materials will also be examined to characterize their irradiated microstructure and to determine the damage mechanism for the loss of FT after prolonged operation.

2. Status of sample shipment The specimens to be tested in this program have been machined by Studsvik from ex-plant materials harvested from the Zorita power plant. A total of 14 miniature compact-tension (CT) specimens, 7 flat tensile specimens, and 4 small coupon plates will be transferred from Studsvik to Argonne. Studsvik has applied for an export license from Swedish authority for shipping these samples.

The samples have been packaged in a Type-A cask with added shielding inside the secondary container. The cask has been sealed and tagged as shown in Figure 1. Table 1 shows the activity information provided by Studsvik. The shipment contains a total of 7.3 Ci activity, and Page 4 of 30

the main contributor to the exposure dose rate is Co-60. The dose rate of the shipping cask is about 16 mR/hr at 1 m, and will be transferred under the Yellow Ill category. Figure 1. Shipping cask containing all specimens to be sh ipped from Studsvik. Table 1. Major radionuclide and their activity contents in t he shipment Radionuclide Activity (Bq) Co-60 9.36E+10 Fe-55 9.27E+10 Ni-63 8.19E+10 Nb-93m 1.59E+10 Mn-54 3.86E+10 Total 2.70E+11 After an eight-month delay of the shipment, the certificate of the shipping cask was expired in August. Studsvik had to perform a maintenance service on the shipping cask to re-certify its condition. All samples were unloaded from the shipping cask and moved into a hot cell. The interior of the cask was cleaned and surveyed for loose co ntamination. After the samples were re-loaded into the cask, a dose rate measurement was performed outside the cask. After reloading, the transportation index (Tl) decreased from a previous value of 7.5 to the current value 3 (as shown in Figure 2). Studsvik engineers believed that, in addition to the natural decay of short-life isotopes, t his large decline in Tl value was mainly due to a rearrangement of Page 5 of 30

samples inside the cask. The cask has been sealed and ready for the shipment. The shipping document needs be updated and provided to carrier for export controls and cargo reservation . Figure 2. Re-certified shipping cask loaded with samples.

3. Preparation and safety reviews for unloading the Studsvik shipment Because of its high radioactivity, the shipping cask must be unloaded with special precautions.

We have developed an unloading procedure to receive the shipment, conduct a receiving survey of the shipping casks , and retrieve the samples from the shipping cask to the hot cells of the irradiated materials laboratory (IML). Table 2 shows the sample IDs and their estimated activities used for the unloading procedure. Table 2. Specimen ID and estimated activity to be received Specimen 10 ANL tracking ID Specimen type Estimated Activity (mCi) ACT03 1106-C-01 1/4T-CT 506.03 ACT04 1106-C-02 1/4T-CT 506.03 A3CT03 1106-C-03 1/4T-CT 506.03 A3CT04 1106-C-04 1/4T-CT 506.03 BlCTl0 1106-C-05 1/4T-CT 506.03 B1CT07 1106-C-06 1/4T-CT 506.03 81CT08 1106-C-07 1/4T-CT 506.03 B1CT09 1106-C-08 1/4T-CT 506.03 B3CT13 1106-C-09 1/4T-CT 506.03 B3CT14 1106-C-10 1/4T-CT 506.03 W1WCT03 1106-C-11 1/4T-CT 506.03 W1WCT04 1106-C-12 1/4T-CT 506.03 W1WCT05 1106-C-13 1/4T-CT 506.03 W1WCT06 1106-C-14 1/4T-CT 506.03 AT0l 1106-A-01 tensile 22.66 A3T01 1106-A-02 tensile 22.66 Page 6 of 30

A3T02 1106-A-03 tensile 22.66 BlTOS 1106-A-04 tensile 22.66 B1T06 1106-A-05 tensile 22.66 W1WT03 1106-A-06 tensile 22.66 W1WT04 1106-A-07 tensile 22.66 ATEMOl 1106-H-01 TEM blank 10 .57 A3TEM01 1106-H-02 TEM blank 10 .57 B1TEM04 1106-H-03 TEM blank 10.57 W l WTEMOl 1106-H-04 TEM blank 10 .57 Table 3 shows the radiological survey results provided by Studsvik. It is estimated that all samples (bare samples without shielding) will have a dose rate reading between 14 and 36 R/hr at 30cm. The work area to be used to unload the cask will be categorized as a high-radiation area. Engineering controls such as adequate shielding and extension tools are needed to minimize workers' exposure. Since all samples will be packaged in clean plastic bags inside a secondary container, the removable contamination inside the shipping cask should be relatively low. However, precautions are still needed to prevent cross-contamination since the cask and the secondary inner container may have been handled in highly contaminated hot cells. Based on the radiological profile of the shipping package, we have developed a step-by-step unloading procedure. A total of 25 steps will be carried out by three IML technicians, three HP technicians and one HP supervisor. Based on the unloading procedure, a work-control package was prepared and submitted for review. The work control package has been fully approved by the NE division. In the approved work procedure, six safety-critical steps involving high risk of exposure and contamination trigger the criteria established at Argonne for an ALARA review. Working with health physicists, we have evaluated the dose rates and removable contamination levels with engineering controls, and estimated the time duration for each step. Table 4 shows the effective doses calculated for the ALARA review. An effective dose of 202 mrem may be taken from the unloading work, and the highest individual dose is 11 0 mrem. A draft ALARA review document was prepared based on this assessment and submitted to the review committee. A review meeting was held, and we presented our work procedure, engineering controls, and radiological risk assessment to the nine-member ALARA committee. Figure 3 shows a schematic of the configuration to introduce the inner container into the hot cell. During the discussion with the review committee, several key questions were raised about the estimates of contamination level and effective dose. Additional information regarding the contamination level inside the cask was required by the review committee. Also, we were required to re-evaluate the necessity of using respirators since it may affect the time duration for key steps. The comments and suggestions of ALARA committee have been addressed, and the ALARA review has been formally completed. For the preparation of unloading , we removed the autoclave and load train inside the hot cell 2. The benchtop was cleaned and a temporary lead shielding was built for the unloading work. A "dry-run" of the unloading was conducted, and two workers and two HP technicians participated. We used a mock-up drum to simulate the shipping cask, and practiced the steps specified in the procedure. The time durations of several key steps were also validated. Additional dry-runs are being planned to improve the efficiency in handling tools and the coordination among workers. Table 3. Dose rate measurements and smear test results provided by Studsvik Page 7 of 30

Table summarizing t he s pecimens fabricated in 212518 (7th Dec) No Specimen ID Specimen Source Type Piece Suggested Nominal Sample dose Sample dose Sample smear Photo typo material Id container dose ra*te, ""2 cm rate, ""30 cm tast* {Y/N) 1 B1CT08 CT 32x45-1 1 .0Sv/h 25 mSv/h 107 KBq/m2 y 2 B1CT09 CT 32x45* 1 1 .2 Sv/h 23.5 mS/h 260 KBa/m' y 3 BlTOS tensile Bl Plate Blf 1Sx27*1 SOdpa 72 mSv/h 1.6 mSv/h 474 KBq/m2 y 4 81106 tensile 15x27* 1 12 mSv/h 0.36 mSv/h 154 KBq/m2 y 5 B1TEM04 TEM 15x27*1 5 1 mSv/h 0.7 mSv/h 127 KBq/m2 y 6 B1CT10 CT 32x45*1 700 mSv/h 18mSv/h 142 KBq/ m' y Bl Plate BlE 40dpa y 7 B1CT07 CT 32x45*1 1.4 Sv/h 20 mSV/h 290 KBq/m2 8 ACT03 CT 32x45-1 555 mSv/h 12mSv/h 186 KBQ/m2 y 9 ACT04 CT 32x45* 1 15-20 800 mSv/h 12mSv/h 100 Cps (red) " y A Plate A*A y 10 ATOl tensile 15x27*2 dpa 50mSv/h 0.75 mSv/h 4 7.2 KBq/m' 11 ATEMOl TEM 15x27*2 18.5 mSV/h 0.3 mSv/h 273 KBq/m2 y 12 B3CT13 CT 32x45-2 800 mSV/h 11 mSv/h 288 KBq/m2 y 83 Plate 83 Sdpa y 13 B3CT14 CT 32x45*2 810 mSV/h 11 mSv/h 131 KBq/m' 14 A3CT03 CT 32x45-2 13 mSv/h 0.2 mSv/h 3.29KBq/m 2 y 15 A3CT04 CT 32x45-2 14 mSv/h 0.2 mSv/h 13.9 KBq/m 2 y 16 A3T01 tensile A3 Plate A3A 1Sx27-3 <ldpa 1.45 mSv/h 0.2 mSv/h 5.97 KBq/m 2 y 17 A3T02 tensile 15x27*3 0.8 mSv/h 0.015 mSv/h 39.5 KBq/m' y 18 A3TEM01 TEM 15x27*3 0.45 mSv/h 0.02 mSv/h 21.3 KBq/m 2 y 19 WlWCT03 CT 32x4S* 2 135 mSv/h 1.3 mSv/h 47.5 KBq/m 2 y Wl We ld WlA 1 dpa 20 W1WCT04 CT 32x45*2 S4 mSv/h 0.95 mSv/h 16.2 KBa/m 2 y 21 W1WCT05 CT 32x45* 2 9.5 mSv/h 0.15 mSv/h 10.3 KBa/m 2 y 22 W1WCT06 CT 32x45* 2 6.0 mSv/h 0.1 mSv/h 17.4 KBq/m 2 y 23 W1WT03 t ensile Wl We ld WlK 15x27* 4 <0.1 dpa 0.05 mSv/h O.ot5mSv/h 8.8 KBa/m2 y 24 W1WT04 tensile 1Sx27*4 0.85 mSv/h 0.02 mSv/h 8.8 KBq/m2 y 25 Wl WTEMOl TEM 15x27* 4 0.50 mSv/h 0 .03 mSv/h 72 KBq/m 2 y

• Beta Act1v1ty, no alpha 1s detected (detection l1m1t 0.4 k8q/m2) on any specimens

           *'~ Too high activity to measure the contamination level Table 4. Effective dose assessment for ALARA review Task in                   Source                                    Dose rate              Duration       Number of             External Distance procedure               configuration                            (mR/ hr at 30cm)                (hr)        workers        exposure (mrem) 1 m, and Step 1            Shielded by cask                                     88                    0.5              3                   52 30 cm Steo 6            Partially Shielded           30cm                   200                   003               2                   12 Step 8            Partially Shielded           30 cm                  200                   0.02              2                   8 Steo 9                 Unshielded             1.22 m                  2721                  0.02              2                  109 Stec 10            Shielded bv bricks              1m                    15                   0.08              3                  3.6 Various steps           Unshielded and 3m                   450                   0.04              1                   18 with HP support         partially shielded Page 8 of 30

Storage holes 0 Hot cell 2 Shield bricks Plastic tray Work table Computer desk Cask

• Worker2 nn nn nn nn nn nnn n nn nn nnn n nnn n nnn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nnn n nnn n nnnn n nn nn nn n n nnnnnn n nnnn n ~nnnnnnnnnn n nnnnnnnnnnn Worker 1 E109 B nn nn nn nn nn nnn n nn nn nnn nn nn n nnn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nn nnn nn nn n nnn nn nn nn nn Hot cell shield door Figure 3. A schematic of an intermedia step to introduce the inner container into hot cell.

4. Preparation of CGR/JR tests and microstructural characterization A direct current potential drop (DCPD) method will be used to monitor the crack extension of specimens during CGR tests. Depending on the dose rate of the specimen, DCPD leads could be attached to the sample either with threaded pins or with spot welding. The spot welding has a smaller contact resistance and thus shows a better noise to signal ratio during tests. A procedure and a work control document (WCD) was prepared and reviewed by a safety committee. The WCD has been approved.

When spot weld is impossible or the weld fails during sample installation, our backup plan is to use threaded pins to attach the DCPD leads. In this case, two tapped holes are needed on each CT sample. Two blind holes have already been drilled on each sample by Studsvik, but have not been tapped. These two holes were drilled incline to the sample front surface at a ~20 degree angle. This makes the task of hole-tapping more difficult, particularly when it has been performed remotely with manipulators. We are designing and making a fixture that will not only hold the sample in place precisely for tapping, but also maintain a correct angle between the tap drill and the inclined holes. All necessary parts and components have been ordered, and will be assembled and tested in hot cells. Transmission electron microscope (TEM) examinations will be performed on Zorita materials to characterize their irradiated microstructures. Three-mm TEM disk samples will be prepared from 0.25-mm thick coupon samples. A work procedure has been prepared to cut the TEM disks from the coupons inside hot cells. Two cutting methods that are commonly used for TEM sample Page 9 of 30

preparation have been included in this procedure. The first method is to cut the TEM disks with a TEM punch, a punch and die set designed for cutting TEM disks. This method is our preferred choice since it is relatively easier and quicker. A potential drawback of this method is that plastic deformation may be introduced during the process. This potential issue does exist for our samples since their thickness is approaching to the upper limit of the TEM punch. If the punch method is unsuccessful, our backup plan is to use a rotary disk cutter. With this method, no deformation will be introduced in the TEM disks, but additional steps for sample installation and removal will be needed. Also, the rotating head and cutting fluid used in this method will generate a condition that radiological contamination is a serious concern. These potential safety hazards are being addressed in our procedure with necessary engineering and administration controls and will be implemented in a work control document.

5. Receiving and unloading of the shipping cask The shipping cask containing Zorita samples was delivered to Argonne by a local trucking company. Argonne HP technicians performed a receiving survey on the package and no removable contamination was found on the exterior surface of the cask. The dose rate of the cask was about 40 mR/hr on contact, and 7 mR/hr at 30 cm. No dose rate measurement was performed at the bottom of the cask which may be slightly higher according to the configuration of the cask. Based on the receiving survey, we established a temporary radiation area to store the package.

Figure 4. Moving the shipping cask on to the "hot dock" of the IML. Survey Points survey Point: 1 Dose rate a cask o n the steel pallet lnslr. SeU: 3877 6 smears Value Type

                                                                                 -                Value           Distance EBER; R0-20                               t'Gros, V                          40 mR/h               locrn lnslr. Seu: 1913                                           Value Type                     Value           Distance AHi.: OABRAS, GATE: GP7-eo0, BERTH:

Gross RemoV;tble a cpm/100cm' MZ200 t/A Gross Remova~e ~ (Use Bela H;gh) 243 cpml 100cm' NIA Removoblea 7.8 dpm/100cm' Removable~ {Use Beta High) 14.9 d pm/100cm1 I lnslr.SeU:3877 EBER: Ro-20 lnslr. Set#: 3877 f Gross v V*luo Type r,:; V*luo 7 30cm Distance V*luo TYi)! V*luo Distance EBER; Ro-20 1Grossv 3mfUl I 1m Figure 5. Receiving survey of the shipping cask. Page 1O of 30

A total of three IML workers, two health physicists, and two HP technicians were involved in the unloading work. The shipping cask was first moved into the IML and position in front of the hot cell door (Figure 6). After the seal of the cask was cut, the lid of the shipping cask was lifted with tools (Figure 7). At this point, HP technicians performed a radiological survey of the cask to determine that the conditions are within the control limits (Figure 8). The survey results showed similar radiological conditions as estimated, validating our methodology used in the work planning. After confirming the dose rate and contamination level inside the cask, the inner container holding all specimens was lifted out of the cask cavity and moved into the hot cell with an extension tool. A brief but high radiation field was present once the secondary container was lifted out the cask cavity. A post-job review of workers' dose meters showed a total dose of 2.45 mrem, significantly lower than what we estimated in the work planning. Figure 9 shows the sample capsules removed from the secondary container. After the unloading, the empty cask was cleaned and sealed. Working with an outside contractor, Argonne Special Materials has shipped the empty cask back to Studsvik in early December. Figure 6. Move the shipping cask into the IML. Page 11 of 30

Figure 7. Pre-job survey and cut the seal of the cask. Figure 8. Shipping cask with the lid removed Figure 9. Removed sample capsules from the cask. Page 12 of 30

6. Inspection and Inventory The sample capsules have been opened using manipulators inside the hot cell. To remove gross contamination, the samples were wiped with moist rags, cleaned with an ultrasonic cleaner, and dried on paper towels. Following the decontamination, the samples were visually inspected for manufacturing defects and photographed individually. Figure 10 shows some of the samples inspected. Note that the samples' IDs are marked with shallow EDM cuts on the side surfaces or the ends of the samples. No manufacturing defects were identified for all samples received. One specimen showed different colors on its side surface as shown in Figure 11. The Studsvik staff performing the machining task confirmed that this surface discoloration was resulted from a broken EDM wire during the cutting of this sample. The sample was immersed in an oil bath for several days while the EMO wire being replaced. So, the surface discoloration was not related to any dimensional irregularity, and thus should not have any negative impact on testing .

CT sample 81CT10 TEM blank W1WTEM01 Figure 10. Zorita samples machined by Studsvik. Page 13 of 30

CT sample ACT04 Figure 11. Surface discolor observed on Specimen ACT04. After the visual inspection, each sample was surveyed for its dose rate and weighed with a digital scale. Table 5 shows the results of sample inspection and inventory. Most of the samples were measured at 30 cm for their dose rates. For some high-dose CT samples, the dose rates were measured at 1 m to reduce worker's exposure. Table 5. Receiving inspection and inventory of Zorita specimens Source Material Source Nominal Sample Sample CMM CURIE Dose rate, mR/hr Weight, Inspection Material Type Piece Dose dpa ID Type ID ID g 81 Plate 8 1F 50 81CT08 CT 11 06-C-01 149824 270mR@ 1 m 9.45 v 81 Plate 8 1F 50 81CT09 CT 11 06-C-02 149825 340mR@ 1 m 9.35 81 81 Plate Plate 8 1F 8 1F 40 40 81CT1 0 81CT07 CT CT 1 t 06-C-03 11 06-C-04 149826 149827 310mR@ 1 m 300mR @ 1 m 9.2 9.35 "v A Plate A-A 15-20 ACT03 CT 11 06-C-05 149828 160 mR@ 1 m 9.4 v A Plate A-A 15-20 ACT04 CT 11 06-C-06 149829 150mR @ 1 m 9.15 v 83 83 Plate Plate 83 83 5 5 83CT1 3 83CT14 CT CT 1 t 06-C-07 1106-C-08 149830 149831 950 mR@30cm 800 mR @30cm 9.35 9.35 "v A3 Plate A3A <1 A3CT03 CT 11 06-C-09 149832 33 mR@ 30 cm 9.4 v A3 Plate A3A <1 A3CT04 CT 11 06-C-10 149833 28 mR@30cm 9.35 W1 W eld W1A 1 W1WCT03 CT 1106-C-11 149834 140 mR@30cm 9.25 v Wt W eld W1A 1 W1WCT04 CT 1106-C-12 149835 100 mR@ 30 cm 9.35 v W1 Wt Weld Weld W1K WIK

                             < 0.1
                             <0.1 W1 WCT05 W1WCT06 CT CT 11 06-C-13 11 06-C-14 149836 149837 21 mR@30cm 22 mR @30cm 9.3 9.3       "v 81       Plate     8 1F     50        81T05       Tensile  1106-A-01   149750 140 mR@ 30 cm     0.45 81 A

Plate Plate 8 1F A-A 50 15-20 81T07 AT01 Tensile Tensile 1106-A-02 1106-A-03 149751 149752 110mR@30cm 80 mR@30cm 0.5 0.4 " A3 Plate A3A <1 A3T02 Tensile 1106-A-04 149753 28 mR @30cm 0.5 v A3 W1 Plate W eld A3A WI K

                              <1
                             <0.1 A3T03 W1WT03 Tensile Tensile 1106-A-05 1106-A-06 149754 149755 28 mR@ 30cm 28 mR @ 30 cm 0.45 0.4       "v Wt        W eld    WIK      < 0.1    W1WT04        Tensile  1106-A-07   149756 30 mR @ 30cm       0.4 81       Plate     8 1F     50      8 1TEM04     TEM blank 1 t 06-H-01 149706 50 mR@ 30 cm       0.2        v A        Plate     A-A     15-20     ATEM01      TEM blank 11 06-H-02  149704  16 mR@30cm       0.15        v A3       Plate     A3A      <1      A3TEM01      TEM blank 11 06-H-03  149705 1.8mR@30cm         0.2 Wt        W eld    WIK      < 0.1   W1W TEM01     TEM blank 1106-H-04   149707 1.7mR@30cm         0.2 During the process of inventory, one of the manipulator was broken, limiting the movement of the manipulator inside the hot cell. The failure was caused by a fractured cable on the slave size of the manipulator. To repair the cable, the manipulator has to be removed from its installation port, and be positioned in front of the hot cell. A work-control document and radiological work permit were prepared and reviewed by a divisional safety committee. After the work control document was approved, the repair work was carried out by two IML workers and one HP technician. Using an overhead hoist, the workers moved the damaged manipulator out of its port and place it on a support rack. The slave side of the manipulator and the section Page 14 of 30

embedded in the wall were wiped down carefully to eliminate contaminations. After an acceptable radiological condition was achieved, the broken cables were replaced with new ones and adjusted to required tension. The manipulator was then moved back and inserted into its port on the shield wall. After the repair work, the sample inventory was continued. The dose rates of the remaining samples were surveyed (Table 5), and their weights were measured. Additional pictures were taken on the side surfaces of each specimen to document their identification markings before testing. These records are necessary since a long-term exposure to the test environments may reduce the contrast of the shallow EDM cuts and make them illegible.

7. System Calibration and Preparation

7. 1 System Calibration Two mechanical test systems located in Hot Cells #1 and #2 will be used for testing the Zirota specimens. Each system is equipped with its own servo-hydraulic loading frame, water recirculation loop, and data acquisition system. All electronic equipment of the data acquisition systems has been calibrated. The LVDTs of both systems have been verified with a standard micrometer (Figure 12). Using a rigid tensile specimen, the load train responses of both test frames have also been validated.

All control channels of the lnstron systems have been tuned with an unirradiated 1/4T-CT sample. A more realistic load train compliance can be simulated by using a 1I4T-CT sample, and the PID feedback control can be optimized. Figure 13 - Figure 15 show the tuning results of different channels for the cell 2 system. Similar results have been obtained for the cell 1 system as well. Note that both the position and load channels show good responses after the tuning. For the strain channel (to be used for the J-R curve test), the accuracy of the control depends on straining rate. When the straining rate is below 0.02 mills, the control is not optimum and a stepwise ramping curve can be seen. Above 0.05 mills, a much better strain-control can be achieved. The poor response of the strain channel at low strain rates is perhaps due to a physical limit of actuator. The strain control is even worse in cell 1 system where a larger actuator is used. Since we found previously that the J-R curve result is not very sensitive for a wide range of strain rates, we will use a strain rate of 0.05 mills in the future. 150 100 0 rP 150 100

                                                                                                                *..0
                                                                    ~

i" 50 50 .o

      ~

0 0

ii,

                                                                                                        ..0 i.,        0                        0                           ....
                                                                    "CJ a:

0 o'

     ...a:0                           0                             ...0                         0
              *SO                 0                                  ~
                                                                           *SO                0
     ~

0 0

                                                                          *100

• 100 0

0 o*o

            *150                                                          *150
                  *150   *100    .50      0      50      100  150              *150  *100    -50      0      50          100 150 Standard Micrometer (Mils)                                  Standard Micrometer (Mils)

(a) (b) Figure 12. Calibrations of LVDTs for hot cell #1 (a) and #2 (b) Page 15 of 30

Position Channel 300 Sawtooth -0.93 Triangle, 0.1 Hz 10s up, 2s down 250

                                                                                   -0.932 "ti I
         "O Position                             -0.934 0
                                                                                            ~-

o* _,:3 150

                                                                                   -0.936
                                                                                          -2:::,

Load 50 8 10 12 14 16 Run time (min) Figure 13. The response of the posit ion channel after tuning with a 1/4T-CT sample. 300 -76 Load Channel Strain 250 -78 200 -80

         'ii,                                                                               !!Z
         @,                                                             Load                iii 150                                                              -82      :i'
                               ~
         "O

_,:3 100 -84

                                                                                           ~

50 -86 Sawtooth, 2 lbs/s up, Triangle, 0.1 Hz 12 lbs/s down 0 -88 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 Run time (min) Figure 14. Calibrations of LVDTs for hot cell #1 (a) and #2 (b) 350 -73 Strain 300 -74 0.05 mills 250 -75

         'ii,     200                                                              -76
                                                                                            !!Z
         @,                                                                                 ol

i' "O

_,"'0 150 -77 ~ 100 -78 50 - -79 0 -80 34.5 35.5 36.5 37.5 41 43 45 Run time (min) Figure 15. Calibrations of LVDTs for hot cell #1 (a) and #2 (b) Page 16 of 30

7.2 Tapping threads on high-dose samples As part of the preparation work, screw threads need to be cut on high-dose samples. Since spot welding cannot be easily performed on the high-dose samples, DCPD leads must be attached with threaded pins. All samples machined by Studsvik contain prefabricated 3/64"-dia holes inclined at ~20° about the sample notch. Since the diameter of the tap is very small, a breakage of drill bits is a real risk during tapping. A special setup (as shown in Figure 16} was assembled inside the hot cell for facilitating the operation with manipulators. The purpose of this setup was (1) to ensure a good alignment between the inclined hole and the tap, and (2) to provide a small but stable pressure over the tap. Two high-dose samples, 81 CT09 and B 1CT10, were tapped successfully with the setup. Each of the samples read about 3 R/hr at 30 cm. After the tapping , two threaded pins were screwed to the sample as potential leads. Additional high-dose samples will be tapped with the same method in the future. Figure 16. A setup inside the hot cell for tapping threads on high-dose samples 7.3 Preconditioning of the filter for PWR water test In the water recirculation system, water coming out of the autoclave contains corrosion products that are radiologically contaminated. While the contamination in the water must be removed, boron and lithium ingredients in the PWR water must be retained during the tests. To achieve this goal, we need to pre-condition a filter (ion-exchange bed} by saturating it with boron and lithium. Previously, PWR water had been prepared, and a filter had been preconditioned in an out-of-cell loop. A concentrated 8/Li solution was first circulated through the filter. After the filter was fully saturated, the PWR water (containing ~1000 ppm Band ~2 ppm Li} was allowed to flow through the filter to achieve an equilibrium. Figure 17 shows the conductivity measurement in the preconditioning loop. A constant conductivity about 20 µSi em was obtained with and without the charged filter, indicating an equilibrium state. Page 17 of 30

25 30 Bypass filter Through filter E Conductivity -I n,

                  ~       20                                                      25 en                                                                   3

_:1;

                                                                                     'C n,
                  *s;

(.) Temperature Ill C n,

                                                                                     .......0

l

                  'C      15                                                      20 C

0 9 0 10 15 0 2 3 4 5 Run time (hr) Figure 17. Conductivity measurement in the preconditioning loop A water sample was collected downstream from the charged filter and sent to an analytical chemistry laboratory for analysis. The result showed a boron content of ~950 PPM and a lithium content of ~2.5 PPM. All other ions were less than 0.1 PPM in the loop. After the high-pressure pump was re-conditioned, the charged filter was re-located in the cell 1 loop. All preparation work for cell 1 has been completed, and the system is ready for starting.

8. Crack growth rate and fracture toughness tests 8.1 CGR/JR test on Specimen 81CT09 The CGR/JR test on Specimen B1CT09 has been completed. The sample is a 1/4T-CT specimen cut from the baffle plate B1 Fas shown in Table 5. The baffle plate is a Type 304 stainless steel, but its precise chemical composition and heat treatment history are not available at present. The displacement damage accumulated on this sample is about 50 dpa. The identification of the specimen is marked with three grooves (one on the back surface, a nd two on the top surface) based on the Studsvik's sample fabrication report (Fig. C.2 in the report).

These ID markings have been confirmed with the optical images shown in Figure 18. Table 6 shows the dimensions of the specimen provided by Studsvik. Two dimensions highlighted in yellow, L7 and W2, are out of the tolerances specified in the fabrication report. Both of the out-of-range dimensions are not critical for determining K values. Thus, we determine the sample is adequate for CGR/JR testing. The dimensions of the sample are summarized in Table 7. The CGR results of this test and corresponding loading conditions are given in Table 8. The fracture surface of the test sample has been examined, and all data reported in Table 8 have been corrected with the SEM measurements. The fracture toug hness J-R curve test shows a power-law correlation of J = 80~a0 *04, and the J value at the 0.2-mm offset line is approximately 75 kJ/m 2

• A near-zero powe r exponent exhibited in this J-R curve test suggests severe irradiation embrittlement at ~50 dpa.

Page 18 of 30

(b) Figure 18. Specimen B1CT09, a 50-dpa CT sample cut from the baffle plate B1F. (a) The front view of the specimen, and (b) and (c) the ID markings on the sample. Table 6. Sample dimensions provided by Studsvik (in mm) Sample ID Bl B2 B3 B4 BS DI D2 LI* L3* L6 L7 WI W2 W3 Nominal va lues 7.00 7.00 0.79 3.3 3.3 3.00 3.00 12.00 5.75 2.00 2.00 6.50 0.33 0.33 Tolerances +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 0.05 0.05 +/-0.1 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.1 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 81CT09 6.99 6.98 0.79 3.27 3.32 3.00 3.00 12.01 5.7 I 2.05 (2,07 6.52 0.24 0.38 Table 7. Dimensions for Specimen B1CT09 (in mm) w B Bnet ao 12.01 6.52 5.90 5.71 Table 8. Crack growth rates of Specimen B1CT09 (304 SS, ~so dpa) in low-DO high-purity water. Test Test Load Rise Retum Hold CGR in CGR Crack Test Time, Temp., DO Cond. Ratio Time, T ime, Time, Krnax, t,K, Env., in Air, Length , Period h oc PPb µSiem s s s MPam 112 MPam 112 mis mis Mm Start 0 .4 5.710 Page 19 of 30

a 5.3 315 8 0.06 0.34 0.38 0.38 0.12 11.5 7.6 5.12E-10 1.25E-08 5.714 b 24.7 314 0.33 0.39 0.39 0.11 12.5 8.3 negligible 1.64E-08 5.714 C 46.7 315 0.33 0.39 0.39 0.11 13.5 9.0 negligible 2.09E-08 5.713 d 50.9 314 0.33 0.40 0.40 0.10 14.5 9.7 negligible 2.64E-08 5.717 e* 80.6 315 0.30 0.41 0.41 0.09 14.9 10.5 2.98E-09 3.22E-08 5.757 fl 99.2 314 0.31 0.40 0.40 0.10 15.1 10.5 1.77E-08 3.32E-08 5.934 G 114.0 314 0.40 1.93 1.93 0.57 14.5 8.9 2.49E-10 4.35E-09 5.948 h' 137.3 314 0.35 0.79 0.79 0.21 15.1 9.9 4.13E-09 1.43E-08 6.103 il 166.1 314 8 0.06 0.39 1.92 1.92 0.58 15.0 9.1 2.38E-09 4.74E-09 6.204 J 209.9 314 0.45 3.73 3.73 1.27 14.8 8.1 3.20E-10 1.79E-09 6.228 k' 234.3 314 0.45 1.49 1.49 0.51 15.2 8.3 2.48E-09 4.78E-09 6.314 L 281.6 314 0.50 3.63 3.63 1.37 15.0 7.5 2.75E-10 1.45E-09 6.333 M 290.4 314 0.50 1.84 1.84 0.66 15.9 7.9 2.llE-09 3.49E-09 6.352 n 307.5 314 0.50 3.68 3.68 1.32 15.9 8.0 7.23E-10 l.77E-09 6.368 0 331.1 314 0.49 7.38 3.69 2.62 16.1 8.1 3.64E-10 9.30E-10 6.387 p 354.5 314 0.49 22.2 3.70 7.82 16.0 8.1 2.llE-10 3.07E-10 6.396 q 378.0 314 0.45 75.8 9.09 24.2 16.3 8.7 2.17E-10 1.14E-10 6.410 r 402.1 314 8 0.06 0.48 186.3 8.94 63.7 16.2 8.5 l.70E-10 4.20E-11 6.417 s 425.9 314 0.47 373.9 8.97 126.1 16.3 8.6 l .09E* l0 2.17E*11 6.425 t 449.7 314 0.47 746.1 8.95 253.9 16.2 8.6 6.93E*11 l.08E-11 6.428 1 570.0 314 8 0.06 0.50 12 12 7200 16.4 8.2 1.20E-11 9.97E-13 6.439 2 714.3 314 1 . . 16.6 7.98E* l2 . 6.448 u 737.7 314 8 0.06 0.48 191.6 9.20 58.4 19.8 10.3 6.39E-10 7.77E-11 6.500 V 762 314 0.53 373.6 8.97 126.4 19.8 9.3 2.17E-10 2.99E*11 6.514 w 786.3 314 0.55 739.1 8.87 260.9 19.9 8.9 1.48E-10 1.35E-11 6.522 3 882.1 314 0.55 12 12 7200 20.1 9.0 l.75E-ll 1.43E*12 6.530 4 1050.6 314 8 0.06 1 . 20.2 l.24E-11 . 6.540 X 1073.6 314 0.59 189.6 9.10 60.4 24.9 10.1 8.29E-10 8.22E-11 6.600 y 1105.6 314 0.62 371.7 8.92 128.3 25.0 9.4 2.37E-10 3.37E-11 6.617 z 1145.7 314 0.62 744.4 8.93 255.6 25.1 9.5 l.77E-10 1.74E-11 6.639 5 1241.6 314 8 0.06 0.62 12 12 7200 25.2 9.6 2.46E-ll l.85E-12 6.647 6 1433.9 314 1 - . 25.3 l.04E-11 . 6.657 Complete 1 Crack growth rate at the later part of the test period is reported. 8.2 CGR/JR test on Specimen B1CT10 The CGR/JR test on Specimen B1CT10 has been initiated previously. The sample is a 1/4T-CT specimen cut from the baffle plate B1 E. The accumulated displacement damage for this sample is about 40 dpa. The specimen ID is marked with four grooves (one deep groove on the back surface, and three shallow grooves on the top surface) based on the Studsvik's sample fabrication report (Fig. C.4 in the report). These ID markings have been verified with the optical images shown in Figure 19. Table 9 shows the dimensions of the specimen provided by Studsvik. Five dimensions highlighted in yellow are out of the tolerances. Four of the out-of-range dimensions are not critical, but the value of L3 is essentially the crack length. An inaccurate value of crack length may give rise to an inaccurate K. However, since we will be able to correct the crack length using post-test measurements with SEM images, a certain level of uncertainty is acceptable during the test. Thus, the sample is deemed to be adequate for testing, and a larger than usual post-test correction is anticipated for this sample. The dimensions to be used in the test are summarized in Table 10. In addition, one of the angular holes in this sample is too deep and penetrates its neighboring loading pin hole. This may cause an unexpected contact Page 20 of 30

between the loading pin and potential lead, leading to an unstable contact resistance at the potential leads. Special care will be needed during sample installation to avoid such a contact. (b) (c) Figure 19. Specimen BlCTlO, a 40-dpa CT sample cut from the baffle plate BlE. (a) The front view of the specimen, and (b) and (c) the ID markings on the sample. Table 9. Sample dimensions provided by Studsvik (in mm) Sample ID Bl 82 83 84 BS DI D2 LI* L3* L6 L7 WI W2 W3 Nominal values 7.00 7.00 0.79 3.3 3.3 3.00 3.00 12.00 5.75 2.00 2.00 6.50 0.33 0.33 Tolerances +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 0.05 0.05 +/-0.1 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.l +/-0.05 +/-0.05 B ICT I0 6.92 6.97 0.80 tl.22> 3.37 3.02 3.03 11 .90 6.52 1.93 1.96 6.47 0.32 0.28 Table 10. Dimensions for Specimen BlCTlO (in mm) w B Bnet 11.90 6.47 5.87 5.52 The sample was initially installed four months ago. After the autoclave was sealed, the system was pressurized to ~1800 psig, and heated slowly to ~315°C. A small tensile load about 20 lbs was maintained on the sample during the heating. After the sample was soaked in the PWR water for 8 days, the test was started with cyclic loading. The lnstron tower was tripped several times after only several dozen cycles. During the trips, a significant displacement of ~50 mils was registered on the LVDT, leading to a suspicion that the sample had already broken. A Page 21 of 30

decision was made to cool down and depressurize the system. After the autoclave was open, the sample was found intact and not damaged. It appears that the trips were caused by a signal issue related to the lnstron controller. Since both cell 1 and 2 systems share one single hydraulic pump, to avoid any risk affecting the cell 2 test, we decided to wait until the completion of the cell-2 test before troubleshooting the cell-1 lnstron system. After the completion of the Cell 2 test, the hydraulic pump was shut down, and the hydraulic line connecting the hydraulic pump to the Cell-1 actuator was examined. Two components controlling the oil flow into the cell-1 actuator were replaced to eliminate any potential issue of hydraulic flow. In the meantime, we also modified all the LabView data acquisition codes, changing all GPIB functions to VISA functions. This is recommended by National Instrument for communicating with various instruments because some old GPIB commands may have compatibility issues with newer computer systems. After the sample was re-installed, the system was pressurized and heated to the test condition. The sample was then soaked in the test environment for 6 days before the cyclic CGR test was started with a triangle waveform at 0.5 Hz. Once the cyclic loading started, the DCPD reading became unstable and oscillated as shown in Figure 20a. Obviously, this wide swing of DCPD reading was not sample's response, but rather an indication of the unstable contact of potential leads. It appears that the loading pin was in contact with the potential lead, giving rise to an oscillating contact resistance. After multiple attempts to correct this problem, a stable DCPD reading was eventually obtained by swapping the potential and current leads (as shown in Figure 20b). Although this wiring pattern is not ideal for DCPD measurement, the potential drop across the crack month should response to the change of crack size. We decided to continue this test and make any necessary correction later with post-test SEM measurements. In the following test periods, quite aggressive loading conditions were applied to the sample to initiate cracking. After repeated attempts over 100 hours, no crack growth was observed even at a Kmax as high as 18 MPa m112 (Figure 20c). It appears that the sensitivity of the DCPD measurement was reduced too much with the new wiring pattern and no adequate CGR measurement can be attained. The test had to be stopped and the sample removed. This sample will be moved to cell 2 to enlarge the damaged angular hole, and to re-attach a set of DCPD wires. In the meantime,. a new sample will be _installed and tested in the cell 1 system. I I I  ! I 5.8 i . i !30 (a)

                                                                                        !25 5.7                                                               :         ~

120  ;:E

                                                                                                    ~
                                                                                        !15 ~
                  ~

5.5

10

~

                                                                                                   ~

0

                          ..;                                                           !~
                          'iier:                                                        :: 'iier:

5.4 - -...........- - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ -- :o 10 20 i i 30 40 50 Run ti'11J (hr) Page 22 of 30

5-7 30 (b) Z-02, B1CT10, PWR water, ~315°C 25 5.6 N 20;:: e E cu S 5.5 15 D... cu 5.4 f : :!"

11) : (',I u : u

c

u 10

1!:

                                                                                                 ~
                                 ~: ~

u :u

                                                      '.~

u 5

                                &:&                   : /Y' 5 .3
                                § !B                  ' -
                                                      ' u 0

70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 Run time (hr) 5 .60 25 (c) z -02, B1CT10, PWR water, ~315°C 5.55 N 20;:: eE E

                -cu 5.50                                                                    15 ~-

cu D...

1!:

                                \"            U)

N a :!" LI

                              .,r,* {")
                                            ; ';/

Vc;i

                              -~

0:: CY, CY

                              ;i?-
                                              .s 5.45 ~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~-~~~ 10 210              220    230   240    250   260   270  280  290  300 Run time (hr)

Figure 20. Crack-length-vs.-time plot of Specimen BlCTlO (a baffle plate at 40 dpa) tested in PWR water. 8.3 CGR/JR test on Specimen ACT03 The CGR/JR test on Specimen ACT03 has been initiated previously. The sample is a 1/4T-CT specimen cut from the baffle plate "A". The accumulated displacement damage in this sample is about 15-20 dpa. The specimen ID is marked with three shallow grooves based on the Studsvik's sample fabrication report (Fig. C.5 in the report). These ID markings have been verified with the optical images shown in Figure 21. On one side of the specimen, small imperfection from EDM cutting can be seen (Figure 21 c). However, the area of the imperfection will not be stressed and thus will not have any effect on the test. Table 11 shows the dimensions of the specimen provided by Studsvik. Three dimensions highlighted in yellow are out of the tolerances. None of them is critical for determining the crack Page 23 of 30

size or stress intensity factor, and thus the sample is deemed adequate for testing. The dimensions to be used in the test are summarized in Table 12. (b) (c) Figure 21. Specimen ACT03, a 15-20-dpa CT sample cut from the baffle plate A. (a) The front view of the specimen, and (b) and (c) the ID markings on the sample. Table 11. Sample dimensions provided by Studsvik (in mm) Sample ID Bl B2 83 84 BS 01 02 Lt

• L3* L6 L7 Wt W2 W3 Nominal values 7.00 7.00 0.79 3.3 3.3 3.00 3.00 12.00 5.75 2.00 2.00 6.50 0.33 0.33 Tolerances +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 0.05 0.05 +/-0.1 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.1 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 6.98 7.01 0.80 tl.2 1 3.37 3.00 3.01 I 1.95 5.64 1.97 2.00 6.47 0.30 0.30 Table 12. Dimensions for Specimen ACT03 (in mm) w B Bnet ao 11.91 6.52 5.87 5.63 After the DCPD leads were attached to the sample, the specimen was loaded into the autoclave remotely with manipulators. The autoclave was then sealed, and the system was pressurized to ~1800 psig, and heated sllowly to ~315°C. A small tensile load about 25 lbs was maintained on the sample during the heating. The sample was soaked in the low-DO high-purity water for 5 days to stabilize the test condition.

Page 24 of 30

The cyclic CGR test was started with a triangle waveform at 0.5 Hz and a maximum stress intensity factor (Kmax) of 14.3 MPa m112 . The load ratio (R) was 0.2. It appears this initial Kmax was too low for pre-cracking, and no crack grow was observed until the Kmax was increased to 15.5 MPa m112 . The first substantial crack propagation occurred in test period i with a R of 0.3 and a frequency of 0.5 Hz. After some 70 µm crack extension, the load ratio and rise time were gradually increased to encourage the development of environmental enhancement. These changes reduced the fatigue driving force of cracking, and the crack was eventually stalled in test period /. After the crack was re-initiated in test period m with a R of 0.4 and a frequency of 0.25 Hz, another attempt was made to establish environmentally enhanced cracking. With the decline of cyclic amplitude (i.e., rising R), the measured CGR decreased consistently, but was always lower than the anticipated fatigue growth rate in air (see Figure 24). Only after the Kmax was increased to about 16 MPa m 112 , a CGR slightly below the fatigue growth rate was obtained. In the following test periods, the rise time was increased while the load ratio was held a constant. By the end of the cyclic loading test period, the measured CGR was about a factor of 4.5 higher than that of the expected fatig ue growth rate in air. The test was then set to a constant K of ~16 MPa m112 with a periodical partial unloading (PPU) every 2 hours. A SCC CGR of 7.3E-12 mis was measured over 5 µm crack extension. After the PPU was removed, the CGR only decreased slightly, to 7.0E-12 m/s. After about 190 hours, the SCC test was stopped and the sample was again cyclically loaded to increase the applied K to ~20 MPa m112

• A total of four cyclic loading periods were performed with a rise time ranging from 100 to 1000 sec. The environmental effect remained strong in this sample as shown in Figure 24. After a total of 50 µm crack extension, the test was transitioned to a constant K test with PPU every 2 hours. A CGR of 9.9E-12 m/s was recorded over ~100 hours. After the PPU was removed, the CGR was about the same initially but declined considerably after a temperature trip at the autoclave heater controller (Figure 23). The temperature trip did not cause any pressure drop in the system, and the autoclave temperature recovered after about 8 hours. The sec CGR test continued and an average CGR of 4.5E-12 m/s was recorded over 200 hours. In the next reporting period, the K level will be increased again to about 25 MPa m 112 for another SCC CGR measurement.

All CGR results obtained to date are summarized in Table 13. Figure 22 shows the time history plots of the test periods performed during this reporting period. The cyclic CGRs in water are also plotted against the anticipated fatigue growth rates in air in Fig ure 24. The SCC CGRs obtained to date are shown in Figure 25. Table 13. Crack growth rates of Specimen ACT03 (304 SS, 15-20 dpa) in low-DO high-purity water. Tes1 Tes1 Load Rise Re1um Hold COR in COR Crack Test Time, Temp.. DO Cond. Ratio Time, Time, Time, Kmax, 6 K, Env., in Air, Lenglh, Period h *c PPb µSiem s s s MPa m 112 MPa 111 112 111/s 111/s Mm Start 2.0 5.630 a 6.7 314 25 0.06 0.20 0.9 0.9 0.1 14.3 11.5 l.21E-11 l .81E-08 5.633 b 21.8 314 0.20 8.6 8.6 1.4 14.4 11.6 negligible l.84E-09 5.629 C 29.9 314 0.19 0.9 0.9 0.1 14.7 11.9 l.39E-10 2.00E-08 5.633 d 45.1 314 0.20 8.6 8.6 1.4 14.8 11.9 negligible 2.00E-09 5.631 e 55.3 314 0.30 0.9 0.9 0.1 15.2 10.6 3.20E-10 l.61E-08 5.639 f 68.7 314 0.30 4.3 4.3 0.7 15.1 10.6 negligible 3.20E-09 5.639 g 81.1 314 0.30 0.4 0.4 0.1 15.5 10.8 l.37E-09 3.40E-08 5.663 h 95.4 314 0.30 2.1 2.1 0.4 15.5 10.9 6.76E-10 6.88E-09 5.679 i 105.8 314 0.30 0.9 0.9 0.1 15.6 11.0 1.65E-09 1.76E-08 5.708 Page 25 of 30

j 117.8 314 0.30 1.7 1.7 0.3 15.8 11.1 3.43E-09 9.28E-09 5.771 kl 126.2 314 0.30 0.8 0.8 0.2 15.8 11.1 1.45E-08 1.84E-08 5.894 I 141.4 314 0.40 4.1 4.1 0.9 15.2 9.2 3.54E-10 2.29E-09 5.911 ml 165.0 314 20 0.06 0.40 1.6 1.6 0.4 15.S 9.4 4.53E-09 6.08E-09 6.028 n 189.3 314 0.45 4.0 4.0 1.0 15.4 8.4 6.61E-10 1.87E-09 6.053 0 197.9 314 0.45 2.0 2.0 0.5 15.4 8.5 1.38E-09 3.76E-09 6.072 p 236.9 314 0.45 4.0 4.0 1.0 15.3 8.4 6.34E-10 1.87E-09 6.109 q 296.9 314 0.48 7.9 3.9 2.1 15.4 8.0 1.28E-10 8.06E-10 6.126 r 314.0 314 20 0.06 0.49 7.9 4.0 2.1 15.6 8.0 1.77E-10 8.28E-10 6.133 s 335.9 314 0.49 4.0 4.0 1.0 15.8 8.1 4.97E-10 1.72E-09 6.149 t 363.8 314 0.48 23.8 4.0 6.2 15.9 8.3 1.20E-10 3.02E-10 6.159 u 406.0 314 0.47 47.8 4.0 12.2 15.9 8.4 1.14E-10 1.58E-10 6.171 V 436.5 314 0.48 119.1 9.5 30.9 16.0 8.3 1.15E-10 6.09E-11 6.181 w 477.2 314 0.47 239.0 9.6 61.0 15.9 8.4 7.92E-11 3.17E-11 6.189 X 525.3 314 0.47 398.3 9.6 101.7 15.8 8.4 6.26E-11 1.91E-11 6.197 y 551.2 314 0.46 800.1 9.6 199.9 16.1 8.6 4.SOE-11 l.02E-11 6.199 1 623.7 313 0.50 12 12 7200 16.1 8.1 7.32E-12 9.35E-13 6.204 2 717.0 313 1.0 . . 16.1 7.03E-12 . 6.210 z 741.1 314 0.56 79.8 9.6 20.2 19.6 8.6 3.85E-10 1.llE-10 6.237 aa 765.9 313 0.55 200.5 9.6 49.5 19.8 8.9 l.90E-10 4.81E-11 6.251 ab 787.8 314 0.56 399.3 9.6 100.7 19.7 8.7 l.23E-10 2.29E-11 6.257 ac 813.0 314 20 0.06 0.55 802.5 9.6 197.5 19.8 8.9 1.09E-10 1.23E* ll 6.266 3 917.4 314 0.58 12 12 7200 20.0 8.4 9.92E-12 1.15E-12 6.269 4 1175.8 314 20 0.06 1.0 . 20.0 4.SOE-12 . 6.276 In progress 1 Crack growth rate at the later part of the test period is reported. 6.30- - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-----~~~~~- (a) ACT03, 3045S, 15-20 dpa 32 Low-DO high-purity water, - 315°C

                                                '                                                                y,          28
            -     6.25                                                                                         R=0.5 E                                                W,                       X,                    1000s up,       24~
            §.                        V,                     R=05                    R=0.5                    12s down           0
            .c              1       R: 0.5      :     300s up, 12s down        500s up, 12s down                                   E 20 111 g> 6.20         : 150s up, 12s down 1 I

C. j 16 ~ CJ

                                                                                                                                     )(

12 '::,(,E 111 U 6.15 8 4 6.1 0 .__.__.__.__.__.__.__...._.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.____.__.__..__.__.____.__.__.........__.__.__.___._, 400 450 500 550 Time (h) Page 26 of 30

(b) ACT03, 304S5, 15-20 dpa 32 Low-DO high-purity water, ~315°C e 6.25 - 2. 28 E 1, Constant-load 24 in 0

         ._,                       PPU, 2 hr                                                                                                 E
         ~                                                                                                                               20  <'Cl g> 6.20                                                                                                                            C..

j 1-- - - ~ - - - - - - - - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----1 16 e

         ~
          ~
                                                                                                                                                =

12 ':,(.E 0 6.15 8 4 6.1 0 ._.__.__.__.__.._..._...._..._.__._.,_..__.__._....._..._...._..._.._.__._.,_.__.__.__.._..._...._..._.__._.,__.._, 560 580 600 620 640 660 680 700 Time (h) 6.35 ~ - - - ~ ~ - - . - - - - - - -.......- - - - - - ~ - - - - - - . . - - . (c) ACT03, 3045S, 15-20 dpa 32

                      - Low-DO high-purity water, ~315°C
                                                 '                                                                    ac,                28
         ..-.. 6.30              Z,                           aa,                           ab,                    R=0.58, E                                                                              R=0.58,            1000s up, 12s down
         .s
         ~

R=0.58, 100s up, 12s down R=0.58, 250s up, 12s down 500s up, 12s down 24 in 0 E 20 <'Cl g> 6.25 c.. Q)

         ..J                                                                                                                             16  e
         ~

(,) ('Cl

                                                                                                                                                =

12 ':,(.E 0 6.20 8 4 720 740 760 780 800 Time (h) 6.32 , (d) - ACT03, 3045S, 15-20 dpa 32 6.31 Low-DO high-purity water, ~315°C

                                                     '                                                                                   28 4

850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 Time (h) Figure 22. Crack-length-vs.-time plot of Specimen ACT03 (baffle plate A, 304 SS, 15-20 dpa) tested in low-DO high-purity water. Page 27 of 30

400 00 350 300 Cl) ca Cl) C. 250 E 200 Cl) 150 ACTemp(C) AC Heater (C)

                                           -   ACExit(C) 100 830        835         840        845           850 Run Time (h)

Figure 23. Temperature drops caused by the autoclave heater controller during the test on Specimen ACT03. 10-1 Low-DO high-purity water, ~315°C t i) 10-a

                    - E a:
                           > 10-9 C:

Cl) (!) 10-10 0 10-11 Test periods: a-I Test periods: m-y 10-12 Test periods: z-ac 10-12 10-11 10-10 10-9 10-8 10-1 10-s CGRair (m/s) Figure 24. Cyclic CGRs of Specimen ACT03 (baffle plate A, 304 SS, 15-20 dpa) tested in low- DO high-purity water. Page 28 of 30

ACT03, 15-20 dpa 10-8 Low-DO high-purity water, ~315°C Ill

                    - E cc 10-9                                  NUREG-0313 Curve
                                                                         ~

CJ 0 10-10 cu C: Q) ,,.. E

                     *;: 10-1 1 Q)

C.

                      ><              I
                                        /
                                                             ~
                                                                   ...0 w              I 10-12 I I
                                                                              ... with PPU 0    w/o PPU 10-13 4         8      12    16    20        24    28 Stress Intensity K {MP a m112)

Figure 25. sec CG Rs of Specimen ACT03 (baffle plate A, 304 SS, 15-20 dpa) tested in low-DO high-purity water. 8.4 CGR/JR test on Specimen A3CT04 The CGR/JR test on Specimen A3CT04 has been initiated during this reporting period. The sample is a 1/4T-CT specimen cut from a baffle plate further away from the reactor core, A3. The estimated displacement damage for this sample is less than 1 dpa. T he objective of this test is to provide a baseline for other tests conducted on higher dose samples. For this sample, the specimen ID is marked with a single shallow groove based on the Studsvik's sample fabrication report (Fig. C.10 in the report). These ID marking has been verified with optical images as shown in Figure 26. Table 14 shows the dimensions of the specimen provided by Studsvik. Three dimensions highlighted in yellow are out of the tolerances. Two of the three out-of-range dimensions are not critical for calculating the crack size and stress intensity factor. The other one is the depth of a side groove. It appears that the two side-grooves were uneven on this sample. As a result, the crack propagation direction may be affected slightly. Nonetheless, since this is not a critical issue for testing, the sample is deemed adequate for testing. The dimensions to be used are given in Table 15. Page 29 of 30

(a) (b) (c) Figure 26. Specimen A3CT04, a CT sample less than 1 dpa cut from the baffle plate A3. (a) The front view of the specimen, and (b) and (c) the ID markings on the sample. Table 14. Sample dimensions provided by Studsvik (in mm) Sample ID Bl B2 B3 84 BS D1 D2 Ll* L3* L6 L7 Wl W2 W3 Nominal values 7.00 7.00 0.79 3.3 3.3 3.00 3.00 12.00 5.75 2.00 2.00 6.50 0.33 0.33 Tolerances +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 0.05 0.05 +/-0.1 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 +/-0.1 +/-0.05 +/-0.05 A3CT04 7.00 7.05 0.80 5.26 3.69 3.03 3 03 11 .99 5.70 /2.08 2.00 6.50 0.36 0.23 Table 15. Dimensions for Specimen A3CT04 (in mm) w B Bnet ao 11.99 6.50 5.91 5.70 The dose rate of the sample is low enough which allow us to attach the DCPD leads with spot weld. After the specimen was installed, the autoclave was sealed, and the system was pressurized to ~1800 psig, and heated slowly to ~315°C. A small tensile load about 25 lbs was maintained on the sample during the heating. The sample was then soaked in the PWR water to stabilize the test condition. During the soaking time, the potential reading of the sample started to drift higher, and eventually caused a huge jump in the crack length estimate. The system had to be shut down for inspection. After the autoclave was open, one of the spot welds on the potential leads was found broken, causing a false reading. After this potential lead was re-attached, the autoclave was closed and pressurized and heated again to the test conditions. Currently, the sample is being soaked it the PWR water to stabilize the test condition. The cyclic CGR test will be started in the next reporting period. Page 30 of 30

Note to requester: Attachment is From: Hiser, Matthew immediately following. Sent: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:59 :16 +0000 To: Audra in, Margaret;Purtscher, Patrick;Tregon ing, Robert

Subject:

FW: RE: ANL Harvesting Trip Attachments: IML materials.xlsx Sharing this spreadsheet from Viren at ANL (Rob wasn't on the initial email chain) . It's probab ly a good initial stab at what ANL has available in terms of irrad iated materials. From: Chen, Viren [2] Sent: Friday, November 17, 201711 :12 AM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Pat rick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE : ANL Harvesting Trip Meg, and Pat, I think you can contact Ken for SG materials. Recently, Ken and I also compiled a list of irradiated materials available at Argonne. Please see the attached excel file . I still need to improve this table to include more details about their heat treatment conditions and actual doses. Most of these samples are small TEM disks and miniature tensile samples (gauge section : 0.3x0.06x0.03" ), but we do have a few 1/4T-CT samples left from previous programs. Please let me know what we can help w ith this effort.

Thanks, Viren

Untested irradiated mate rials at IML Mat erial Type Source Heat IDs Heat treat ment Sample fot m Dose: Numbet o f samples Co mm ents Avallablllty of Atchl>Je m at erial Various heats, some 304, 316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 Various SA, CW, GBE TEMdisks S dpa -20 IDs are illegible. Some are available Various heats, some 304,316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 Various SA, CW, GBE TEMdisks 10 dpa -20 IDs are illegible. Some are available Various heats, some 304,316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 Various SA, CW, GBE TEMdisks 40 dpa -25 IDs are illegible. Some are available 347, 304 BOR-W 31664/CW, GBE304 SA, GB E Small t ensi le 5 dpa 2 no 316TI ,CH BOR-W 625, 52, 59 SA, as-cast Small t ensi le 10 dpa 4 no Cf-3, CF-8 BOR-60 68, 69 as*cast Small t ensi le 40 dpa 4 yes 304 Halden* I, and II 1 Sensitized at 600C 1/4T 2 1 no 304, 304L, 316 with d ifferent Some tensile samples Sor Ni cont ent s Halden-I, and II va ri ous lab heat SA, GBE Tensi le 0.5*2 IS are bent. No Cf-3,CF*8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52161 As cast, or aged TEMdisks 0.1 25 EKposu re rate is high Yes CF-3, CF-8 Halden*lll 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or ag.ed TEMdlsks 3 40 E,iposure rate Is high Yes SS weld Halden-I ll  ? as weld TEMdisks 0.1 2 Exposu re rate is high Yes SS weld Halden*III  ? as weld TEMdisks 3 2 Exposu re rate is high Yes 304, 304L, 316 Halden*III CI0, Cl9, AS, CR solution*annealed TEMdisks 0.1 15 E,iposu re rate is hish No 304, 304L. 316 Halden-Ill ClO, C19, AS, CR solution-annea led TEMdisks 3 IS Exposu re rate is high No CF-3, CF-8 Halden*III 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast or aged l/4T 0.1 4 bposure rate is high Yes CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, S2, 61 As cast, or aged 1/4T 3 2 Exposu re rate is high Yes 55 weld Halden-Ill  ? as weld 1/4T 3 I bposu re rate is high Yes 304, 304L, 316 Halden-I ll Cl0, C19, AS, CR solution-annealed 1/4T 3 4 E1t.posu re rate is high No CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or ae_ed sma ll t ensile 3 18 E,iposure rate Is high Yes SS weld Halden-Ill  ? as weld sma ll tensile 3 2 EKposu re race is high Yes 304, 304L, 316 Halden-Ill Cl0, C19, AS, CR solutlon*annea led sma ll t ensile 3 6 [,iposure rate Is hlgh No 304, weld Zorita  ?  ? TEM 0.1-S0 4 No 304, weld Zorita  ?  ? Small tensile 0.1-S0 7 No 304, weld Zorita  ?  ? l/4T 0.1*52 14 No Alloy 82+Alloy 182 V C Summer  ?  ? l/2T*CT negligible s No Alloy 82 +Alloy 182 V C Summer  ?  ? tensile negligible 3 No Alloy 600+Alloy 182 Davis-Besse  ?  ? 1/4T, 1/ZT negligible 6 no

Note to requester: Attachment is immediately following . From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Tue, 15 May 2018 13 :12:13 +0000 To: Purtscher, Patrick Cc: Audrain, Margaret

Subject:

Harvested Materials Template Attachments: IML materi als_update.xlsx Hi Pat, This is the latest version of the harvested materials input from ANL that I have. Do you have a newer version? I'm looking for the best template to feed to Battelle for them to input their materials ... Thanks! Matt

Untested irradiated materials at IML Availability of Dose, Number of unirradiated Material Type Source Heat IDs Heat treatment Sample form dpa samples Comments Archive material 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316LN SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE TEM disks 5 ~20 illegible. GBE304, C21 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE TEM disks 10 ~20 illegible. GBE304, C21 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE 20 ~15 illegible. GBE304, C21 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE TEM disks 48 ~25 illegible. GBE304, C21 347, 304 BOR-60 316642CW, GBE304 SA, GBE Small tensile 5 2 - no 316Ti, CF-3 BOR-60 625, 52,59 SA, as-cast Small tensile 10 4 - no CF-3, CF-8 BOR-60 68, 69 as-cast Small tensile 48 4 - yes Sensit ized 304 Halden II 10285 Sensitized at 600 C 1/4T 0.75 2 - Yes Sensitized 304 Halden II 10285 Sensitized at 600 C l/4T 2 1 - Yes Lab heats of 304, 304L, 316 with different Some samples Sor Ni contents Halden-I, and II various lab heats SA, GBE Tensile 0.5-2 15 are bent. No CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged TEM disks 0.1 25 High exposure Yes CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged TEM disks 3 40 High exposu re Yes SS w eld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld TEM disks 0. 1 1 High exposu re Yes SS weld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld TEM disks 3 1 High exposure Yes 304, 304L,316 Halden-Ill ClO, Cl9, AS, CR solution-annealed TEM disks 0.1 15 High exposu re No 304, 304L, 316 Halden-Ill Cl0, Cl 9, AS, CR solution-annealed TEM disks 3 15 High exposure No CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged 1/ 4T 0.1 4 High exposure Yes CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged 1/4T 3 2 High exposure Yes SS weld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld 1/4T 3 1 High exposu re Yes 304, 304L, 316 Halden-Ill Cl0, Cl 9, AS, CR solution-annealed 1/4T 3 4 High exposure No CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged small tensile 3 18 High exposure Yes SS w eld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld small tensile 3 2 High exposure Yes 304, 304L,316 Halden-Ill C10, C19, AS, CR solution-annealed small tensile 3 6 High exposure No

304, weld Zorita Zorita Baffle plate  ? TEM 0.1-50 4 High exposure No 304, w eld Zorita Zorita Baffle plate  ? Small tensile 0.1-50 7 High exposure No 304, w eld Zorita Zorita Baffle plate  ? 1/4T 0.1-52 14 High exposure No Alloy 82+Alloy 182 V C Summer hotleg nozzle-to-pipe weld ? 1/2T-CT negligible 5 No dose No Alloy 82+Alloy 182 V C Summer hotleg nozzle-to-pipe weld ? tensile negligible 3 No dose No Alloy GOO+Alloy 182 Davis-Besse CROM nozzole #3  ? l/4T, l /2T negligible 6 No dose No

RPV materials acquired from previous NRC programs Material Type Source Heat IDs / location Heat treatment Current storage A533-Gr. B low-alloy steel Midland Lower head  ?  ? A212 Gr. B steel Shipping Port Neutron Shield tank  ?  ? CASS and SS weld acquired from NRC programs Material Type Source Heat IDs/ location Heat treatment Sample form CF-3 ESCO Foundry 51,52,69 As cast, or aged 1T blocks or Charpy samples CF-8 ESCO Foundry 59,61,68 As cast, or aged 1T blocks or Charpy samples CF-8M ESCO Foundry 73, 75 As cast, or aged 1T blocks or Charpy samples CF-8 KRB Reactor pump cover plate Aged  ? Stainless Steel weld Grand Gulf Baffle plate  ? Plate 1" thick

Note to requester: Attachment is immediately following. From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:31 :49 +0000 To: Tregoning, Robert;Hiser, Matthew;Audrain, Margaret

Subject:

FW: Re : follow up on harvesting Attachments: IML materials_update.xlsx FYI from December meeting at ANL. Pat From: Natesan, Krishnamurti l.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 10:41 AM To: Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick .Purtscher@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re : follow up on harvesting Thanks. I am attaching the spreadsheet on inventory of irradiated materials. Ken

Untested irradiated materials at IML Availability of Dose, Number of unirradiated Material Type Source Heat IDs Heat treatment Sample form dpa samples Comments Archive material 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316LN SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE TEM disks 5 ~20 illegible. GBE304, C21 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE TEM disks 10 ~20 illegible. GBE304, C21 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE 20 ~15 illegible. GBE304, C21 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE TEM disks 48 ~25 illegible. GBE304, C21 347, 304 BOR-60 316642CW, GBE304 SA, GBE Small tensile 5 2 - no 316Ti, CF-3 BOR-60 625, 52,59 SA, as-cast Small tensile 10 4 - no CF-3, CF-8 BOR-60 68, 69 as-cast Small tensile 48 4 - yes Sensit ized 304 Halden II 10285 Sensitized at 600 C 1/4T 0.75 2 - Yes Sensitized 304 Halden II 10285 Sensitized at 600 C l/4T 2 1 - Yes Lab heats of 304, 304L, 316 with different Some samples Sor Ni contents Halden-I, and II various lab heats SA, GBE Tensile 0.5-2 15 are bent. No CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged TEM disks 0.1 25 High exposure Yes CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged TEM disks 3 40 High exposu re Yes SS w eld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld TEM disks 0. 1 1 High exposu re Yes SS weld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld TEM disks 3 1 High exposure Yes 304, 304L,316 Halden-Ill ClO, Cl9, AS, CR solution-annealed TEM disks 0.1 15 High exposu re No 304, 304L, 316 Halden-Ill Cl0, Cl 9, AS, CR solution-annealed TEM disks 3 15 High exposure No CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged 1/ 4T 0.1 4 High exposure Yes CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged 1/4T 3 2 High exposure Yes SS weld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld 1/4T 3 1 High exposu re Yes 304, 304L, 316 Halden-Ill Cl0, Cl 9, AS, CR solution-annealed 1/4T 3 4 High exposure No CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged small tensile 3 18 High exposure Yes SS w eld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld small tensile 3 2 High exposure Yes 304, 304L,316 Halden-Ill C10, C19, AS, CR solution-annealed small tensile 3 6 High exposure No

304, weld Zorita Zorita Baffle plate  ? TEM 0.1-50 4 High exposure No 304, w eld Zorita Zorita Baffle plate  ? Small tensile 0.1-50 7 High exposure No 304, w eld Zorita Zorita Baffle plate  ? 1/4T 0.1-52 14 High exposure No Alloy 82+Alloy 182 V C Summer hotleg nozzle-to-pipe weld ? 1/2T-CT negligible 5 No dose No Alloy 82+Alloy 182 V C Summer hotleg nozzle-to-pipe weld ? tensile negligible 3 No dose No Alloy GOO+Alloy 182 Davis-Besse CROM nozzole #3  ? l/4T, l /2T negligible 6 No dose No

RPV materials acquired from previous NRC programs Material Type Source Heat IDs / location Heat treatment Current storage A533-Gr. B low-alloy steel Midland Lower head  ?  ? A212 Gr. B steel Shipping Port Neutron Shield tank  ?  ? CASS and SS weld acquired from NRC programs Material Type Source Heat IDs/ location Heat treatment Sample form CF-3 ESCO Foundry 51,52,69 As cast, or aged 1T blocks or Charpy samples CF-8 ESCO Foundry 59,61,68 As cast, or aged 1T blocks or Charpy samples CF-8M ESCO Foundry 73, 75 As cast, or aged 1T blocks or Charpy samples CF-8 KRB Reactor pump cover plate Aged  ? Stainless Steel weld Grand Gulf Baffle plate  ? Plate 1" thick

Note to requester: The box containing the X is the Outlook email attachment, which is From: Hiser, Matthew immediately following. Sent: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 19:37:00 +0000 To: Miller, Kenneth A

Subject:

FW: Harvesting Prioritization Attachments: RE: Materials Harvesting Hi Kenn, I reached out to Tom Koshy to meet earlier this week regarding harvesting of electrical components following our meeting back in May (summary email attached). Tom indicated he's on rotation, but I should reach out to you (below). Have you guys been able to make any progress on prioritizing harvesting needs for electrical components? 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

---

Origi na I Appointment-----

From: Koshy, Thomas Sent: Monday, July 09, 2018 12:51 PM To: Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

Declined: Harvesting Prioritization When: Monday, July 09, 2018 3:00 PM-3:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-10A73-8p I am on rotation to NRR Get Kenn Miller to participate

Note to requester: This email is the attachment from the previous page. All the attachments to this email are immediately following. From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Wed, 16 May 2018 14:35:54 +0000 To: Purtscher, Patrick;Tregoning, Robert;Audrain, Margaret;Sircar, Madhumita;Pires, Jose;Koshy, Thomas;Murdock, Darrell;Philip, Jacob Cc: Miller, Kenneth A;Christensen, Jason

Subject:

RE: Materials Harvesting Attachments: Harvesting Needs Prioritization 5-16-18.xlsx, IML materials_update.xlsx, NRC Technical Data Needs for Harvesting.pptx Thanks everyone for attending the meeting this morning. Tappreciate the update on activities for electrical and concrete and have attached the documents that were printed out this morning. Action Ttems for Metals, Concrete, and Electrical I. Use prioritization criteria to prioritize data needs for harvesting in each area.

2. Catalog any previously harvested materials that may be available at labs.

3. Identify relevant information from license renewal documents for decommissioning plants Thanks!

Matt

           -----Original Appointment-----

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Monday, May 07, 2018 3:56 PM To: Hiser, Matthew; Purtscher, Patrick; Tregoning, Robert; Audrain, Margaret; Sircar, Madhumita; Pires, Jose; Koshy, Thomas; Murdock, Darrell; Philip, Jacob Cc: Miller, Kenneth A; Christensen, Jason

Subject:

Materials Harvesting When: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:00 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: TI 0D40 Rescheduling for hopefully a better time for eve1yone. We'd like to meet with electrical and concrete research staff to discuss the latest status of the materials harvesting activities under Task 2 of UNR NRR-2017-006. The four topics we'd like to update you on / discuss in this meeting are: I. CMB staff development of prioritization criteria for harvesting needs and lessons learned from exercising them for metals

2. CMB staff effort to development inventory of previously harvested materials already available at lab facilities

3. Latest status of harvesting plans for electrical and concrete components

4. Pulling relevant information from license renewal documents for decommissioning plants

Criteria Title Description Scoring Guidance H = high risk significance/ little to no available data MH = Medium-high risk significance/ limited data available Crilicalness of Technical Gap Harvesting to address critical gaps should be prioritized over less M = Moderate risk significance/ some Addressed essential 1cchnieal gaps data available ML = low to moderate risk slgnficance / H = High sufficient data available for regulatory MH = Medium-high decisions M = Medium L = Low risk significance/ large amount ML= Medium-low of data available L = Low Key considcrntions are the case of laborn1ory re1,licatio11 of aging H = Nearly Impossible to replicate mechanism and unique. field aspects of the aging mechanism. service enviroment / critically important Dcgradaiion mechanisms 1h01 arc harder to rcplicn1c with simulated to use harvested materials aging conditions would be of higher priority for harvesting. For MH = Challenging to replicate service example, simultaneous thermal and irradiation condi1ions arc enviroment / Important to use harvested difficult to replicate outs ide of the p lant environme nt. Alternatively, materials Importancc of Harvested accelerated aging may not be feasible for a mechanism sensitive to M = Possible w ith some limitat ions to Materials over Laboratory Aging dose rate. These two degradatrion mechanisms may be best evaluated replicate service enviroment I moderately using harvested materials. For unique field aspcc1s, legacy nrntcrials important to use harvested materials (e.g., fabrication me thods, composition) that are no longer available, ML= Not challenging to replicate service but may pli1y an important role in a potential degradat ion enviroment / less important to use mechanism, would have a higher priority than harvesting materials harvested materials that can be obiaincd from other sources wilh rcprcseniative L = V&ry easy to replicate service properties. envlroment / not Important to use harvested materials H = All plants There is greater value in developing knowledge to address an issue MH=AII PWRs Applicability 10 US Operating thal may be appl icable to a larger number ol'plants compared to one M = All BWRs or most PWRs Fleet that may only affect a relatively small number of plants. ML= 15 plants L = <5 plants H = No or very limited inspection methods available / low confidence In AMPs If mature inspection methods exist and are easy to apply to mo nitor MH = Limited Inspection methods degradation, harvesting may be less valuable. If inspect ion methods available/ low-to-moderate confidence i n Regulatory Cons;derations do not exist. harvesting may be essential to ensure confidence in the AMPs Related to Inspections and /\MPs assessment of age-related degradation in that particular M = Some inspection methods available / component.The less confidence that NRC statThas in the moderate confidence In AMPs effectiveness of the relevant AMP, the higher priority for harvesting. ML = Good inspection methods available

                                                                                                           / medium-high confidence In AMPs L = Effective, well-accepted Inspection methods exist / high confidence In AMPs H = Highly irradiated (>5 dpa)
                                /\c1ivitics with higher costs and complexity are less atlractivc than      MH = Lightly Irradiated / contam inated s imilar activities wirh lower costs and lhnt are s impler to execute .. M = Minimal contam ination or high effort Harves1ing cos1 and complexity   For cxam1>lc, ltarvcs1ing unirmdiatcd concrclc or electrical cables is     unlrradlated less expensive and less complex than harvest ing from the RPV              ML= Unirradiated, moderate effort internals or 11te RPV.                                                     expected L = Unlrradlated, low effort expected The ability of a potential harvesting program to provide timely results to support either a 1echnical or regulatory need is important.

Timeliness of results Having high confidence lhat rcsuhs will be timely increases the priority. Avai labili1y of ma1erials for The availabi lity of materials to harvest for a pan icular dala ne.ed is harvesting clearly essential and increases the priority.

Ba.slelnfo Technleal Criteria Prolect Soeclflc Importance of Harvested Cost I Complexity Availability of Purpos* I Test ing Criticalness of TCK:hnlcal Rogul.atOl')I ConsiMrations Timeliness of N eed Description Teehnlcal Knowtedge Gained M*terl.ats over U boratory Appflcabilfty to US Operetlat9 Fleet Score Avet'age BHls for Priority mateNls for Planned Gap Addressed Related to Inspections and AMPs results A ina harvutina METALS Vaid swelling. mechanical likely extent of void s.weiltng 1n PWRs during extended operation and Sco,e Comment Sc~* Comment Sc= Comment Score Comment:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 =*     Comment 1Monh ~ence 1eac1ot intemats nt....--t..s, lASCC        im.-.-t oo crad:'ino                                                                                                                                                                                                        TSO              TBO Fracture tous;tlneSs dala ln real Therm..., aged unirradiated Fracture tougMe:Ss and     oondi6ons 10 compcWe tlO accder81ed CASS                        microstructura             a""'"data Moderate lluence (1*2 d~)   Frac:ru-e tougMe1>s 1;md   Fraclure I~        $$ data nel;M'" lirrit CASS                        m5ctostructure             r-..rinn. further evaluabon Oetsnnaie whether sec mitigation med'lods are effective at preven1Xlg Metallic components with    NOE and destructiY9 8.1(8m.\alion s ec: ettectrveness or NOE at detection and Sil:lno Metallic comc:ionents with  N OE and destrudJYe        Detennl"le whether f a ~ flaws are limitina £12'ino*elite      @XBmmation                  resen1 in hiah usaae locarions

Ba.slelnfo Technleal Criteria Prolect Soeclflc Importance of Harvested Cost I Complexity Availability of Purpos* I Test ing Criticalness of TCK:hnlcal Rogul.atOl')I ConsiMrations Timeliness of N eed Description Teehnlcal Knowtedge Gained M* terl.ats over U boratory A ppflcabilfty to US Operetlat9 F leet Score Avet'age BHls f or Priority mateNls for Planned Gap Addressed Related to Inspections and AMPs results A ina harvutina METALS H19h ffuence t e acto( intemab Thermalfy aged lri'radiated Sco,e Comment Sc~* Comment Sc= Comment Score Comment:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  =*     Comment TBO              TBD CASS Moderate ftoence (1*2 dpa)

CASS Metamc components with ""°"" ,,_ Metalllc ~ onenrs with limitina raiaue life

Ba.slelnfo Technleal Criteria Prolect Soeclflc Importance of Harvested Cost I Complexity Availability of Purpos* I Test ing Criticalness of TCK:hnlcal Rogul.atOl')I ConsiMrations Timeliness of N eed Description Teehnlcal Knowtedge Gained M* terl.ats over U boratory A ppflcabilfty to US Operetlat9 F leet Score Avet'age BHls f or Priority mateNls for Planned Gap Addressed Related to Inspections and AMPs results A ina harvutina METALS H19h ffuence t e acto( intemab Thermalfy aged lri'radiated Sco,e Comment Sc~* Comment Sc= Comment Score Comment:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  =*     Comment TBO              TBD CASS Moderate ftoence (1*2 dpa)

CASS Metamc components with ""°"" ,,_ Metalllc ~ onenrs with limitina raiaue life

Untested irradiated materials at IML Availability of Dose, Number of unirradiated Material Type Source Heat IDs Heat treatment Sample form dpa samples Comments Archive material 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316LN SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE TEM disks 5 ~20 illegible. GBE304, C21 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE TEM disks 10 ~20 illegible. GBE304, C21 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE 20 ~15 illegible. GBE304, C21 2333, 623, 625, C21, Some IDs are 304, 316 SSs, and 690 BOR-60 GBE304, GBE316, GBE690 SA, CW, GBE TEM disks 48 ~25 illegible. GBE304, C21 347, 304 BOR-60 316642CW, GBE304 SA, GBE Small tensile 5 2 - no 316Ti, CF-3 BOR-60 625, 52,59 SA, as-cast Small tensile 10 4 - no CF-3, CF-8 BOR-60 68, 69 as-cast Small tensile 48 4 - yes Sensit ized 304 Halden II 10285 Sensitized at 600 C 1/4T 0.75 2 - Yes Sensitized 304 Halden II 10285 Sensitized at 600 C l/4T 2 1 - Yes Lab heats of 304, 304L, 316 with different Some samples Sor Ni contents Halden-I, and II various lab heats SA, GBE Tensile 0.5-2 15 are bent. No CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged TEM disks 0.1 25 High exposure Yes CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged TEM disks 3 40 High exposu re Yes SS w eld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld TEM disks 0. 1 1 High exposu re Yes SS weld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld TEM disks 3 1 High exposure Yes 304, 304L,316 Halden-Ill ClO, Cl9, AS, CR solution-annealed TEM disks 0.1 15 High exposu re No 304, 304L, 316 Halden-Ill Cl0, Cl 9, AS, CR solution-annealed TEM disks 3 15 High exposure No CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged 1/ 4T 0.1 4 High exposure Yes CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged 1/4T 3 2 High exposure Yes SS weld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld 1/4T 3 1 High exposu re Yes 304, 304L, 316 Halden-Ill Cl0, Cl 9, AS, CR solution-annealed 1/4T 3 4 High exposure No CF-3, CF-8 Halden-Ill 68, 69, 52, 61 As cast, or aged small tensile 3 18 High exposure Yes SS w eld Halden-Ill Grand Gulf Baffle plate as weld small tensile 3 2 High exposure Yes 304, 304L,316 Halden-Ill C10, C19, AS, CR solution-annealed small tensile 3 6 High exposure No

304, weld Zorita Zorita Baffle plate  ? TEM 0.1-50 4 High exposure No 304, w eld Zorita Zorita Baffle plate  ? Small tensile 0.1-50 7 High exposure No 304, w eld Zorita Zorita Baffle plate  ? 1/4T 0.1-52 14 High exposure No Alloy 82+Alloy 182 V C Summer hotleg nozzle-to-pipe weld ? 1/2T-CT negligible 5 No dose No Alloy 82+Alloy 182 V C Summer hotleg nozzle-to-pipe weld ? tensile negligible 3 No dose No Alloy GOO+Alloy 182 Davis-Besse CROM nozzole #3  ? l/4T, l /2T negligible 6 No dose No

RPV materials acquired from previous NRC programs Material Type Source Heat IDs / location Heat treatment Current storage A533-Gr. B low-alloy steel Midland Lower head  ?  ? A212 Gr. B steel Shipping Port Neutron Shield tank  ?  ? CASS and SS weld acquired from NRC programs Material Type Source Heat IDs/ location Heat treatment Sample form CF-3 ESCO Foundry 51,52,69 As cast, or aged 1T blocks or Charpy samples CF-8 ESCO Foundry 59,61,68 As cast, or aged 1T blocks or Charpy samples CF-8M ESCO Foundry 73, 75 As cast, or aged 1T blocks or Charpy samples CF-8 KRB Reactor pump cover plate Aged  ? Stainless Steel weld Grand Gulf Baffle plate  ? Plate 1" thick

                    ~ U.S.NRC Uniced Scaces Nuclear Regulacory Commission Protecting People and the Environment N RC High-Priority Data Needs for Harvesting NRC Staff March 7, 2017

Metals

• RPV High fluence & high shift vessel with well-established unirradiated properties (or a means to estimate them)
• Through thickness section to validate fluence & attenuation models
• Measure fluence, toughness, & chemistry as a function of through-thickness position Samples from virtually any vessel
• Of sufficient size to enable measurement of both the Charpy transition curve and master curve transition temperature T0
• Th is testing

            - Enables demonstration of the conservatism of regulatory approaches for transition temperature prediction
            - Provides data supporting evolution from the use of correlative (Charpy-based) to direct measurement (fracture toughness-based) approaches 2                                                                    ~ U.S.NRC Unlml Statct Ncacln r Rqub1ory Commu,>>o*

Prorttting Ptrople and th, £n11il '()nmntt

Metals

• CASS and Internals High fluence reactor internals

       * >50 dpa 304 SS from high core outlet temp plant

• Bounding temperature and high fluence for void swelling Thermally aged unirradiated CASS

       * >30 years at ~320°C; Validate accelerated aging data Moderate fluence (1-2 dpa) CASS

• Bolster technical basis for embrittlement in this fluence range
• Components with known flaws

    - Example: weld overlays over known flaws

• NDE evaluations or to assess effectiveness of mitigation techniques
• Components with limiting fatigue life Confirm fatigue calculations are accurate by inspecting for flaws 3 ~ U.S.NRC Unlml Statct Ncacln r Rqub1ory Commu,>>o*

Prorttting Ptrople and th, £n11il '()nmntt

Electrica I

• Cables

    -   Low and medium voltage cables
    -   Cables protected with fire retardant coating

• Electrical components 1E MOVs from harsh and mild environments 1E Air operated valves; 4160 1E breakers 1E Molded case breakers 480V, 250V DC, 125 VDC, lE Relays from mild environment GE - HFA, Agastat timing relays, any from Westinghouse, Potter Brumfield, Stuthers Dunn etc.,

Electrical penetrations; Batteries

• Fi re research interest Electrical enclosures
• Distribution : switchgear, MCCs, LCs I Control : Horseshoe, SSCP, ASP, etc.

4 ~ U.S.NRC Unlml Statct Ncacln r Rqub1ory Commu,>>o* Prorttting Ptrople and th, £n11il '()nmntt

Concrete

• Structures exposed to high radiation
• Post-tensioned structures
• Corrosion of reinforcing steel, tendon, liner, embedment
• Spent fuel pool and transfer canal-boric acid attack on concrete in PWRs
• Alkali Aggregate Reaction
• Large structural sections for testing 5 ~ U.S.NRC Unlml Statct Ncacln r Rqub1ory Commu,>>o*

Prorttting Ptrople and th, £n11il '()nmntt

Note to requester: Attachment is immediately following. From: Frankl, Istvan Sent: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 13:26:44 -0400 To: Hiser, Matthew Cc: Moyer, Carol;Tregoning, Robert

Subject:

ACTION: Update - Check and Adjust: EPRI Working Agenda for June 5 and 6 (Comments due April 21) Attachments: EPRI - NRC June 5 and 6 2017 meeting agenda - Rl.docx Importance: High

Matt, Brian requested input for the upcoming rescheduled EPRI - NRC management meeting. The attached draft agenda already has harvesting under LTO Beyond 60 Years as one of the topics that Brian will present. Should we have a separate IAD topic on RVls or should regulatory research on IAD be folded in sub-topic on Research priorities for 2017 /2018?

There is also a main topic on Strategic Areas and Areas for Futme Collaboration in the agenda. Should we propose sub-topic on collaboration for further irradiation of internals, etc.? Please reply ASAP. (Our acting TA requested BC input by COB today.)

Carol, Please coordinate the CMB inputs supporting subject meeting as soon as you are back from official travel.

Thanks, Steve From: Martinez Rodriguez, Erick Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 12:26 PM To: Jung, Ian <lan.Jung@nrc.gov>; Seber, Dogan <Dogan.Seber@nrc.gov>; Iyengar, Raj

<Raj.lyengar@nrc.gov>; Frankl, Istvan <lstvan.Frankl@nrc.gov>; Boyce, Tom <Tom.Boyce@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Update - Check and Adjust: EPRI Working Agenda for June 5 and 6 (Comments due April 21)

BCs, Just a follow-up for comments on the EPRI agenda. Brian mentioned earlier this week (on Monday) of the action to review and provide comments on the EPRI agenda (attached).

Please let me know if you have comments by COB today. I will put them together and share them with Brian tomorrow (feel free to coordinate with him, that way he is already aware of any changes) before sending them to the FO. Thanks.

From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 2:42 PM To: Aird, David <David.Aird@nrc.gov>; M artinez Rodriguez, Erick <Erick.MartinezRodriguez@nrc.gov>; Algama, Don <Don.Algama@nrc.gov>; Bales, Michelle <Michel le.Bales@nrc.gov>; Armstrong, Kenneth <Kenneth .Armstrong@nrc.gov> Cc: Weber, Michael <M ichael.Weber@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Nakoski, John <John.Nakoski@nrc.gov>; Thomas, Brian <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>; Cheok, M ichael <Michael.Cheok@nrc.gov>; Case, Michael <M ichael.Case@nrc.gov>; Thaggard, Mark <Mark.Thaggard@nrc.gov>; Webber, Kimberly <Kimberly.Webber@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Update - Check and Adjust: EPRI Working Agenda for June 5 and 6 (Comments due April 18)

Folks, Attached are EPRI proposed changes to the agenda for June 5 and 6. Please provide comments against EPRl's Rev 1.

As noted below, EPRI has made changes to support a more strategic discussion on efficiencies. Appreciate division comments by COB April ~ 21 . Many thanks, Nick From: Canavan, Ken [3] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:27 AM To: Difrancesco, Nicholas <Nicholas.DiFrancesco@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: RE: Checking-in: Updated Agenda and Planning Timeline for June 5 and 6 Nick: I have solicited input from the EPRI senior leadership team. Attached is a some suggested revisions and thoughts for the agenda. We would like the agenda and meeting to become more strategic and less focus on status of what we are currently doing. Of particular interest from the EPRI side is how do we become more efficient in R&D space. Can we do more than cooperate or collaborate? Perhaps some integration on key research. In some cases are we doing too much or seeking too much precision on an activity that does not require or warrant it. Let me know your thoughts and we can have another iteration. Thanks! Ken Canavan Director, Plant Technology Electric Power Research Institute 1300 West WT Harris Blvd I Charlotte NC 28262-2867 Office No.: 704-595-2731 I Mobile: I ** l. (~)('?). Assistant: Morgan Saucier, msaucier@epr.&QID, 704-595-2466

From: Difrancesco, Nicholas Sent: Wednesday, April OS, 2017 4:32 PM To: Herrity, Thomas <Thomas.Herrity@nrc.gov>; Berrios, Ilka <llka.Berrios@nrc.gov>; Armstrong, Kenneth <Kenneth .Armstrong@nrc.gov> Cc: Weber, Michael <Michael.Weber@n rc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne .Boland@nrc.gov>; Bales, Michelle <M ichelle.Bales@nrc.gov>; Martinez Rodriguez, Erick <Erick.MartinezRodriguez@nrc.gov>; Algama, Don <Don .Algama@nrc.gov>; Aird, David <David .Aird@nrc.gov>; Nakoski, John <John .Nakoski@nrc.gov>; Thomas, Brian <Brian.Thomas@nrc.gov>; Cheok, Michael <Michael.Cheok@nrc.gov>; Case, Michael <M ichael.Case@nrc.gov>; Thaggard, Mark <Ma rk.Thagga rd@nrc.gov>; Webber, Kimberly <Kimberly.Webber@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Check and Adjust : EPRI Working Agenda for June 5 and 6

Folks, Please take a look at the draft EPRI / NRC agenda for June 5 and 6 and let me know if you would like to make any adjustments. EPRI is performing a similar review of the agenda in parallel.

Appreciate comments by COB April 18. After alignment with EPRI on the agenda , please plan for development of talking bullets by May 5. Thanks , Nick Technical Assistant Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1115

Agenda NRC/EPRI Annual Meeting June 5

• 6 , 2017 - Charlotte, NC NRC Travel Morning of June 5 EPRI Tours Wednesday June 5 Laboratory T our l&C and C)!ber Laboratoty

+2:00+                Concrete degradation Laboratory All p.m.                  Welding Laboratory NDE Laboratory Performance Demonstration Initiative 5:00 p.m.      Adjourn EPRI / NRC Discussions Tuesday June 6 Welcome and Introduction 8:00 a.m.           .. Partnership Progress o ver the last year Neil Wilmshurst
                     . EPRI Strategic Research Priorities NRC Research Priorities Mike Weber THEME: A Strategic V i!!W of Nuclear R&D with a Focus on Efficienc)!

The desire for increased efficienc)! of nuclear R&D stakeholders results in the need to be both strategic as well as investigate 01212ortunities for sim12lification and elimination of overla12. Are there research areas that could be sim12lified or eliminate to im12rove overall efficienc)!? Areas could include com12uter codes with similar missions, confirmatOQ! R&D, and others. Ar!! there an OQQQrlunities to 12erform more integrated R&D in a few ke)! areas where resources the result could be increased efficienc)!? Enhanced Advanced Tec hnology Fu el

~8:QJO                                                                  EPRI: [Raney Slark)AI Cantos a.m.                     Status of Industry and NRC Activities NRC: Michael Case Research priorities for 2017/2018 Long Term Operation {LTO) Beyond 60 Years
                      . Progress and Readiness - what remains before submittal of lead SLR 9:;!GO a.m.
                     . application Co-sponsorship of public workshop on SLR technical topics and publicly-EPRI: [Kurt Edsinger)

NRC: Brian Thomas available documentation on research

                      . progress Technical reports on Continued
                     .. Adequacy of RG 1.99 Highlights of harvesting workshop Research priorities for 2017/2018 DRAFT 3-2-17

10:00 a.m. Break Fire Analysis 10:15 a.m.

                     -**--   Future focus of fire PRA activities Future focus of fire testing EPRI: [Ken Canavan]

NRC: Mike Cheok Advanced Reactor Safety Research 10:45 a.m. .. IAP' Status Codes for non-LWRs EPRI: fKurt Edsingerj NRC: Michael Case EPRI: fKurt Edsingerj 11:15a.m. xLPR and leak-before break (LBB) analyses NRC: Brian Thomas 11:45 a.m. Lunc h Commented [CK1 ] : Perhaps we could focus on how we plan to Risk-Informed Tools and Models, Level 3 PRA Progress and Completion work together or the top 3 Items (besides fire) that w e should engage together.

                   .         Probabilistic Approach to Flooding External Hazards (i.e. non-seismic or fiood)

Future focus of Seismic PRA Modeling EPRI: fKen Canavan) 1:00 p.m. Human Reliability Analysis NRC: Mike Cheok Common-Cause Failure Uncertainty in risk informed decision

                    ..       making Aggregation of PRA results Advanced PRA methods, models, and tools Digital Instrumentation & Control Collaboration 2:00 p.m.              .. Progress during previous year Priorities for 201 712018 EPRI: IWK!i!n Canavan I Rob Au§tin NRG: Brian Thomas 2:45 p.m. Break Strategic A reas and AFeas foF Future Collaboration
                       . Radiation protection e              ReseaFCA Aeecis 3:00 p.m.
                       . Ground Water Remediation EPRI:

NRG: Michael Case, Mike Cheok

• _ Sensor and Robotics Technologies

                         . EPRI O&M Reduction I DNP Activities 1 Implementation Action Plans DRAFT 3-2-17

• _ Emerging Technologies 0 Advanced Manufacturing 0 Gen IV Materials 0 Modeling and simulation
• o SMR R&D Commented [CK2): Since we are being strategic and aligning Neil Wilmshurst (hopefully) on an Nefficiency improvement theme - can we 4:00 p.m. Review of Action Items and ~ rap-Up summarize the strate-glc areas where we integrate efforts to Mike Weber Improve overall efficiency?

5:00 p.m. Adjourn DRAFT 3-2-17

Subject:

Harvested Materials at Battelle Location: Telecon: to be added Start: Mon 5/14/2018 10:00 AM Note to requester: The Outlook email attached to this page is End: Mon 5/14/20181 1:00AM immediately following. Show Time As: Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Not yet responded Organize r: Hiser, Matthew Required Attendee ~""'(b..,.)""" (6"'")- - - - - - - - - - - - - , 1; Tregoning, Robert; 1... (b_)_ (6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _____, 1::1 11-----.. Following up from Rob's initial contact with [Ifiliill we'd like to set up a brief telecom sometime in the next few weeks to discuss what harvested materials may be available at Battelle. Please let me know if another time would be better for this call. I will be attending a training course at Edison Welding Institute in Columbus in early June, which would provide a good opportunity to potentially visit and see what materials are available if there is enough to be worthwhile. Thanks! Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer Transformation Team member US Nucllear Regulatory Commission Phone: 301-415-2454 Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov

From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Mon, 7 May 2018 14:53:38 +0000 To: Hiser, Matthew Cc: Audrain, Margaret;Purtscher, Patrick

Subject:

FW: RE: RE: Couple of things Importance: High Matt: This email has the entire thread of our discussion. Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/5 T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 (b)(6 ) .... From:..._._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____, Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:28 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) RE: RE: Couple of things Importance: High Rob, I have pictures from ou r WJ pipe facility. It is mainly cold-leg pipe with o ne section of a nozzle branch. I will try to get you the pictures today. We could support a call next week. Regards, (b)(6) Connect with me on l(b)(6) Battelle

505 King Ave. Columbus, OH 43201 http://www.battelle.org Connect with Battelle Facebook I Linkedln Twitter I YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any atlachments hereto are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential, trade secret and/or ot herwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or its substance is prohibited. lfyou have received this communication in error, please return to the sender and delete from your computer system. From: Tregoning, Robert <Robert .Tregoning@nrc.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:26 AM (b)(6) .!<?=.I......_

Subject:

FW: RE: Couple of things I just wanted to follow-up on our activity to develop an inventory of ex-plant materials that may still exist at Battelle. We would ultimately like to possibly travel up for a day to see what's left but it might be good to have a call initially with you,! . ~oseeita..trip. .i.S.J/yorthwhile. (b)(6) Is this something that you could support? Thanks, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for M at erials US Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 1:46 PM (b)(6) To*I Cc: Wallace, Jay <Jay.Wallace@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE : Couple of t hings (b)(6) Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I appreciate your comments and welcome further discussion. See my responses to your initial questions/comments below, in red .

Cheers, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 (b)(6) ...... Jre>m;J=***-** _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 1:01 PM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert .Tregoning@nrc.gov> (b)(6) Cc: .___ _....._____.=_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _....,

Subject:

[External_Sender) RE: Couple of things Importance: High Rob, Great to hear from you!! Things are well here at Battelle and also personally; I hope t he same for you. I have a couple of comments about the questions on the Round Robins and Components.

1) It is difficult for us these days to do anything without a contract. I would love t o see t he results of the round robins, but I am not sure we can participate (Trying to convince management that it is the right thing without even a hint of billable hours from the NRC in t he future is a tough sell.)

Believe me, I understand the climate but I just thought you would be interested. The final report for both projects will be made public and I can share them with you when they are complete.

2) As for the LBB Analysis Round robin, I definitely have some opinions on Cases 3 and 4 that I would like to share (hoping you can provide some insight):

a. These are SCC cracks with a morphology parameter which make take care of "twist s and turns" but the COD will still be calculated for a planar crack, not a porous media (which I am not sure what COD even means for porous media).

Agreed that this is a gross simplification of the actual geometry of a complex crack. I think we're still a little ways away from effectively modeling the effects of such a crack on COD (or leak rate for that matter) but could use sensitivity analyses to study. This is well outside the scope of the current benchmark

b. The morphology knock-down factors only effect the leak rate, not the driving force, so what is the driving force for a sec crack which has connected ligaments?

Agreed that the knock-down factors only affect leak rate; those knock-down factors also don't consider the effect of connected ligaments. As above, this is another simplification. This one, at least, is a conservative assumption.

c. Real plants have high restraint on the pipes (pumps, pressure vessels ... etc.) which restrain the crack opening (and reduce the driving force) - do any of the codes have a Restraint of Pressure Induced Bending module?

Some codes do consider the effect of end restraints on the stress state. The benchmark problem assumes freely rotated ends, again, as a simplification.

d. To my knowledge in xLPR and Pro-LOCA, WRS's only effect the K-solutions up until a TWC occurs. WRS are not accounted for in either COD or K-solutions for TWC.

You are correct; for this exercise, we plan on calculating the effect of WRS on COD outside of xLPR and then using the CODs as input to the LEAPOR (or other) leak rate code.

e. My major concern is "How can we determine the effects of Leak Rate on LBB if we are not modeling the behavior correctly or even using the correct models?" (not saying conservative I non-conservative, just not correctly). It is kind of like inferring how fast you are going by counting the number of dead bugs on your car window.

Philosophically I agree with your concern that we need to understand model uncertainty in order to properly evaluate the results of any calculation. This is been a principle concern for the xLPR program which has the objective of developing a "best estimate model". In reality, such a model is not achievable because a whole host of simplifying assumptions are required along the way (you've indicated as few of them). The best we're able to do at this point is to qualitatively assess each aspect of model uncertainly in an attempt to understand what the true biases are. LBB analyses, however, have never pretended to be best estimate analyses and they have always intended to be conservative simplifications of reality. The factors of 10 on leak rate and 1.4 on loading and 2 on crack size are intended to conservatively account for such uncertainties. This round robin obviously will not address such complexities and it is only intended to take a small step by considering the effects that different models and modeling assumptions have on an LBB problem. I recognize that such sensitivity studies are not new and that Battelle and EMCC (among others) have performed such studies around 20 years ago. However, the hope here is that we'll be able to look at these effects in other leak rate codes (e.g., PICEP) to better understand sensitive parameters. By the way, if you know the density of live bugs that you're traveling through , counting the number of dead bug is actually an effective strategy of measuring speed © (b)(6) ..... 3) Lhavecopied! - ** Ion this message because they will have more knowledge on anything "left" here. To my knowledge it was all "abandoned in place", I have nothing I am keeping track of on government tags... etc. As for pipe and or components, it may have been scrapped . (b)(6) . lappreciateyoueopyino! b n the message. Please let me know if they are able to definitively address what materials/components may or may not be left at Battelle.

(b)(6) Connectwithmeon._!_ **** _ ___, Battelle 505 King Ave. Columbus, OH 43201 http://www.battelle.org Connect with Battelle Facebook I Linkedln Twitter I YouTube CONEIPENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any attachments hereto are intended on ly for the use of the individual or entity to w hich it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidentia l, trade secret and/or ot herwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please retum to the sender and delete from your computer system. From: Tregoning, Robert (mailto:Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 8:24 AM (b)(6) .. Jg:!  ! Cc: Wallace, Jay <Jay.Wallace@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret <M argaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Pu rtscher@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Couple of things Message received from outside the Battelle network. Carefully examine it before you open any links or attachments. (b)(6) How are things going? It's been awhile since I've seen or talked to you and I hope you and your family are well. I wanted to send you this email to cover a couple of topics. The first is that we (NRC) are involved in a couple of international computational round robins that are being conducted under the auspices of NEA\CSNI. The first attachment describes the xFEM round robin which was recently approved but has yet to formally begin. I've provided the proposal description. This round robin is being coordinated by France (IRSN) and Belgium (BelV). The second attachment is an LBB round robin wh ich was approved a year or so ago, but we're really just getting rolling on this effort as well. The US (me) and Sweden (SSM) are the leads on this round robin. Let me know if you guys have any interest in possibly participating in either activity. I can also answer any questions that you many have on both of these projects. On another note, we have recently started to compile a database of ex-plant materials/components that we have accumulated through the years at various laboratories. We're trying to get a good accounting of what materials we have left for possible future research projects. Of course, we've sponsored quite a bit of work at Battelle over the years and while I'm generally aware of the projects, I'm not sure how much, if any, excess materials, components, or specimens still remain at Battelle.

Do you have a good handle on what ex-plant materials/components still exist at Battelle? (b)(6) Woulditbeworthcontactingl

• pr other past-Battelle workers to help out? We've developed a spreadsheet for the database to capture the information but I th ink we'd ultimately like to visit so that we can actually view any remains.

Thanks so much for your help with this. Warm regards, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph : 301-415-2324 fax : 301-415-6671

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:00:53 +0000 To: Audrain, M argaret;Purtscher, Patrick Cc: Tregoning, Robert

Subject:

RE: RE: Pictures, PARTRIDGE-Ill, and Experimental Leak-Rate Yeah, it might be good on Monday to reset where we are in general on harvesting:

• Metals prioritization
• Electrical/concrete prioritization
• PNNL report
• Previously harvested materials (ANL, PNNL, Battelle, ???)
• Supply database From: Audrain, Margaret Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 8:46 AM To: Hiser, M atthew <M atthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>

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

Subject:

RE: RE: Pictures, PARTRIDG E-Il l, and Experimental Lea k-Rate

Matt, Unfortunately I didn't write our discussion down and it was too long ago for me to remember.

We can discuss on Monday ifwe want to run the exercise again? Meg

---

Original Message --------

From: "Hiser, Matthew" <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov> Date: Fri, June 22, 2018 8:41 AM -0400 To: "Audrain, Margaret" < Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>, "Purtscher, Patrick" <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov> CC: "Tregoning, Robert" <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: Pictures, PARTRIDGE-III, and Experimental Leak-Rate Hey Meg, Sorry I am just getting around to looking at this now. It looks like you filled in the scores for each category, which is good . However, as you said the discussion of each topic was most valuable. Do your notes capture that discussion at all to reflect the rationale behind each need's prioritization (ie, the "basis for priority" column)? Thanks!

Matt From: Audrain, Margaret Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 20].8 12:26 PM To: Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.lPurtscher@nrc.gov>; Hiser, M at thew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov> Cc: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: Pictures, PARTRIDGE-Il l, and Experimental Leak-Rate I realize now that I owed the group the scored prioritization sheet. After adding the numbers, I think the conversation was more valuable than the actual results! From: Purtscher, Patrick Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 20].8 9:40 AM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>; Audrain, M argaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov> Cc: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: Pictures, PARTRIDGE-Il l, and Experimental Leak-Rat e I don't see any CASS materials. Some of the stainless steel pipes with welds could be of interest? That is the only material I see that is potentially of interest. What is a "Robert Cloud pipe"? Pat Sta inl

0. ess Robert Cloud pipe RC- 56 Ste 48 Inside Cold Leg A at with circ weld at mid SAWl 8 el North End length Sta inl ess Robert Cloud pipe Ste 61 with stainless steel H 8 1 el See figure to right weld at mid length From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 20].8 8:57 AM To: Audrain, Margaret <Margaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Purtscher@nrc.gov>

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

Subject : Fw: RE: Pictures, PARTRIDGE-Il l, and Experimental Leak-Rate Importance: High Hi Meg and Pat, Here's what we received back from Battelle. Any thoughts on additional information we might li ke? Thanks! Matt From:!(b)(6) Sent: Friday, June 1, 2018 11:07:32 AM To: Tregoning, Robert; Hiser, Matthew Cc: Raynaud, Patrick

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Pictures, PARTRIDGE-Ill, and Experimental Leak-Rate Rob / Matthew, Please see the attached inventory excel file. (b)(6) _____ We(mainl~ ----------- - --- Iadded a worksheet to the file entitled "Battelle Pipe Samples" with the information. Please let us know if there is anything else you need. Rod - any comments on the sec Experimental Prospectus or tlhe PARTRIDGE-Ill work scope? Regards, (b )(6) Connect with me on l(b)(6) Battelle 505 King Ave. Columbus, OH 43201 http://www.battelle.org Connect with Battelle Facebook I Linkedln Twitter I YouTube

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any auachmcnts hereto arc inlcndcd only for 1he use of 1hc individual or cnlity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidentia l, trade sccrc*t and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the inlended recipicnl or the cm1>loycc or agent responsible for delivering lhc message to lhe intended reci1>ient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribulion, copying or other use of lhis communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return to the sender and delete from your computer system. (b)(6) .. From=.!_ ..- ____.... Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:16 PM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov> Cc: 'Patrick.Raynaud@nrc.gov' <Patrick.Raynaud@nrc.gov>; 'Hiser, Matthew' (b)(6) -::l'v1atthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>;l I

Subject:

Pictures, PARTRIDGE-Ill, and Experimental Leak-Rate Importance: High Rob, I place a directory called "Pictures" on the PARTRIDGE-II BOX site. Patrick should be able to get them. I have enclosed t he PARTRIDGE-Ill Draft work scope. This may be shared as you see fit . (b)(6) .... [ : ]and I are working on getting you the Leak Rate Testing Concept Paper, you should have it later this week. (b)(6) Qverthenextseveraldays; E ]and I will go to our "bone yard" and document in information in the spreadsheet Matthew sent. Best Regards, (b )(6) Connect with me o~ (b)(6) Battelle 505 King Ave. Columbus, OH 43201 http://www.battelle.org Connect with Battelle Facebook I Linkedln Twitter I YouTube CONI*ll)ENTIAl,ITY NOTICE

This message and any attachments hereto are intended only for the use of the individua l or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential , trade secret and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this commu nication in error, please return to the sender and delete from your computer system.

From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:10:05 +0000 To: 'Smit h,. Jean' Cc: Moyer, Carol

Subject:

FW: Possible supply of high (> 15 dpa) materials for new PWR CGR test Jean: I'm very interested in your thoughts on this. Would it be possible to get material from any of the BFBs that have been recently harvested? If not, is there agreement in providing some additional Zorita material, if it can be done in such a way as to not dilute the value of the ZIRP project? We can have a call to discuss if you'd like. Warm regards, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Torill Marie Karlsen [4] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:25 AM To: 'Ekstrom, Peter' (Peter.Ekstrom@ssm.se) <Peter.Ekstrom@ssm.se>; Sm ith, Jean <jmsmith@epri.com>; Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>; Moyer, Carol <Carol.M oyer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Possible supply of high(> 15 dpa) materials for new PWR CGR test Dear all At the IASCC review meeting t hat was held in Oslo in November 2017, we discussed t he materials matrix for the new PWR crack growt h rate test that we will begin in t he first half of 2019. It was recommended that the materials matrix for the test comprise 3 low dose materials and 3 high (> 15 dpa) dose materials. The low dose CTs will be: i) a 5.2 dpa 321 SS specimen ii) t he 1 and 2 dpa Zorita weld and HAZ CTs that wil l be transferred from the BWR CGR test, IFA-791, which ends this week. Due to moisture ingress in t he dcpd cables during i rradiation

in IFA-791, no CGR data could be obtained for these two specimens and they remained in an unloaded condition throughout the test in IFA-791. For the high dose materials we wonder if it would be possible to obtain some additional high dose (e.g. 40 dpa 304 SS) Zorita CTs for inclusion in the matrix. High dose 347 SS from Zorita was also mentioned as a possibility. If these materials are a possibil ity we believe that costs for machining the specimens could be covered by the SSM in-kind contribution to the Joint Programme, which in past programme periods has also covered machining of CT specimens for the CGR tests. Other high dose materials that were mentioned were baffle bolts. Are there any high dose baffle former bolts that have been removed from the Ringhals NPPs that could be made available? Looking forward to hearing from you regarding possible sources of high dose material. Best regards Torill

Note to requester: Attachment is immediately following. From: Ahluwalia Kawa@ To: Hiser Matthew Subject : (External_Sender] RE: RE: [External] RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Presentations Date: Monday, March 6, 2017 8:14:23 AM Attachments: NRC Meeting Vattenfall Harvesting 170303.ootx

Matt, Just got them a few minutes ago. They are attached.

See you tomorrow. Al From: Hiser, Matthew [5] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 7:17 AM To: Ahluwa lia, Kawaljit <kahluwal@epri.com>

Subject:

RE: RE: (Externa l] RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Presentations Hi Al, Just wanted to check if you have slides for Ri nghals yet. Whenever you get them, just shoot an emai l or upload to Google Drive. Tha nks! 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 10062 Matthew Hiser@nrc gov From: Ahluwalia, Kawa ljit [mailto*kahluwal@epri com] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2017 9:51 AM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew Hiser@ nrc gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) RE: [External) RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Presentations

Matt, Here are my slides for the 2:10 PM Tuesday KHNP (Korea) presentation . I am awaiting slides from Ringhals and will send to you once I get them. See you on Tuesday.

Al From: Hiser, Matthew [mailto*Matthew Hjser@nrc gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2017 9:45 AM To: Bern hoft, Sherry <sbernhoft@epri .com>; Dyle, Rob in <rdyle@epri.com>; Sm ith, Jean <jmsmjth@epri,com>; Ah luwalia, Kawalj it <kah luwai@epri,com>; 'Richard Reister (Bicha rd. Rejste r@o uciea r.energy.goy)' <Bicha rd. Re jste r@o u ciea r.energy.gov>: 'leona rd k@ornl.gov' <leonardk@ornl gov>; 'Rosseel, Thomas M.' <rosseeltm@orn l gov>; 'William F Zip p (Generation - 4)' <wi lliam.f.zipp@dom.com>; "*Gerard P. Van Noordennen' <gpyannoordennen@energysolutions com>; 'Ram uha lli, Pradeep (Pradeep Ramuhalli@pnnl gov)' <Pradeep.Ramuha lli@pool gov>; 'daniel.tello@canada.ca" <danjeLtello@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.denken.or.jp>; 'alpa nfa@westi nghouse.com ' <alpanfa@westinghouse com>; Jackson, John Howard <john.jackson@iol.gov>

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

Subject:

[Externa l] RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Presentations

Dear Presenters:

Tha nk you for sendi ng presentation t it les. I have all but a couple at this point and have attached t he updated agenda. I know many of you are working on finalizing you r slides for t he workshop (I already have 2 submitted as of today !). Please provide slides by Friday if at all possible. It will be very cha llenging to load presentations onto the comp uter via thumb drive the day of the workshop due to NRC computer secu rity restrictions, so sending t hem in advance is greatly preferred. Aga in, best options for sending are either emai l or upload to Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BSDWMLchSYSXcnpZZ0JOS0SSOUU?usp=sharing. I am looking forward to a productive workshop next week and appreciate your participation. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions for the workshop. Thanks! Matt From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:07 AM To: Bernhoft, Sherry (sbernhoft@epri com ) <sbernhoft@eprj.com>; Dyle, Robin <rdyle@eprj.com>; Jean Sm ith / jmsmith@epri com) <jmsmith@epri com>; Ahluwalia, Kawalj it <kahluwal@epri com>; Richard Reister (Richa rd.Reister@nuclear.energy.gov) <Richard. Reister@nuclear.energy.gov>; 'leonardk@orn l.gov' <leonardk@ornl,goy>; 'Rosseel, Thomas M.' <rosseeltm@ornl,goy>; 'William F Zipp (Generation - 4)' <wj lljam f.zjpp@dom com>; 'Gera rd P. Van Noordennen' <gpyannoordennen@energysolutjons com>; Ramuha lli, Pradeep (Pradeep Ramuhalli@P I goy) <Pradeep Ramuha lli@pnnl.goy>; 'daniel.tello@canada.ca' <daniel tello@canada ca>; 'Uwe.Jendrich@grs.de' <Uwe Jendrich@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@westjnghouse com>; Jackson, John Howard <john jackson@inl goy>: desi re ndomba@canada ca Cc: Tregoning, Robert <Robert Tregon jng@nrc goy>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick Purtscher@nrc goy>

Subject:

RE: Ex-plant Materials Harvesting Workshop Presentations

Dear Presenters:

Friendly reminders:

• Please provide presentation title by February 28.
• Please send me your slides (either via ema il or upload to Google Drive:

https://drjye,google.com/driye/folders/0BSDWMLchSYSXcnpZZ0JOS0SSOUU?usp=sharing) by March 3. I have attached the workshop agenda to t his emai l. Please let me know if you have any questions or corrections. Thanks! Matt From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:47 AM To: Bernhoft, Sherry (sbernhoft@epri.com) <sbern hoft @epri.com>; Dyle, Robin <rdyle@epri.com>; Jean Sm ith / jmsmith@epri.com) <jmsmith@epri.com>; Ahluwalia, Kawaljit <kahluwal@epri.com>; Richard Reister (Rjchard.Rejster@nudear,energy goy) <Richard Reister@nuclear,energy,gov>;

'leona rdk@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' <gpvannoordennen@energysolutjons,com>; Ramuhalli, Pradeep (Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov) <Pradeep Ramuha lli@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 .chaouadi@sckcen .be>; 'arait@criepi.denken.or.j p' <arait@criepi.denken.or.jp>; 'alpa nfa@westi nghouse.com ' <alpanfa@westinghouse com> Cc: Tregoning, Robert <Robert Tregoo iog@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick Purtscher@nrc gov>

Subject:

Ex-pla nt Materials Ha rvesti ng Workshop Presentations

Dear Harvest ing Workshop Presenters:

If you are receiving th is emai l, then I have you down on t he agenda to present at t he upcom ing Ex-pla nt Materials Harvesting Workshop on Ma rch 7-8. I have attached the workshop introd uction slides that have been shared w ith most, if not al l, of you. These slides cover meeting logistics, motivation, approach, expected outcome, and session expectations. We are hop ing these slides provide a common vision for the workshop that w il l allow for a focused, prod uctive discussion. Please take a look at these slides and try to tailor your presentation to t he focus and length of the respective session. There are two actions I req uest from presenters:

1. 1have attached t he confirmed list of spea kers in an Excel document. Please take a look at this list to confirm you are presenting in the session you expected and if I have made any mista kes in the list of speakers. If you have not already done so, please provide me w ith a presentation title.

2. Please send me your slides (either via email or upload to Google Drive :

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BSDWMLchSYSXcnpZZ0JOS0SSOUU?usp=shariog) by the end of February if possible. Thank you for your participat ion in the wo rkshop. We are looking forward to the discussion and engagement and appreciate your contribution to a productive and interesting meeting! 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 Hiser@orc gov

• • • This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may cont ain information that is confidentia l, privileged or exe mpt from disclosure under applicable law.

Unless otherwise expressed in this message by the sender or except as may be allowe d by sepa rate written agreement between EPR I and r ecipient or recipient's employer, any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others of this message is prohibited and this message is not intended to be an electronic signatu re, instrument or anything that may form a legally binding agreement w ith EPR I. If you are not the intended recipient, please cont act the sender by reply email and permanently delete al l copies of this message. Please be advised that the message and its contents may be disclosed, accessed and reviewed by the sender's em ail system

administrator and/or provider. *** MATERIALS HARVESTING AT RINGHALS Materials for presentation at NRC Harvesting meeting March, 2017 Henrie Lidberg & Pal Efsing Ringhals AB Sekretessklass - © Ringhals AB VATTENFALL s~ 1

ON-GOING PROJECT:

• BREDA-project (Barseback as R&D platform)IRRADIAT EMBRITTLEMENTStudy of Authentic Irradiated BWR ~

MaterialsSurveillance data vs. actual RPV properties THERMAL AGING EMBRITTLEMENTStudy of Thermal!, RPV MaterialsQUALIFICATION OF SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Sekretessklass - © Ringhals AB VATTENFALL ~

BREDA STEP BY STEP II STEP 1- MATERIAL SAMPLING BARSEBACK 22017 Ql-2018 Q2Sampling 2018 QlTransport of samples to laboratory 2018 Q2STEP 2 - MATERIAL TESTING2018 Q3 - 2019 Q2STEP 3 - EVALUATION2019 Q3 - 2019 Q4 Sekretessklass - © Ringhals AB VATTENFALL ~ 3

RINGHALS 1 & 2 The two oldest plants at the Ringhals site will be shut-down permanently in 2020 and 2019, respectivelyPartially caused by post-Fukushima activities and partially due to plant economics (which indeed are coupled to each other)Ringhals 1- BWR ASEA type, 6 external Main Circ loopsRinghals 2- Westinghouse 900 MWe 3-loop plantSG replaced with A690 1989RPVH replaced with A690 1994 Sekretessklass - © Ringhals AB VATTENFALL ~ _, 4

RINGHALS OVER-ALL INTEREST RPV +RPVHSecond oldest A690-tubed replacement RPVHStandard type RPV incl. welds - significant surveillance programBottom Mounted NozzlesReactor Vessel lnternalsComparison between inspection results and actual outcome Sekretessklass - © Ringhals AB VATTENFALL ~ _, 5

RINGHALS OVER-ALL INTEREST R2 Steam GeneratorsSampling can be made reasonably quickly after shut-down !Second oldest A690-tubed replacement SGExcellent operating historylnterest to verify superior resistance to EAC Long range vs short range ordering of Ni-base alloysl.e. Long term susceptibility build upStructural components i.e. divider plate and stub, DMW weldments, instrumentation nozzles etc. Sekretessklass - © Ringhals AB VATTENFALL ~ 6

RINGHALS OVER-ALL INTEREST Thermal ageing effects of LAS and high-Ni/Mn weld material available in PRZPrevious studies indicate an effect that is larger than expectedTesting on-going currentlySampling from the "to-be decommissioned" pressure vessel will provide us with one more firm dat, point Sekretessklass - © Ringhals AB VATTENFALL ~

CIVIL STRUCTURES Steel lined concrete containmentlrradiation effectsThermal effectsPossibility to make sampling at multiple locationsOth structures such as water inlets and buildings etc. Scoping on make a proposal to decommissioning team regarding both primary/secondary systems and civil structures as well as co1 ageing Sekretessklass - © Ringhals AB VATTENFALL ~ 8

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:11 :45 +0000 Note to requester: Attachment To: Tregoning, Robert is immediately fo llowing.

Subject:

NRC-NRAJ Bilateral Meeting Summary.docx Attachments: NRC-NRAJ Bilatera l Meeting Summary.docx Hi Rob, Just a couple edits of typos on the harvesting writeup (see tracked changes). Thanks! Matt

Summary of NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Materials Issues NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA August 8 - 9, 2016 Representatives from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Japanese Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRAJ) met on August 8 - 9, 2016 at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD, USA. The piincipal purpose of the meeting was to share information on research and operating experience related to the age-related degradation of metal, concrete, and electrical cables in commercial nuclear reactors. Additionally, the possibility of future collaboration on these topics was discussed. The agenda for the main meeting is attached (Enclosure l ). The meeting was structured so that all pa1ticipants were in itially together to provide introductions. Next, the NRC welcomed our Japanese colleagues to the U.S. and NRC, and both the NRC and NRCJ provided opening remarks about the meeting purpose and expected outcome. The meeting agenda was also reviewed to ensure that the final agenda was mutually acceptable. After this discussion, the meeting split into parallel sessions. One session discussed metals and cable aging issues as outlined in the main meeting agenda. The other session discussed aging of structural concrete. The agenda for the concrete portion of the meeting is attached (Enclosure l ). The list of participants in all the meetings is also attached (Enclosure 2). All presentations provided during the meeting were provided electronically. The NRC presentations were collected by R. Tregoning while the NRAJ presentation were collected by K. Sakamoto. Dr. Tregoning wm distribute all the presentations to the NRC participants and other interested NRC staff while Dr. Sakamoto will distribute all presentations to the NRAJ participants and other interested NRAJ staff. Summary of Discussion on Cable Aging NRC (Murdock) and NRAJ (Minakawa) each provided presentations that discussed research activities related to cable aging. Operating experience and the existing regulatory framework associated with aging management programs (AMPs) and environmental qualification (EQ) of cables was also discussed. As part of this discussion, both sides identified technical issues and concerns that are currently being addressed or considered. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion on this topic. Next Steps/Action Items Operating Experience:

• NRAJ will provide details on the three cable fa il ures that were input to the SCAP database
• NRAJ will identify how cable failures are reported to their agency if they occur before the 30-year periodic safety review (PSR)
• NRAJ will identify the four approaches that are used by the Japanese industry to detect cable failures other than the tan-8 approach. Partial discharge and resistance measurement were identified as two of these approaches.

Research:

• NRC will send the test plan (including test matrix) on the condition monitoring research to NRAJ once it is available. It is expected to be available in fall of 20 16.
• NRAJ will send the test plans for the severe accident and flammability research activities
• Both sides agreed to share results and reports associated with these research programs when they are completed.
• Both sides also agreed to solicit and provide advice and guidance on the research activities being conducted at both NRAJ and NRC.
• Both the NRC and NRAJ will consider exchanging samples of cables that have been aged and tested under ongoing and planned research activities. Discussion on this topic will be held between NRC (Murdock) and NRAJ (Minakawa) to detennine feasibility and next steps.
• NRAJ will provide the report that relates the quantified level of degradation (QLD) to both elongation at break and indenter measurement techniques.

Regulatory Framework:

• NRC will provide RG l.97, "Criteria for Accident Monitoring Instrumentation for Nuclear Power Plants."
• NRC will provide the latest publicly-available presentation on the public comments - and staff thoughts on addressing these comments - related to cable aging AMPs that are contained in the draft GALL guidance for subsequent license renewal (SLR).
• NRC wi ll provide an EQ inspection report(s). St. Lucie and Watts Bar were identified as possible candidates.
• NRC will provide the inspection plan related to Q or Cables. (Darrell which is correct?_}

Summary of Discussion on Metals Aging Two topics were discussed related to meta ls aging: reactor pressure vessel (RPV) embrittlement and irradiated assisted degradation (IAD). As part of this discussion, both sides identified technical issues and concerns that are currently being addressed or considered for each of these topics.

1. RPV Embrittlement NRC (Gordon) provided a summary of research activities, development of regulatory guidance, and codes and standards activities related to RPV integrity. Similarly, NRAJ (Sakamoto) summarized research activities in Japan. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC and NRAJ will continue to discuss the plans, status, and results of their research programs related to RPV integrity.
• NRC (Kirk) and NRAJ (Arai) will discuss the feasibility of benchmarking the Japanese (PASCAL) and U.S. (FAVOR) computer codes using common problems. Next steps will be identified if mutual interest in conducting such exercises exists.
• NRAJ will provide a schedule and timeline for their RPV research.

2

• NRAJ indicated that it is possible to provide the yearly research summary reports to the NRC. If interested, the NRC (Kirk) will request that NRAJ (Sakamoto) provide these reports.
• NRAJ will provide the Japanese surveillance program requirements to the NRC.

2. IAD NRC (Rao) provided a summary of recently completed, current, and planned research activities related to TAD. NRAJ (Saka moto) provided a presentation of both operating experience related to IASCC and associated research activities. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC and NRAJ will continue to discuss the plans, status, and results of their research programs related to IAD.
• NRC will provide information on the test plans for the ANL program when it is completed.
• NRC (Rao/H iser) wi ll determine if information and resu lts pertaining to the programs that are being conducted jointly (e.g., ZIRP, Zorita Weld Testing) can be provided to NRAJ once these programs are completed.
• NRC will provide answers to questions related to IASCC posed by NRAJ in e ma il sent in mid-July.
• NRAJ provided references related to IASCC operating experiences that are in Japanese.

NRC will determine if there is interest in obtaining any of these references for translation into English. NRAJ (Sakamoto) agreed to help the NRC determine interest by summarizing the content of these references if requested by the NRC. Summary of Discussion on Possible Future Collaboration Areas The following four topics were discussed to determine if there is mutual interest in pursuing future collaboration: peening, aging of cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS), environmentally assisted fatigue, and ex-plant material harvesting. For each topic, NRAJ and NRC provided a brief, high-level summary of related activities and identified ideas for future collaboration. These ideas were then discussed to determine if mutual interest exists and, if so, identify the next steps for pursuing collaboratjon.

1. Peening NRC and NRAJ each provided presentations on the use of peening in their respective countries.

The NRC presentation focused on the regulatory reviews ctmently ongoing to determine if inspection relief will be granted. NRAJ discussed possible research to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of peening. There was also discussion of the NRC's research to eva luate the effects of peening on crack initiation and growth. The fol1owing next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic. Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC will provide details of the test plan for their peening research.
• NRAJ will provide infonnation on the method that the Japanese industty uses to measure residual stress.

3

• NRAJ will provide operating experience for peened components. Specifically, N RAJ will identify any instances where crack fonned after peening or cracks that existed before peening grew after peening.
• NRAJ (Sakamoto) and NRC (Alley) will each develop a list of questions related to peening for the other side to answer.

2. Aging of CASS NRC and NRAJ each provided presentations on CASS. The NRC presentation discussed recently completed and ongoing research related to thermal embrittlement and thermal embrittlement combined with irradiation embrittlement. The current regulatory position and ASME code activities were also summarized. The NRAJ presentation focused on past research that was used to verify the Japanese embrittlement prediction model. The NRC presentation also identified several ideas for collaboration that were discussed. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC will verify that it has received all the JNES CASS. If not, NRAJ will provide any mi ssing data
• NRC will provide information related to ASME Code Case 838. The Code Case and technical basis will be provided along with a list of questions for NRAJ to consider.

NRC is interested in obtaining any feedback that NRAJ can provide on this Code Case.

• NRC will develop a Iist of questions related to CASS testing, operating experience, or regulatory treatment for NRAJ to answer

3. Environmentally Assisted Fatigue NRC provided a presentation on environmentally assisted fatigue (EAF). The presentation addressed the regulatory requirements and regulatory treatment of this issue for nuclear power plants (NPPs) operating with their initial license, NPPs in license renewal, and new NPPs.

Further, planned treatment for NPPs during the SLR period was also discussed. ASME code activities and recent research in this area were summarized and the significant Japanese contribution to this research was acknowledged. Discussion of future collaboration focused on sharing fatigue test data internationally. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic. Next Steps/ Action Items

• NRC will propose a CSNI-sponsored activity to develop an international fatigue database. This is the route that NRAJ prefers for sharing data
• NRC will summarize the method that was used to exchange data from Edf through an existing MOU with the French Regulator, ASN. NRAJ will consider using a similar approach to share fatigue data with EdF.

4. .,-Material Harvesting NRC provided a presentation that summarizes a cunent project to develop a proactive plan for identifying opportunities to harvest ex-plant materials and components from decommissioned plants. There was also discussion about Japanese participation in an NRC-sponsored workshop on material harvesting that will be planned for 2017. NRAJ also developed a presentation on 4

material harvesting, but it was not presented due to time constraints. However, the presentation will be provided electronically to the NRC along with the other NRAJ presentations. e-R eAviroAmeAtally assisted fatigue (EAF). The preseAtation addressed the regulatory requireA1ents aAd regulatory treatmeAt of this issHe for 1:melear po:w er plaAts (NPPs) operatiAg witl'l tl'leir iAitial liceAse, The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic. Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC will provide the contractor report on the first phase of the material harvesting proj ect to NRAJ when it is completed
• NRC (Hiser) will work with NRAJ (Sakamoto) to determine a mutually acceptable date and location for the material harvesting workshop
• NRAJ will attempt to get participation from Japanese utilities and other government organizations in the material harvesting workshop.

Summary of Discussion on Structural Concrete Issues NRC and NRAJ presented research activities on four topics. These topics were discussed in detail during the parallel meeting of concrete issues. A summary of this meeting was also provided as part of the main meeting on the second day. The summary of the discussion and next steps, or action items, related to each topic follows.

1. Research on Radiation Effects on Concrete Structures NRC presented the overall research activities on radiation effects on concrete. NRAJ presented test programs on radiation research. NRC and NRAJ mutually understand research activities on radiation effects on concre te structures. NRC and NRAJ a lso mutua lly agreed on the importance of modeling using the test resu lts. Such results can be used to validate the model to pre dict material degradation and the FEM model for the assessment of structural safety significance for structures exposed to long term radiation. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC & NRAJ will continue to share the information about research activities
• NRAJ research reports will be shared with the NRC (planned 2017).
• NRC and NRAJ mutually agreed to share intermediate and final research results and reports.

2. Overview of Aging Management and Life Extension of NPPs: NRC Activities and NRAJ Activities Both NRC and NRAJ provided presentations to summarize the approach that each country follows. NRAJ was very familiar with the NRC's approach. NRAJ requires special safety checks before 40-60 life extension. In Japan, the licensees harvest several concrete cores from various locations for condition assessment before entering 40-60 years. Types of tests are determined by the industry and reviewed by NRAJ. Another feature of Japanese P lant Life Management (30 10), which is of interest to the NRC, is drilling holes and collecting dust from concrete structures for chemical evaluations (pH, carbonation, chloride etc.). The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

5

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC and NRAJ mutually agreed to continue discussion on future activities related to this topic

3. Monitoring and Aging Management of ASR Affected Concrete Structures Both NRC and NRAJ provid!ed presentations to summarize activities in this area. The NRAJ research program includes two activities. The first progra m is evaluating the susceptibility of aggregate for new constructions by both the JIS and RILEM methods. The second program is assessing the progress of ASR degradation in existing structures. The research is planned to be completed next year. NRC provided one presentation on operating experience related to ASR and another presentation on the research activities being conducted at NIST. This research focuses on existing structures affected by ASR. The NRC research will continue for next few years. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRAJ will share t he results of their research in this area after the results have been published.
• NRC and NRAJ mutually agreed to exchange t he research results and continue discussion on future activities

4. Research on Non-destructive Evaluations, Instrument/Sensor and Its Applicability for Thick Heavily Reinforced Concrete Structures Both NRC and NRAJ provid!ed presentations to summarize activities in this area. NRC does not have any current research related to NDE of concrete structures. NRC reviews NDE methods developed by the industry. As per the current practice, in US concrete is inspected visually.

Based on the findings of visual inspections, NDE methods are applied as appropriate. Industry and DOE are developing methods and testing advanced techniques. NRC plans to conduct confirmatory review of these methods. Two NDE methods from NRAJ presentation are of special interest to the NRC. The first method is the estimation of the steel-plate-sandwich-section strength . The second method is the strength evalu ation of high strength concrete (>50N/mm 2) in the prestressed concrete containment vessel. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic. Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC and NRAJ mutually agreed to exchange information and continue discussion on future activities re lated to this topic After discussion of the technical to pics was completed, the next agenda item was to plan the next meeting to discuss materials aging issues. The next meeting will be held in Tokyo, Japan. Both sides agreed to search for a mutually acceptable date between November 2017 and Febrnary 20 18. NRAJ is open to any date within this window. Therefore, NRC wi ll propose the date. If possible, the date will be selected to allow participation in any other materials meetings being held in Asia during this timeframe. NRAJ also indicated that meeting after April 2018 could be advantageous because all the end-of-fiscal-year technical reports are submitted in March. A meeting after Apri l 2018 will be pursued on ly if it is not possible to schedule a meeting during 6

the November 2017 - February 2018 window. Both NRAJ and NRC will continue to meet on specific topics before this next bilateral meeting as opportunities arise. The meeting closed with both sides confirming the significant value of discussion and collaboration on materials degradation issues. It is desirable to strengthen this partnership even fu1ther in the future. 7

AGENDA NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Materials Issues NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA August 8 - 9, 2016 Monday, August 81h, 2016 Location: Room O7-B4 Time Topic Speaker 8:00 am Introductions All 8:05 am Welcome B. Thomas, NRC 8:15 am Opening Remarks R. Tregoning, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ Cable Aging 8:30 am NRC Research Activities D. Murdock, NRC 9:30 am NRAJ Research Activities T. Minakawa, NRAJ 10:30 am Break 10:45 am Technical and Regulatory Concerns All 12:00 pm Lunch Metals Aging 1:30 pm RPV embrittlement studies M. Gordon, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 2:45 pm Break 3: 15pm Irradiated Assisted Degradation A. Rao, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 4:15 pm Technical and Regulatory Concerns All 5:00 am Adjourn Enclosure 1 1- 1

AGENDA NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Materials Issues N RC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA August 8 - 9, 2016 Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 Location: Room 07-B4 Topic Speaker Possible Future Collaboration Areas 8:00 am Peening R. Tregoning, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 8:30 am Aging of CASS P. Purtscher, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 9:00 am Environmentally Assisted Fatigue R. Tregoning, NRC 9:30 am Material Harvesting M. Hiser, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 10:00 am Break 10:15 am Summary of Concrete Discussions M. Sircar, NRC M. Nakano, NRAJ 11 :15 am Actions and Next Meeting All 11 :45 am Closing Remarks B. Thomas, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 12:00 pm Adjourn Enclosure 1 1-2

AGENDA NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Concrete Issues NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA August 8 - 9, 2016 Monday, August 81h, 2016 Location: Room 07-B2 Time Topic Speaker 8:00 - 8:30 am Participate in the Main Meeting All 8:30 - 8:45 am Move to Room 07- B2 Research on Radiation Effects on Concrete M. Sircar, NRC 8:45 - 10:30 am Structures M. Nakano, NRAJ 10:30 - 10:45 am Break Continue Radiation Effects on Concrete M. Sircar, NRC 10:45 - 12:00 pm Structures and Possible Collaboration M. Nakano, NRAJ 12:00-1 :30 pm Lunch Overview of Aging Management and Life 1:30 - 3:00 pm Extension of NPPs: NRC Activities and NRA M. Sircar, A. Prinaris NRC Activities M. Nakano, NRAJ 3:00 - 3:30 pm Break Monitoring and Aging Management of ASR J. Phillip, A. Buford NRC 3:30 - 5:00 pm Affected Concrete Structures M. Nakano, NRAJ Tuesday, August 9111, 2016 Location: Room 07-B2 Time Topic Speaker Research on NOE, lnstrumenUSensor and Its 8:00 - 9:00 am Applicability for Thick Heavily Reinforced M. Sircar, NRC Concrete Structures M. Nakano, NRAJ 9:00 -10:00 am Recap and Review Summary All 10:00 - 10:15 am Break Summary of Concrete Discussion in the Main M. Sircar, NRC 10:15 - 11:15am Meeting M. Nakano, NRAJ Enclosure 1 1-3

ATTENDANCE LIST NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Materials Issues NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA August 8 - 9, 2016 Name Organization Email Address Phone Number Kazunobu Sakamoto NRAJ kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.il2 +81 51 14-2223 Makio Nakano NRAJ makio nakano@nsr.go.j12 +81-3-5114-2223 Taketumi Minakawa NRAJ takefumi minakawa@nsr.90.j12 +81-3-51 14-2223 Steve Frankl NRC istvan.frankl@.nrc.gov +1-301-415-2227 Rob Tregoning NRC robe rt.tregoning@nrc.gov +1-301-415-2324 John Burke NRC john .burke@nrc.gov + 1-301-415-2343 Madhumita Sircar NRC madhumita.sircar@nrc.gov + 1-301-41 5-1804 Allen Hiser NRC allen.hiser@nrc.gov + 1-301 -41 5-5650 Matt Hiser NRC matthew.hiser@nrc.gov +1-301-415-2454 Kamal Manoly NRC kamal.manoly@nrc.gov +1-301-41 5-2765 Andrew Pinaris NRC andrew.12inaris@nrc.gov + 1-301-415-7 531 Mo Sadollah NRC mohammad.sadollah@nrc.gov + 1-301 -41 5-6804 Jose Pires NRC jose.12ires@nrc.gov +1-301 -41 5-21 56 Pat Purtscher NRC Pt121@nrc.gov +1-301 -41 5-3942 Paul Rebstock NRC 12aul .rebstock@.nrc.gov +1-301 -415-2126 Jeff Poehler NRC jeffrey.12oehler@nrc .gov + 1-301-415-8353 Darrell Murdock NRC darrell.murdock@nrc.gov +1-301-613-5001 Appajosula Rao NRC a1212ajosula.rao@nrc.gov +1-301-415-2381 Matthew Gordon NRC matthew.gordon@nrc.gov +1-301-415-9471 Cliff Doutt NRC cl if ford .doutt@nrc.gov +1-301-415-2847 Juan Lopez NRC juan.lo12ez@nrc.gov Jake Philip NRC jacob.12hili12@nrc.gov + 1-301-415-0785 Ramon Gascot NRC ramon.gascot@nrc.gov + 1-301-415-2004 Angela Buford NRC angela.buford@nrc.gov +1-301-415-3166 Hernando Candra NRC hernando.candra@nrc.gov +1-301 -415-2216 Bob Hardies NRC robert.hardies@nrc.gov + 1-301 -41 5-5802 Ganesh Cheruvenki NRC ganesh.cheruvenki@nrc.gov +1 -301-41 5-2501 David Alley NRC david.alley@nr.gov +1-301-41 5-2178 Chris Hovanec NRC christo12her.hovanec@nrc.gov +1-301-415-1 718 Tom Herrity NRC thomas.herrity@nrc .gov +1-301-415-2351 Enclosure 2 2- 1

Note to requester: Attachments are From: Prokofiev, louri immediately following. Se nt: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:29:45 -0500 To: Hiser, IMatthew;Tregoning, Robert Cc: lyenga r, Raj

Subject:

FW: Query Meeting with NRA in Aug Attachme nts: NRC-N RAJ Bilateral Meeting Summary rev.docx, [External_Sender] FW: more thoughts: Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting Good Morning, I am sorry bother you. I am working with PARENT Follow on project proposal and I sent the aU:ached email "more thoughts: Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting" to Dr. lchiro Komura, Steering Committee member from JAPEIC komura-ichirou@japeic.or.jp. with the harvesting workshop info. It was surprised me, he asked question related to Harvesting; "Can I d istribute the attached document you sent me to the people of NRA, MHI, other electric power company in Japan, and University?" Can you please update the attached below information from Meeting Summary rev.docx

4. Material Harvesting NRC provided a presentation that summarizes a cun-ent project to develop a proactive plan for identifying opportunities to harvest ex-plant materials and components from decommissioned plants. There was also discussion about Japanese participation in an NRC-sponsored workshop on material harvesting that will be planned for 2017. NRAJ also developed a presentation on material harvesting, but it was not presented due to time constraints. However, the presentation will be provided electronically to the NRC along with the other NRAJ presentations. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC wi ll provide the contractor report on the first phase of the material harvesting project to NRAJ when it is completed
• NRC (Hiser) will work with NRAJ (Sakamoto) to determine a mutually acceptable date and location for the material harvesting workshop
• NRAJ will attempt to get participation from Japanese utilities and other govem1nent organizations in the material harvesting workshop.

Thanks, Iouri From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:52 PMeve

To: Wong, Albert <Albert.Wong@nrc.gov> Cc: Sadollah, Mohammad <Molhammad.Sadollah@nrc.gov>; Prokofiev, louri <louri.Prokofiev@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Query_Meeting with NRA in Aug All: Attached is the meeting summary for the materials meeting with NRAJ held last August. The presentation files from the meeting are too large to send so I'm going to either put them on a shared drive or the sharepoint site. I'll send the link when it's up. Let me know if you have any questions in the interim.

Cheers, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Wong, Albert Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:43 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Cc: Sadol lah, Mohammad <Molhammad.Sadollah@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Query_Meeting with NRA in Aug Hello Rob, Greetings! I was told you're the POC for a material aging meeting with the Japanese regulatory agency NRA back in August. Mo was at the meeting, but he only attended the electrical portion of the discussion. If you have the entire meeting presentation materials, could you send him a copy, please? Thanks you very much and Happy Thanksgiving. aw

Summary of NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Materials Issues NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA August 8 - 9, 2016 Representatives from the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Japanese Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRAJ) met on August 8 - 9, 2016 at NRC headquarters in Rockville, MD, USA. The piincipal purpose of the meeting was to share information on research and operating experience related to the age-related degradation of metal, concrete, and electrical cables in commercial nuclear reactors. Additionally, the possibility of future collaboration on these topics was discussed. The agenda for the main meeting is attached (Enclosure l ). The meeting was structured so that all pa1ticipants were in itially together to provide introductions. Next, the NRC welcomed our Japanese colleagues to the U.S. and NRC, and both the NRC and NRCJ provided opening remarks about the meeting purpose and expected outcome. The meeting agenda was also reviewed to ensure that the final agenda was mutually acceptable. After this discussion, the meeting split into parallel sessions. One session discussed metals and cable aging issues as outlined in the main meeting agenda. The other session discussed aging of structural concrete. The agenda for the concrete portion of the meeting is attached (Enclosure l ). The list of participants in all the meetings is also attached (Enclosure 2). All presentations provided during the meeting were provided electronically. The NRC presentations were collected by R. Tregoning while the NRAJ presentation were collected by K. Sakamoto. Dr. Tregoning wm distribute all the presentations to the NRC participants and other interested NRC staff while Dr. Sakamoto will distribute all presentations to the NRAJ participants and other interested NRAJ staff. Summary of Discussion on Cable Aging NRC (Murdock) and NRAJ (Minakawa) each provided presentations that discussed research activities related to cable aging. Operating experience and the existing regulatory framework associated with aging management programs (AMPs) and environmental qualification (EQ) of cables was also discussed. As part of this discussion, both sides identified technical issues and concerns that are currently being addressed or considered. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion on this topic. Next Steps/Action Items Operating Experience:

• NRAJ will provide details on the three cable fa il ures that were input to the SCAP database
• NRAJ will identify how cable failures are reported to their agency if they occur before the 30-year periodic safety review (PSR)
• NRAJ will identify the four approaches that are used by the Japanese industry to detect cable failures other than the tan-8 approach. Partial discharge and resistance measurement were identified as two of these approaches.

Research:

• NRC will send the test plan (including test matrix) on the condition monitoring research to NRAJ once it is available. It is expected to be available in fall of 20 16.
• NRAJ will send the test plans for the severe accident and flammability research activities
• Both sides agreed to share results and reports associated with these research programs when they are completed.
• Both sides also agreed to solicit and provide advice and guidance on the research activities being conducted at both NRAJ and NRC.
• Both the NRC and NRAJ will consider exchanging samples of cables that have been aged and tested under ongoing and planned research activities. Discussion on this topic will be held between NRC (Murdock) and NRAJ (Minakawa) to detennine feasibility and next steps.
• NRAJ will provide the report that relates the quantified level of degradation (QLD) to both elongation at break and indenter measurement techniques.

Regulatory Framework:

• NRC will provide RG l.97, "Criteria for Accident Monitoring Instrumentation for Nuclear Power Plants."
• NRC will provide the latest publicly-available presentation on the public comments - and staff thoughts on addressing these comments - related to cable aging AMPs that are contained in the draft GALL guidance for subsequent license renewal (SLR).
• NRC wi ll provide an EQ inspection report(s). St. Lucie and Watts Bar were identified as possible candidates.
• NRC will provide the inspection plan related to the environmental qualification of safety related cables Summary of Discussion on Metals Aging Two topics were discussed related to meta ls aging: reactor pressure vessel (RPV) embrittlement and irradiated assisted degradation (IAD). As part of this discussion, both sides identified technical issues and concerns that are currently being addressed or considered for each of these topics.

1. RPV Embrittlement NRC (Gordon) provided a summary of research activities, development of regulatory guidance, and codes and standards activities related to RPV integrity. Similarly, NRAJ (Sakamoto) summarized research activities in Japan. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC and NRAJ will continue to discuss the plans, status, and results of their research programs related to RPV integrity.
• NRC (Kirk) and NRAJ (Arai) will discuss the feasibility of benchmarking the Japanese (PASCAL) and U.S. (FAVOR) computer codes using common problems. Next steps will be identified if mutual interest in conducting such exercises exists.
• NRAJ will provide a schedule and timeline for their RPV research.

2

• NRAJ indicated that it is possible to provide the yearly research summary reports to the NRC. If interested, the NRC (Kirk) will request that NRAJ (Sakamoto) provide these reports.
• NRAJ will provide the Japanese surveillance program requirements to the NRC.

2. IAD NRC (Rao) provided a summary of recently completed, current, and planned research activities related to TAD. NRAJ (Saka moto) provided a presentation of both operating experience related to IASCC and associated research activities. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC and NRAJ will continue to discuss the plans, status, and results of their research programs related to IAD.
• NRC will provide information on the test plans for the ANL program when it is completed.
• NRC (Rao/H iser) wi ll determine if information and resu lts pertaining to the programs that are being conducted jointly (e.g., ZIRP, Zorita Weld Testing) can be provided to NRAJ once these programs are completed.
• NRC will provide answers to questions related to IASCC posed by NRAJ in e ma il sent in mid-July.
• NRAJ provided references related to IASCC operating experiences that are in Japanese.

NRC will determine if there is interest in obtaining any of these references for translation into English. NRAJ (Sakamoto) agreed to help the NRC determine interest by summarizing the content of these references if requested by the NRC. Summary of Discussion on Possible Future Collaboration Areas The following four topics were discussed to determine if there is mutual interest in pursuing future collaboration: peening, aging of cast austenitic stainless steel (CASS), environmentally assisted fatigue, and ex-plant material harvesting. For each topic, NRAJ and NRC provided a brief, high-level summary of related activities and identified ideas for future collaboration. These ideas were then discussed to determine if mutual interest exists and, if so, identify the next steps for pursuing collaboratjon.

1. Peening NRC and NRAJ each provided presentations on the use of peening in their respective countries.

The NRC presentation focused on the regulatory reviews ctmently ongoing to determine if inspection relief will be granted. NRAJ discussed possible research to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of peening. There was also discussion of the NRC's research to eva luate the effects of peening on crack initiation and growth. The fol1owing next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic. Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC will provide details of the test plan for their peening research.
• NRAJ will provide infonnation on the method that the Japanese industty uses to measure residual stress.

3

• NRAJ will provide operating experience for peened components. Specifically, N RAJ will identify any instances where crack fonned after peening or cracks that existed before peening grew after peening.
• NRAJ (Sakamoto) and NRC (Alley) will each develop a list of questions related to peening for the other side to answer.

2. Aging of CASS NRC and NRAJ each provided presentations on CASS. The NRC presentation discussed recently completed and ongoing research related to thermal embrittlement and thermal embrittlement combined with irradiation embrittlement. The current regulatory position and ASME code activities were also summarized. The NRAJ presentation focused on past research that was used to verify the Japanese embrittlement prediction model. The NRC presentation also identified several ideas for collaboration that were discussed. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC will verify that it has received all the JNES CASS. If not, NRAJ will provide any mi ssing data
• NRC will provide information related to ASME Code Case 838. The Code Case and technical basis will be provided along with a list of questions for NRAJ to consider.

NRC is interested in obtaining any feedback that NRAJ can provide on this Code Case.

• NRC will develop a Iist of questions related to CASS testing, operating experience, or regulatory treatment for NRAJ to answer

3. Environmentally Assisted Fatigue NRC provided a presentation on environmentally assisted fatigue (EAF). The presentation addressed the regulatory requirements and regulatory treatment of this issue for nuclear power plants (NPPs) operating with their initial license, NPPs in license renewal, and new NPPs.

Further, planned treatment for NPPs during the SLR period was also discussed. ASME code activities and recent research in this area were summarized and the significant Japanese contribution to this research was acknowledged. Discussion of future collaboration focused on sharing fatigue test data internationally. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic. Next Steps/ Action Items

• NRC will propose a CSNI-sponsored activity to develop an international fatigue database. This is the route that NRAJ prefers for sharing data
• NRC will summarize the method that was used to exchange data from Edf through an existing MOU with the French Regulator, ASN. NRAJ will consider using a similar approach to share fatigue data with EdF.

4. . Material Harvesting NRC provided a presentation that summarizes a cunent project to develop a proactive plan for identifying opportunities to harvest ex-plant materials and components from decommissioned plants. There was also discussion about Japanese participation in an NRC-sponsored workshop on material harvesting that will be planned for 2017. NRAJ also developed a presentation on 4

material harvesting, but it was not presented due to time constraints. However, the presentation will be provided electronically to the NRC along with the other NRAJ presentations. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic. Next Steps/ Action Items

• NRC will provide the contractor report on the first phase of the material harvesting proj ect to NRAJ when it is completed
• NRC (Hiser) will work with NRAJ (Sakamoto) to determine a mutually acceptable date and location for the material harvesting workshop
• NRAJ will attempt to get participation from Japanese utilities and other government organizations in the materia l harvesting workshop.

Summary of Discussion on Structural Concrete Issues NRC and NRAJ presented research activities on four topics. These topics were discussed in detail during the parallel meeting of concrete issues. A summary of this meeting was also provided as part of the main meeting on the second day. The summary of the discussion and next steps, or action items, re lated to each topic follows.

1. Research on Radiation Effects on Concrete Structures NRC presented the overall research activities on radiation effects on concrete. NRAJ presented test programs on radiation research. NRC and NRAJ mutually understand research activities on radiation effects on concrete structures. NRC and NRAJ a lso mutua lly agreed on the importance of modeling using the test results. Such results can be used to validate the model to predict material degradation and the FEM model for the assessment of structural safety significance for structures exposed to long term radiation. The fo llowing next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/ Action Items

• NRC & NRAJ will continue to share the information about research activities
• NRAJ research reports will be shared with the NRC (planned 2017).
• NRC and NRAJ mutually agreed to share intermediate and final research results and reports.

2. Overview of Aging Management and Life Extension of NPPs: NRC Activities and NRAJ Activities Both NRC and NRAJ provided presentations to summarize the approach that each country follows. NRAJ was very familiar with the NRC's approach. NRAJ requires special safety checks before 40-60 life extension. In Japan, the licensees harvest several concrete cores from various locations for condition assessment before entering 40-60 years. Types of tests are determined by the industry and reviewed by NRAJ. Another feature of Japanese Plant Life Management (30-10-10), which is of interest to the NRC, is drilling holes and collecting dust from concrete structures for chemical evaluations (pH, carbonation, chloride etc.). The fo llowing next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC and NRAJ mutually agreed to continue discussion on future activities related to this topic 5

3. Monitoring and Aging Management of ASR Affected Concrete Structures Both NRC and NRAJ provid!ed presentations to summarize activities in this area. The NRAJ research program includes two activities. The first program is evaluating the susceptibility of aggregate for new constructions by both the JlS and RILEM methods. The second program is assessing the progress of ASR degradation in existing structures. The research is planned to be completed next year. NRC provided one presentation on operating experience related to ASR and another presentation on the research activities being conducted at NIST. This research focuses on existing structures affected by ASR. The NRC research will continue for next few years. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic.

Next Steps/Action Items

• NRAJ wi ll share the results of thei r research in this area after the results have been published.
• NRC and NRAJ mutually agreed to exchange t he research results and continue discussion on future activities

4. Research on Non-destructive Evaluations, Instrument/Sensor and Its Applicability for Thick Heavily Reinforced Concrete Structures Both NRC and NRAJ provided presentations to summarize activities in this area. NRC does not have any current research related to NDE of concrete structures. NRC reviews NDE methods developed by the industry. As per the current practice, in US concrete is inspected visually.

Based on the findings of visual inspections, NDE methods are applied as appropriate. Industry and DOE are developing methods and testing advanced techniques. NRC plans to conduct confirmatory review of these methods. Two NDE methods from NRAJ presentation are of special interest to the NRC. The first method is the estimation of the steel-plate-sandwich-section strength. The second method is the strength evalu ation of high strength concrete (>50N/mm2) in the prestressed concrete containment vessel. The following next steps, or action items, were identified during the discussion of this topic. Next Steps/Action Items

• NRC and NRAJ mutually agreed to exchange information and continue discussion on future activities related to this topic After discussion of the technical topics was completed, the next agenda item was to plan the next meeting to discuss materials aging issues. The next meeting will be held in Tokyo, Japan. Both sides agreed to search for a mutually acceptable date between November 2017 and February 20 18. NRAJ is open to any date w ithin this window. Therefore, NRC wi ll propose the date. If possible, the date will be selected to allow participation in any other materials meetings being held in Asia during this timeframe. NRAJ also indicated that meeting after April 2018 could be advantageous because all the end-of-fiscal-year technical reports are submitted in March. A meeting after Apri l 2018 will be pursued only if it is not possible to schedule a meeting during the November 2017 - February 2018 window. Both NRAJ and NRC will continue to meet on specific topics before this next bilateral meeting as opportunities arise.

6

The meeting closed with both sides confirming the significant value of discussion and collaboration on materials degradation issues. It is desirable to strengthen this partnership even further in the future. 7

AGENDA NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Materials Issues NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA August 8 - 9, 2016 Monday, August 81h, 2016 Location: Room O7-B4 Time Topic Speaker 8:00 am Introductions All 8:05 am Welcome B. Thomas, NRC 8:15 am Opening Remarks R. Tregoning, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ Cable Aging 8:30 am NRC Research Activities D. Murdock, NRC 9:30 am NRAJ Research Activities T. Minakawa, NRAJ 10:30 am Break 10:45 am Technical and Regulatory Concerns All 12:00 pm Lunch Metals Aging 1:30 pm RPV embrittlement studies M. Gordon, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 2:45 pm Break 3: 15pm Irradiated Assisted Degradation A. Rao, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 4:15 pm Technical and Regulatory Concerns All 5:00 am Adjourn Enclosure 1 1- 1

AGENDA NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Materials Issues N RC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA August 8 - 9, 2016 Tuesday, August 9th, 2016 Location: Room 07-B4 Topic Speaker Possible Future Collaboration Areas 8:00 am Peening R. Tregoning, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 8:30 am Aging of CASS P. Purtscher, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 9:00 am Environmentally Assisted Fatigue R. Tregoning, NRC 9:30 am Material Harvesting M. Hiser, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 10:00 am Break 10:15 am Summary of Concrete Discussions M. Sircar, NRC M. Nakano, NRAJ 11 :15 am Actions and Next Meeting All 11 :45 am Closing Remarks B. Thomas, NRC K. Sakamoto, NRAJ 12:00 pm Adjourn Enclosure 1 1-2

AGENDA NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Concrete Issues NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA August 8 - 9, 2016 Monday, August 81h, 2016 Location: Room 07-B2 Time Topic Speaker 8:00 - 8:30 am Participate in the Main Meeting All 8:30 - 8:45 am Move to Room 07- B2 Research on Radiation Effects on Concrete M. Sircar, NRC 8:45 - 10:30 am Structures M. Nakano, NRAJ 10:30 - 10:45 am Break Continue Radiation Effects on Concrete M. Sircar, NRC 10:45 - 12:00 pm Structures and Possible Collaboration M. Nakano, NRAJ 12:00-1 :30 pm Lunch Overview of Aging Management and Life 1:30 - 3:00 pm Extension of NPPs: NRC Activities and NRA M. Sircar, A. Prinaris NRC Activities M. Nakano, NRAJ 3:00 - 3:30 pm Break Monitoring and Aging Management of ASR J. Phillip, A. Buford NRC 3:30 - 5:00 pm Affected Concrete Structures M. Nakano, NRAJ Tuesday, August 9111, 2016 Location: Room 07-B2 Time Topic Speaker Research on NOE, lnstrumenUSensor and Its 8:00 - 9:00 am Applicability for Thick Heavily Reinforced M. Sircar, NRC Concrete Structures M. Nakano, NRAJ 9:00 -10:00 am Recap and Review Summary All 10:00 - 10:15 am Break Summary of Concrete Discussion in the Main M. Sircar, NRC 10:15 - 11:15am Meeting M. Nakano, NRAJ Enclosure 1 1-3

ATTENDANCE LIST NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Materials Issues NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA August 8 - 9, 2016 Name Organization Email Address Phone Number Kazunobu Sakamoto NRAJ kazunobu sakamoto@nsr.go.il2 +81 51 14-2223 Makio Nakano NRAJ makio nakano@nsr.go.j12 +81-3-5114-2223 Taketumi Minakawa NRAJ takefumi minakawa@nsr.90.j12 +81-3-51 14-2223 Steve Frankl NRC istvan.frankl@.nrc.gov +1-301-415-2227 Rob Tregoning NRC robe rt.tregoning@nrc.gov +1-301-415-2324 John Burke NRC john .burke@nrc.gov + 1-301-415-2343 Madhumita Sircar NRC madhumita.sircar@nrc.gov + 1-301-41 5-1804 Allen Hiser NRC allen.hiser@nrc.gov + 1-301 -41 5-5650 Matt Hiser NRC matthew.hiser@nrc.gov +1-301-415-2454 Kamal Manoly NRC kamal.manoly@nrc.gov +1-301-41 5-2765 Andrew Pinaris NRC andrew.12inaris@nrc.gov + 1-301-415-7 531 Mo Sadollah NRC mohammad.sadollah@nrc.gov + 1-301 -41 5-6804 Jose Pires NRC jose.12ires@nrc.gov +1-301 -41 5-21 56 Pat Purtscher NRC Pt121@nrc.gov +1-301 -41 5-3942 Paul Rebstock NRC 12aul .rebstock@.nrc.gov +1-301 -415-2126 Jeff Poehler NRC jeffrey.12oehler@nrc .gov + 1-301-415-8353 Darrell Murdock NRC darrell.murdock@nrc.gov +1-301-613-5001 Appajosula Rao NRC a1212ajosula.rao@nrc.gov +1-301-415-2381 Matthew Gordon NRC matthew.gordon@nrc.gov +1-301-415-9471 Cliff Doutt NRC cl if ford .doutt@nrc.gov +1-301-415-2847 Juan Lopez NRC juan.lo12ez@nrc.gov + 1-301-4 15-2338 Jake Philip NRC jacob.12hili12@nrc.gov + 1-301-415-0785 Ramon Gascot NRC ramon.gascot@nrc.gov + 1-301-415-2004 Angela Buford NRC angela.buford@nrc.gov +1-301-415-3166 Hernando Candra NRC hernando.candra@nrc.gov +1-301 -415-2216 Bob Hardies NRC robert.hardies@nrc.gov + 1-301 -41 5-5802 Ganesh Cheruvenki NRC ganesh.cheruvenki@nrc.gov +1 -301-41 5-2501 David Alley NRC david.alley@nr.gov +1-301-41 5-2178 Chris Hovanec NRC christo12her.hovanec@nrc.gov +1-301-415-1 718 Tom Herrity NRC thomas.herrity@nrc .gov +1-301-415-2351 Enclosure 2 2- 1

Note to requester: This email is the attachment to the previous email record. (KO) From: lchiroKOMURA Sent: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 09:26:02 +0900 To: Prokofiev, louri

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: more thoughts: Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting Attachments: ATT00O01.txt

Dear Iouri,

Can I distribute the attached document you sent me to the people of NRA, MHI, other electric power company in Japan, and University ? Ichiro From: Prokofiev, louri [6] Sent: Thursday, February 2, 20 17 9:47 AM To: lchiroKOMURA Cc: Lin, Bruce; Iyengar, Raj

Subject:

more thoughts: Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting Good Morning

Dear Jchiro,

Thank you very much for taking the initiative and accelerating the process with the Scope of Work preparation. I am working with topics related to 3) and 2). I have two personal questions: I. What do you think about this - will it be interesting for JAPEIC/NRA activity with Harvesting (please see the Attachments)?

2. I read The Mainichi, 2016-12-20; Japan: Gap emerges between gov't, private sector over Monju reactor and my question is -- did you or our NDE MHI colleagues have experience with components of Fast Reactors examination?

I have really enjoyed knowing and working with you during these past years. It has been a privilege for (b)(6) (b)(6)

        ' _1!'.~:.J I __________.
                                                         - - - -*                                                      I Always my Best regards, Iouri From: Lin, Bruce Sent: Wednesday, February OI , 2017 l :39 PM To: lchiroKOMURA <komura-ichirou@japeic.or.jp>; Prokofiev, louri <louri.Prokofiev@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE: Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting

Dear Ichiro,

Ryan and I are working on the draft work scope for the follow on project. We are hoping to get that out to PARENT members for review soon. Based on PARENT 13 meeting, the three potential topic areas are: 1) NDE Model ing and Simulation, 2) Flaw Relevance Evaluation, and 3) Material Degradation Monitoring.

From NRC perspective, there is strong support for tasks 1 and 2. However, at this point, there is no decision on the follow on project yet. We need to finalize the work scope and then present to the management for approval. It is likely there will be a gap between the end of PARENT extension and the start of the follow-on project. Ifwe don't have an agreement in place prior to the end of PARENT extension, we can continue to work on putting the agreement in place.

Regards, Brnce From: lchiroKOMURA [mailto:komura-ichirou@ japeic.or.jp)

Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 3:01 AM To: Prokofiev, Iouri <Iouri.Prokofiev@nrc.gov> ; Lin, Bruce <Bruce.Lin@ nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_ S nder] RE: Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting

Dear louri and Bruce,

Today, I am sending this e-mail to you for requesting to hear your supposition about the schedule for starting the Follow-on Project. PARE T Extension is scheduled to finish at the end of July in this year. I think that the Follow-on Pj would not be fixed at that time. In the PARENT-13 meeting, louri said that all the organization would work for discussion and planning about Follow-on Pj under the umbrella agreement with RC. How do you think/schedule the period between the end of PARENT Extension and the decision or the starting of Follow-on Pj ? I would like to hear your opinion, if it would be temporary plan. Best regards, Ichiro

Notice : The attachment associated with this incoming message has been removed by the NRC email system . If this is a legitimate message please contact the NRC Customer Support Center at CSC@nrc . gov to request the rel ease of the file attachment from quarantine . The request to the CSC should also note whether the sending address of the original message should be added to the list of allowed senders so that future attachments from this source are not blocked .

Note to requester: Attachment is immediately following. From: Jregonjng Robert To: Purtscher Patrick: Hiser Matthew Subject : FW: RE: Harvesting workshop Date: Friday, January 13, 2017 7:42:08 AM Attachments: Material Harvesting Sakamoto 2016.08.08.odf Pat/Matt: See below for the JNRA response. I've also attached the short presentation that they gave in August. This short talk appears more consistent with a session 1 type talk, but it sounds like from their email that they do not want to be a panelist. Therefore, maybe their brief presentation should be put in Session 2. Thoughts? RT Robert Tregoning Technica l Advisor for Mat erials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockvi lle Pike Rockvi lle, M D 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: J:&;;js; - f~ [ma ilto:kazunobu_sakamoto@nsr.go.j p) Sent: Thursday, Jan uary 12, 2017 7:12 PM To: Tregoning, Robe rt <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov> Cc: EB D ;jj!t <kiyot aka_taguchi@nsr.go.j p>; ,j, Li.J iE~ <masakuni_koyama0l @nsr.go.j p>; 1]\jf iE'-l <masayosh i_ozawa@n~r.go.jp>

Subject:

[Ext erna l_Sender] RE: Harvesting workshop Rob, I hope you and your family members had a restful and wonderful holidays. As for the workshop, the discussion between regulatory side and industries/METl(having similar function with DOE in the U.S.) has not started in Japan. So, our motivation may be different from the one of the industry side. Under such circumstance, I will be able to touch on our interesVmotivation for the harvesting as a really short presentation. However, our organization has not established concrete plans at all. So my presentation may be almost identical (within 10 minutes) to the one I did at bilateral meeting with you in last August. Anyway, please understand that the objective of NRA's participation this time is not take initiative of the discussion as a panelist but correct international members' perspective on this matter. Best, Kazu From: Tregoning, Robert [maiito*Robert Jregoning@nrc gov] Sent: Friday, Ja nuary 13, 2017 6: 17 AM To: +/-,&:;$: - f~ <kazunobu sa kamoto@nsr.go.jp>

Subject:

Harvesting workshop Kazu: I hope that the New Year is treating you and your family well. I just want to reach out to you again about the our harvesting workshop in early March. I know that you are working on CRIEPI and other organizations in Japan to discuss your participation in the workshop. I would be particularly interested if the Japanese perspective can be provided with a presentation in one or more of the following five workshop sessions: Session 1, 2, and/or 5. As mentioned in an earlier email, here's a summary of the approach and format for these

sessions:

• Session 1 will consist of short presentations and a panel discussion on the motivation for harvesting .
• Session 2 will discuss data needs best met through harvesting .
• Session 5 will consist of short presentations that will attempt to summarize the workshop and planning a harvesting program , as well as discuss actions and next steps We plan on working closely with all presenters so that we all have similar ideas about the objectives of the workshop as a whole and then the objectives of each session . I'm hopeful that there will be Japanese representation within one or more of these sessions.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the workshop or the sessions that you would like more information on to help with your discussions among the various Japanese organizations. Thank you for your help, and I wish you all the best, Rob Robert Tregoning Technica l Advisor for Mate ri als US Nuclear Reg ulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockvi lle Pike Rockvil le, M D 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-667 1

Resh icted to auth01 ized pe1*soi,s Material Harvesting U.S.NRC-S/NRA/R Bilateral Meeting on Materials Issues NRG Headquarters, Rockville, MD, August 8 - 9, 2016 Kazunobu SAKAMOTO Division of Research for Reactor System Safety, Secretariat of Nuclear Regulation Authority (S/NRA/R) 1

Background

• A variety of studies regarding material aging such as prediction of degradation and evaluation method for aged SSCs were carried out so far, and those results were reflected to regulatory activities.
• Past studies mainly relied on accelerated aging test.

Hence, the possibility of deviation from degradation of actual plant cannot be denied.

• The number of retiring unit is increasing.

2

Objective To confirm the adequacy (conservatism) of past results of safety research programs applied in the PLM review and the license renewal review using materials from decommissioned plants.

 - RPV steel
 - CASS (PWR: MCP, RCP casing BWR: PLR pump casing)
 - Electrical and l&C equipment (Cable, polymer material)
 - Anchor bolt
 - Concrete, etc.

3

Candidate and its current status Irradiation embrittlement of RPV

- Evaluate the material toughness at the EOL using prediction equation of RPV embrittlement. And confirm the toughness by surveillance test.
- Prediction equation for the decrease in upper shelf energy of irradiated RPV steel was developed through regulatory research.

Thermal aging of CASS The concept of prediction method for the decrease in material toughness developed in the regulatory research is utilized in the structural integrity assessment of the piping system with a postulated crack at the EOL. Electrical and l&C equipment (Cable, polymer material) Result of regulatory research obtained from specimens treated simultaneous thermal & radiation aging is utilized in the utility's assessment of cable integrity. Anchor bolt (Degradation of polymer and others) Characteristics of degradation beyond 30 years operation are not clear. Deterioration of concrete strength Regulatory research program is ongoing focusing on composite degradation (neutralization, salt damage and temperature), irradiation and alkali aggregate reaction. 4

Thank you! 5

Note to requester: This presentation, and the next 2 presentations, were provided to the FOIA t eam in paper. These are the best quality scans available .

     '-UBS (i)iifiiiy Electrical Cables - Aging EPRt Research In Electrical Cables

• Aging of cable Insulation materiala due to radiation, temperature and submergence
• EPRI Technical Repo,ta:

Management ltesearch Ucense R8-al Electrical Handbook Joint EPRI-LTO OOE-LWRS Cable Aging Reports Presentation to ACRS Low voltage thermal/radiation Low and Medium voltage November 17, 2015 weVaubmarged failure mechanisms Medium and Low Voltage Aging

                                                                                                                            )-
                                 ~Leonard Management Implementation Guidelines LWRS Program ~Aging and                                                                                            ;

Degniclatlon Pathway Leed Cabla Testing Guidelines In-containment Radiation and lhenylemhoft I. '. EPRI LTO Program Manager Temperature Measurements

                                                                                                                                     - ,=.=-

Cable Program Summary Cables Types Chemlcal Cllangea Dtlallod Undemanding

                                                                                                           ....u.
                                                                                              . *-1 c11ange1m                                     Koykldalolw        Low-voltage cable <2 kV             Medium-voltage cable 5""8 kV P,opertie*                                    olc.bltAofng Uolhoda fcw lh Pr9dlcUon
                                                                                                                                   -  1=-::..

Materials Focus on Cable Aging Research Separate and Synergistic Thermal / lrrad. Aging Appllcallon* M91hod /Approech

• lnl1Nffltnl and ConRI (81'M.)
• CoordinMed, 100111rated aging of harvat9d cable lntulallol1/ll,cket
• P-Cebla (15%)

mallfllll tla.t 1re ~tative of

• Communlc:allon (5%) CSPEJ1ck1t cunent NPP ~
• E~ and ITIICNll'lical ln1ulallon c:hltldMulllon I D ~ ~ fado!s
• ~
• c:rou-llnud polyelllylene In cable ~ Ing Cntte'DYIPJM
• EPR
• e l l ' I ~ rubber
• XLPE Ind EPR mmrillls tfllld 311'!1, ofc:alllN . . XlPE
• Silicone Rubber(~)

_,. of c:alllN - EPA Jackellng n, of c:alllla- 11A

• Hypelone . Clllonllullonleed polyeth~ (CSPE)
• Neoiw-
• Pol)'ChloropreM ces*r : : ***
• CPE
• Chlo,lnated polyalhylene
• PVC
• Poly(Ylnyt clllor1de)

Thennal Aging of Callaway Control Rod Cable Jacket Synergistic Testing Conducted on Harvated Cables

• Insulation and Jacket nmples produced from harvested cables from decommissioned NPP's 1 .. *
• I .......... *--.
• Remaining useful life determinallon
• Callaway control rod cable

   - Hypelon Jackel with EPR Insulated ~ -

i,. .. *

   - In - . i ope,wtion for lf>PR)xlmetely 30 yra

• San Onofre power cable

   - Fl,._.P Ill CSPE jacket ~th XLPE inaulaled wires Elonglllon91111Nk(EAB) me*aured wl1II lnwon
                                                                                        ~~T-UI 0     t

• U _.._

M n ...

• EM.,._mpctloi.,glhof ..... lnlirlll K * -

l25"C C:.llany accol'llllglOIEC/IEEE

   - Stored on site since 2006, never placed                                                  92582-2 Good .1q*rr'1'cnr 1~0$J1bfy inju: .1tr-; I rr'c c, ,Jc,.,,r of Into open,llon a_r,1n l s1 *. '-' 1'1~4 ,nq.1 111* orr AJ lit Y'J' cLn I 11 ,.,

vrnl*c:it*on ot 0J//rn 2001.,nrl CJ/f.1w,1y vncfrr ~i.,,1y

( (i)lli liir Electr ical Cables - Aging EPBf :.:.. EPRI Research In Electrlcal Cabin

                                                                            °'
                                                                * ,t,glng cable lnlulallon mllllllla due to radiation, lllmpera tln and ,~rgen ce

• EPRI Technical Repo,ta:

Management Research l...loenae Renewal Bec:trical Handboo k Joint EPRl-l.TO DOE-LWRS Cable lellng Reporta Low voltage thermalfradiatlon Presentation to ACRS Low and Medium vollqe November17,2015 WIii/submerged faln mec:hlnilml Medium and Low Voltage Aging Kalltll.eonard LYIIRS Pros,wn ......_~and Deg,. . . . . F..o-yl.. Nd Management lmplemantallon Guldellnel Cable T ~ ~ In-containment Redlation and lllenye. ntloft EPRI LTO Pros,wn Mlliager Ternper alln MNllnnW 1II

                                                                  ~~                 ~  ...,

Cable Program Summa ry Cables Types 0..,..ln I.ow-voltage cable <2 kV Medlwn-Yottage cable M8 kV Prope111n i--- - Cllangealn Plffomwlc>> -

       'TD                               .,

I .......... -aa" "'**- I

Nuclea r Power Plant Cable Aging Management Strateg y Prima ry Aging Stressors for Cable Type with highest tamp

• Evalllllta for *-plltlll lf.y - focua on 1'00ff191 a-moat Medium Volage (MV) Cables {< 46 kV) and hlgllNt radlallon. Aleo give apec:ial at1ent1on lo ufllty a111cal Low Voltage (LV) Cables (<2kV) components. Select a.nplllil for 11111 If algnt of aging - ..n
• Vlaual walk-down looking for 'flllblll lndlcallona on jllck8tl.

lllfor lllna - Mlpl glng -

• Tan-Oelta and Wllheeancl TNtlng for JIN andcaN l*ulallon RNletan ce
• Elaclr1cal ..._ llnduced dlgtaddo n : for LV (and unalllelded MV) ~ for WOl'lt . , _ of degradation
• Thamal >50"C water trwlng, partial dllcharge In lpllcet on ...,.pie of cablal.
• Racllllon >200 kGy (20 Mrad)

                                         <<  ~

• Local apeolfto NDI (Indenter, capadlan ce, UT, ..* ) at local.,..

ldanlllleil wllh Wk INts.

• Reoalmeplloe wll8l9 Indicated. Extend evaluation to other almllar a1Ua

'--Ao lnOC -

• Cllemlc8I
• Polymer Alblllly In_..

                                      *Themlll

• Radtallon
• Ohnic heating vlluallape cillc evaluallons mid 1he nut moat _ . loc:a1lona. Take addlllonal actlona baMd on
• Chemlcal

~ Y0ltage cables 111111 morw thennlly due IO ltinner lnlulallon layer Condition Monitoring: Tan 6 T*tlng Shielded Medium Radiati on and Temperature Asseu ment for Cables Voltlge Cable

                                                                                    *Phase 1:

• Tan 6 IINllng II UMd to evaluate thielded medium voltage cable

                                                                                      - Exls&g radiation and temperature data colleded from US NPPs
                                                                                      - Limited response s, mostly temperature data (14 plants) with limited

• Applying EPRI Ten 6 ac:ceptance criteria will Identify radiation data degraded Clble lnlulatlon due to WIier treeing or thermal damage In MV cables, cable terminations and - 'MIiie data Indicated less severe conditions then qualification lifetime values, there was lnaufflcient data to draw any specific aplicN conclutlons
• EPRI colleda member test data alnce 2009 to *Phase 2:

evaluale effectlve neu

                                                                                      - 65 radiation and ~ monlto,. have been lnatalled In

• Report 1025262.June 2012 validated -.me nt containment and othar high thermal/radlall areas criteria

                                                                                       - Collect data radiation and temperature data for a fuel cycle

• Report 3002005321-septamber 2015

                                                                                       - Quantify cable "operating envlronmenr
     - Oepded ceblN, Wit and dry, ldenllled by tan 6
                                                                                       - Evaluate collec:ted data to - If It can lnfonn Inverse temperature,
     - Felhn medlanlln1 conmnallo n dten 6 resUlla d cab1N                                synergistic effect ,....n:h that ll-.cl ln-..iy dlgraded crilella
                                                                                       - Provide methodo logy for future studies
     - No , . , _ d C11b1ee with good<< lllgl1lly degraded tan 0

( Harvesting of CablN DOE / LWRS Research In Electrical Cables

• Harwdn g °' aged cablll provides vekable raearch data:

       - CryatalRMr3
                                                                                 *8ynergiltlcand fflW'Mtl mperatl n efl'ec:ta
       -ZJon                                                                       due lo thermll and radiation degrada1lon
       -IIIIM1llllolllll(Krlkoand Ri,ghala) may haVII cablea rlllablef rom Cllbl el~w ork

• Dlffullon lmllld oxidation In LOCA 1911a

       - Evlludna olw ~ oppo,tunltlN

• Dole rate elfecta
• cable HaMlll19 0IJide iNuld (3002002994)
• Umltltlona of *etlvltlon energy valuea

                                                       *- -==-

• NOE (key Indicators, methodt)

Research n1 experinental lest deY8lops data on key facb1 Md S)lll8rgies contributing to cable degradation from which pntdlctlw models Cll'I be developed to 8Y8lu(e aclual cable llellmes. MultMJarlable Environmental Err.eta on Cable Insulat ion Improv ed Lifetim e Prediction Models and l!nYlronnwnlll ShMCn Accel'e rated Aging Studle a

• Radllllon (\N, gamma)

 *TIIMmll

• Medlen:lcll (lenllle, vlbnlllon) 2ffl

 *Molllln RH RH Cllemlcal C.......
                                    *Ctatlda lorl          'OIi
                                   -~
                                   * ~ d plalllclzar
                                   *~d~
                                                          +'OH
                                                                 ..... IIOOH
                                                      ~

Propq CtlangN

                                                                ~
                                                             *Elecll1cal
                                                             *Phyllcll

Materials Focus on Cable Aging Research Separate and Synergistic Thermal / lrrad. Aging Application* Method /Approach

• lnatrumenl and Contto1 (81'16)
• Coonllnated, acceler11t.d aging of
• Poww Cablea (15%)

harvest.Id cable lnsulalJoNla(:ket materiala thatlrll ~tatiYe of

• CommWllcalion (5%) CSPE)aclltt a.n91lt NPP ev-tema lneuletlon
• Electrlcal and mechanlc:al char11ctanzation to determine key factoll . - ~
• X~E
• cro*ltlked polyethylene
• EPR
• t l h ~ Nbbef CebtalnUS,... l In c:able 11glng
• XLPE and EPR mnnall ~ I 311,. dCIIIIN- lO.PI!
• S111cone Rubber (SlR) I 381'dCIIIIN-EP R Jacketing 5,. d celllN-liR
• Hypelone
• Chlon>aulfone1ed

-~ -~ .. po!y91hylene (CSPE)

• CPE
• Chlomaled polyethylene elalt011141f
• PVC
• Poly(vlnyt chlofkle)

Synergistic Testing Conducted on Harvested Cables

• lnsutallon and Jacket 1amples produced -

Thennal Aging of Callaway Control Rod Cable Jacket

                                                                                                                                                            *Uf from harvested cables ftom decomml11loned NPP'1

• Remaining useful life detennlnatlon I

i - 'I, *

                                                                                                                             *.*.*.

• I . . *--
• CaNeway control rod cable

  - Hypelon jacket with EPR lnaula1ed wl191                                                                    i-                               -- *
   - In YHNI operaUOn for appt01dmately 30 yra

• San Onofre power cable

   - F"-1 Ill CSPE jacket v.llh XLPE inlullted wires Elongllonllbreak(EAB)
                                                                                   ~"""lnwon 4405Tenllla~
                                                                                                                     "' I     I

• 8 _.._.* a EAllwlhN9pCtlo ...... of...,.ln*ll125' C

                                                                                                                                                                  *      >>

• G Callaway ec:cordlng IO IEC1EEE

   - Slorlld on stte alnc:e 2006, nevef pieced                                            92582*2 Good ;g1c[,nr r p~1ss1!Jry J"c!. ,~c::; I n'c c11 'l' ,,,. cl Into open,UOn                                                                                                              c- 1'

• 4 , ~ 'J J * /. d J t ~ J *1

                                                                                                                  *'9 r.g.,
                                                                                                                 \ L'flf: J: _, ') ( f  1,__ ,  * .:   ),' J ' f.: i I J ,\, ) ,

• 1~, \\ ! )

( - Combine d Exposure Experime nts at PNNL Cable Irradiatio n Aging at ORNL (Dose Rate and Effects of Oxygen)

• CCM50 it'11ldletor

                                                  - 80 day lrrlldlalion
                                                  - Dole rn 1'40 Gy/tv
                                                  -Acc:unlNle d doees of 50, 100, 150 and 200 kOy.

• HFIR - Gamma lrrad. Fac:llty

                                                 - 10 day Irradiation cycle
                                                 - Dole rate 410 Gyttv
                                                 -Aocunua111d dolel of 20,                                     ........... 1118'1 50, 80 and 100 kOy

( 1'1 ,Ir I I 'I fl I/ , ,/ I' . ' I, r 1 , ,r

• 1 ,1 , ,
• WIS~

Inhomog eneous Aging Study Mlcrostr ucture Analysis Underst anding of Mechan isms Imaging and Quantify ing Degradation

• Diffusion Limited Oxidation
• Defect mapping .......,......,.....,........~
• Nudeation of Degradation - X-ray mla'otomogr ephy
• Effect o f ~ Qeometry
• Chemical mapping

                                              - TOF-s!MS/XPS
                                              - X-ray dlffrac:tlon
                                              - FTIRIRaman

EPRI and NRC Coordinated Research Effort on Water Treeing: Cable Degradation In Wet Submergence Research Environments 2011 2911 2011

• WaterT1'911ing, conditions needed:

                                                                                                               - von.g. - ..

• o.akVlnVn

                                                              . . . . ... . JIii . . . . . . . . . . . .       - wa..,.or tigh tullklty
                                                                                                               - Polymer

• Medium voltage typically operates > 1 kV/mm r--
• Low voltage typically operate, < 0.2 kV/mm Only Medlum¥Dlllgec:ablNWalltrl'IN

                                                                                                                                                                   -1=:=

Qualifying MV Cables For Submergence Understanding Water Treeing

• Failure Mechanism Research Report 3002005323, Update 7 (August 2015)

                                                                                                         *MV Cable Subma'llence Quallflcatlon-

• Completes wet failure medlanlam research Supptementll Project
• Confinnation that defecta In EPR a.re Identified by tan I> testing ~ to acceletate aging via high frequency and t,igh voltage to obtain
• Pink EPR, 8 kV, fflllllUC'actur9d 1979-80 *accelerated aging factO..- for
• water tree roo1 contains melalic sut,mergenc:e elemenll -Brown ethylene propylene rubber cable
• Metalic elements ad as catalyst for Is 2+ years aging, complete in 2018 or water tree growtll 2017

                                                                                                          -Pink ethyl- ClrOOYlene rubber cable complete In 2d18 * -
                                                                                                          -Power law used to detefmine aging factor
                .,                                                                                         Qualified LlfP (Operating Time) +

(Accelerated Aging Time1t Aging Factor) en-o........

( - Researching Low Voltage Cable Wet Aging Asaeument of Condition Monitoring Elements for

• Low voltage -' lllScepCllilly *tudy:

Do LV cablN Mt age?

           -PIiot l1ucty: No INue with CroM-lln ked Electrlcal Cables Jlf1  ... ...
             ~
          -Poellbl e i...wlth ethylene propyi. .

rullbel'lnmatlonl, howlwr

          - Folow,q> AJdy wll look Ill jad{Alted, nutklonductor cablN with no thermal or inlula llorl~ damlge
          - 1 year aging llt 90-C water temp, AC
         - ~

and DC vollligN d Plot andfolcNMlp plAlllshed in late 2018 . Non-D estru ctive Evalu atlon (NDE) ~ Condition-Monitoring Techniques for Elactrlc of Cable Rema ining Usefu l Life l ' 9 c l l l c ~ Cables Used In NPPs (NRC fl-a Gulde 1.211)

• Coordination of Aging and NOE
• Senaltlvlty analysis of key Indicators
• Correlation of deatruetive and no~data
• Aaseaament of NOE methods I

     .    ---~  ~-.  ,,,,. -    I
       -J-t'.- i-
        ~ ~   =-.: ..

211>2.-. requ119 C1 C/8-c o-.~I 111111d

Long Length Cable Measurements Local Spot Measurements

• Frequency Domain Reflectometry *Indenter - II
• Dissipation Factor (tan 6)
• Capacitance I: I I I
• High Pot *Acoustk: **r1 ... ' '
• Partial Discharge
• Dielectric Constant ~. - - .. .,::

                                                                                                           ~
                                                                                                 ~~-                        ~

Condit ion Monitoring: Use of Aging Models to Materials Degradation & Cable Harvesting cable Data Determining Qualified Condit ion

• Through 00m1laling cable history with NOE and oOw examklaliC>n method,
• better picture of cable aging end ~ useful 1ifit 2'11 2111 2'11 2111 begin, to emerge.

                                                                                                 - -,jW:       - - .i -
                                                                                                         -,*'.._.1:.t;
                                                                                                                         ,, !\*.
                                                                                                                                 - --~11

( - Harvesting of Service Aged Cables: Zion Unit 1 and 2 Cable Program Summary

• LMSllldNRC'-~-dlowwallgeCllblea fftlmtheZlonSllloll~1811d2bllar¥Nlng- cables._
• f91maQP,fMjiiC17 * .., .............
• CUnwnlWolk:lllx 2II03o<<lqlliedeoi.lRodDIM Mldlanllln,-and~lildlallarOIIIIIN.M'Mll!d fftlm Uni 1 ln2012 . TNlngd,_ NRC ca1111e,-11egun .111 Iha Nallonlll . . . . d81andlrdl llldTecllnology.
• Spring 201f:8111Nlld201DIICMlll,lglllcabllt1Dbe hlrveee.dtamZlon ~2. Changealn
• Callleupo1U19_....dlnllltet: "'-'-

     - Thermll : IINm ........
     - ThefflWI /lldllllon : IIHonlaillllnl~

Clwlgealn

     - 11en11111 .........,.11 (cable ....-..v - , :.,...._          Petfonnal08..-*------,-------,..
         ~                                                                Time Conclusion from the Research                                        QuesUons
   ., Technlcal basis Is es~bllshed and In use for aging management Continuous Improvements based on research results, lll8pectlons and operating experience f Coordination and collaboration with global research partners
      *+iMMh                                                 - ,=.=-

Existing Nuclear Sector* Medium Voltage Cable R....rc:h Existing Nuclear Sector* Low Voltage Cable Research fl,  !( f J'l!1 I c:..~ ........

             ....... ---01111-
                                                  ....,,,.,o,,

I/

                                                     , >     I 1:-,--, ..........

c:.---.

                                                                                                ~==~-
                                                                                                 ~

LM-., I011D

  ~                                               1022NI Ml!M-.           Tll-t*ta TII-IOOI.
  --- --- -_,                                                                                                      ...,_            IGOt.,, 111111111,
   * '°*
  .......c:..,....

tltlffl.- u,c...,.._

                                                                                                                   ----tc:fN).

10t111*. 10ttm CIT*---- - N9'0)

                                                                                                                   - ..... .-.      _ _,., .. a.,

1.111.,..,.,..... ...............,

  ~--- ------
  ----~
  ....... CIIIILTO ICllaaOltUlll'O
                                                  -1.llmmllO I                                   °""911 ........ .

CiMILfl>-- *----

                                      --..--**--                               Faj:::::.

Continued Cooperation on Joint RID Roadmaps Developed for NOE Tools: Effective In Detecting Degradation Key ReNarch Areas T* n ,t /oa

• ngle I d/NlfHdon fltclOr '""""'"-t-* -

0-r{J- Ju c.w. ~ ll........

• Helfthy _ , I, Is '°'91 end Tan

    ~ ct,ange f i e ~ ,. llllln rA b f *-

r.,,..,_ ., ., I

• If I LIi
• U , 41 f tt

    .,._resu1ng1n1n cre-                                          _.._, _ .._, VObgl ~V.J

_,,,_collle _____ Low Vohlt11* Dlulj>>tlon ~ ,o,..,.._.,....,,,_

 * -.-..-po11n 11111ar~ - - ( l h a r m a l. -                         )larq""'11-I

( _j m

( EPBI=-~ Three Key Aspects of EPRI Research for Safe Long-Tenn Operations Independent Objective, acientlflc;ally based Joint EPRJ-LTO DOE- results address reliability, LWRS Presentation to efficiency, affordability, health, safety and the environment ACRS November, 2015 Nonprofit Chartered to serve the public Sherry Bemhoft. EPRI Program Mmiager benefit Robin [¥e, EPRI Senior Tec:hnlclll Executive Collaborative Richard Relalar, DOE Program Manager ' ' Bring tog~er ~entlsts, Keith lf1011810, LWRS Program Mldlrillle ENERGY.. engineers, academic Aging encl Degradetlon P8lhwly LNd researchers, Industry experts

                                                 , ...,_.______ _                          .~.,_.._._._ .... __

EPRI Collaborative Approach Nuclear.Collaboration u

                                                                                                                   ---1=--=-

Interna tional R&D Partner ships Nuclea r Sector Techn ical Areas ($170M /yr.)

                            ---=-~1 1ma11<,-
                            ~-~

1 IIHAIICM NIIMI Active Collaboration with Global Research I -... \I:< Institutes, National Laboratories, . ENERG\ Universities and Vendors A ARBVA I' .. I 'I: man EPRI LTO R&D Project s EPRI LTO Progr am Goals and Objec tives

• Aging ~Mgeme nt R -.rch

                                                                                             - RCS PMllllY sylllm fflllals

• Technical basis for decision to operate
• Advanced Mldlllg for highly lnwlated materillls -<epalr strategy through extended life time
• Advanced radiation l9llltant materials - future replacement strategy

    - Supports buslnesa cue for life extension                                               - RNdor pnlMlft VNMI .,..llllemel.t and refurbishments
                                                                                             - Conctete and oonaelll *truc:turn
 *Technology     to,,,.,,.        plant assets lhroughout                                    - EJeclrlcal cabta ayatems

• Opporti.w,lty for ModemlzaClon the lifetime

                                                                                             - Centralized on-line rnonllor1ng
    - Aging managemen~ asset management and risk management                                                                    - Advanced l&c
                                                                                             - Enhanced sar.ty and ml( IMiylll
    -Addresses safety, performance and costs

• Enablqi Technolo gln

                                                                                             - Integrated Ufe Cycle Managem ent
                                                                  ,,...._                     - Pl,nt Oemonsllatlon Projeda OIi _ _ . , _ . . . . , . . _ _ _ . . , . _ _ . . . , . . .

EEPG!t I::::::::.. ePli!II=::::..-

eeNEi'<iv Light Water Reactor Sustaln ablllty Light Water Reactor Sustalna blllty - NuaMtEne!VY (LWRS) Prog,.m Federal Government Role Program Goal

• Nllllonll ltrDglc lnlnlt In 1he long,-tlrm 0pllllllon of mdlllng plantl
• Oewlop . . . . . . . edenllcbel lllo alowOO lllnued~ --oplfllo nof
• Suppons the Adrnlnlentlon'* Cllmlla Aclk:ln Plan and CINn Power Plan eiddng LWRa(b9yo nde0yMra) andlllff long.-~W lbllly
• Supporta -.gy NQlllly o.v.lopln g t.cflnolog !N *nd other aolutlona to
• Elllble long term ope,lllion of lie ullllng
• Avoldl higher coet ID ralllpayarl b' MW pllr,I repa01111* ds nuc:te*powwpll,lla Add,- fllndlnwu l ldentfflc quelllolw Yttlll-. prtme lnYNllnent or

     *~nlab llly                                                                   errt,..* - lnlufflc:tent ID nwb progNIS on bl-9y-.,pl lclble o&lllalnu flly                                                              liletllolo gf--

FOCUll . . . .a

• Governn-.nt (DOE and Ila national labo!atoriel ) ~
• l a r g e ~.

00rl1)Ula1lonal and eicpe(,rneiilill e,q,a,tN In__, R&0

     * ~AQl!loa ndo.o,.dl lloll
     * ~*n--.o nandC onlrdl

• Benelltlwl l extend to next generdon of l'NClorl:lldlilOlogill

                                                                 ~-

• Rllk~rdolmed Safely Margin Cllandellzatlon Fedllal program radUON ul10l!lalnly and r1ilk ID plOYkle lncen1lva ror
• RNdoffl-.t yTedlnolog y lndullly ID m a k e ~ lnYNlinelila lnduatry allo hu an Incentive, 10 0011-ahattng ii being emplo','ed

( LWRS Program Planning and NuclNr Energy Coordination/Integration Materials Aging and Degradation 111 ......_: lnc:ludlng Reac:tor PrMaure v-ia, con lnt9l'nllla ,...,.

                                                                                .......... . and bllanc:. of plant

• lnadlll0I ~lstld St!-. Corr0llon Cracldng

                                                                                  * ~ pl\Me llwllfornlloilt and awalng of 001'9 lnt8mala

• Hlgh-lluena t dicta on RPVmel
• Oadc lnlldon In Nlcbl bued . , , .
• Tharmll AQlnll or eat Aust11nN1c S1a1n1eu StN11
• Enw,o,.,lll'lldy ANlellld Fatigue
• C - . : J o i n t ~ plan wllh EPR1 tocuaec1 on radlltlon91 fKW Cauppottl a,wl blologlcal 1hleld) and monlloftng liDOIII
• Cllblla: Joint - , c h plan with EPRI and NRC to bder predict and

                                                                               ,-.,ca111 eag1ng
                                                                            ~ repair, and replacment tlctlnolog lN: Weld repair IIKllnlquN; Poll lrnldlatlon anwllng; AdvallNd            ..,..._nt alloys; and Advanced Non-DNtructlve Eumlnallon tac:hnlqUN u

R&D Supports Aging Management Program 8eNEi"civ r'I Materials Aging and Degradation Implementation NudHr Energy

• R&O to underltand aging degradab

 ;. M**urwments of degf'MMtlon: Collect high quaUty data

• Condition Monlloring '

                                                                                 - Mechanism and ranu111 modes
                                                                                                                     - On-line monkoring
                                                                                 - Initiation and growth rates
 , Mechanism* of degradation: Underatand the underlying                                                              - In-field deteollon
                                                                                 - Inspection and Evalu1tlon Gls mechanisms for belt<< prediction and mitigation

• Prediction of Remaining U11ful Lffe

 ;. Moch,llng and simulatio n: Use mechanistic models to explore data

• lnapedlon nwthods

                                                                                                                     - Health Monitoring 10ftwal1I Ind
                                                                                 - Oec.dlon a n d _ ,

trends for eidended life 1lgortthma

                                                                                 - Non datructlve examination and Monitoring:    MonitOf and validate predlded degradation                        quaNllcatlon

• Rlpllr & Replaoement Oecltlons Mitigation stntegler. Develop technologies to reduce the rate of
• Mitigation llrlltegies - Life Cycle Management Gls

                                                                                                                     - Integrated Ufa Cycle degradation, facilitate economic repair, and potentially replace with        - Chemistry Management (ILCM)
                                                                                 - Situs 11111evlng techniques advanced material, that are lesa ,usceptible
                                                                          ..       44#t,,

Conclusion from the Research Technical basis Is established and in use for aging management Continuous improvements based on research results, inspections

                                                ~-*t

• and operating experience
• Coordination and collaboration with global research partners No allow ADppltl , _ . IINn ldenlllled bllNd on R&D let dale.

(l)iiiiir, Concrete - Aging Containment and Concrvte Structures

• Monitoring and aging management of concrete ltructurei due to radiation and environmental 9lCpOIUNI
• EPRI Technical Reportl:

Management Research ., .......ca.cr.t.-..AQl,,g Rlt1rr,ce Mlnull Joint EPRJ-LTO DOE-LWRS (1023035)

                                                                                       ~ E"8llallcn lnlpecacnotConallltS-..
                                                                                   .r (1CW827)

Presentation to ACRS 1..111ran 111.rwyoll:"-dAadloUar, on ConorW(1026a84) November 17, 2015 ,1

                                                                                  .r ~~=*~~ConorWat80VW1of ShenyBemlloft                                          .r llollcAcldMac:lld~-~lnPWRlpeneFi,11
                                                                                      ~ (10241118)

EPRI l TO Program Manager .r-..Ulr-..o1oe......~dA9edCcncnte (1028501) Keith Leonard .,~~otedeautmnlnapdon,-. I.WRS Program Materllll Aging and "~S..-..yof~CMp(300:IIXl3:ao) Oeg,adatlon Palhwlly Lead ,1 ASR -~(3()Q2005388)

                                                                                                             '~*t--*-*-.. ----

R&DToplcs

• Effecta of Irradiation on Conaeta
• Concrete Degradation due to Alkali-Silica Reactions Effects of Irradiation on Concrete
• Boric Add Damage of Spent Fuel z

Pools

                          *-*----        ...... __          1!1"'121 j==--=-                                                               EPlaj=.-:..

Irradiati on Irradiat ion Damage of Concre te - Ongoin g Research Problem Statement

• EPRI and LWRS have partnered to study the effects of radiation damage on reactor cavity concrete Fell neut10ns from the tNCtor COt9 exit th*

RPV end "'8rW:t wlh the c::onct819 In the -LWRST asbatOR Nl rNCtrxcev!Wy.

• Fundamentals of radiation damage

.._

• Modeling of ftuenc:e lhrough the biological shield (complete)

Undetstand the Impact on /he structural

• Neutron and Ion Irradiation or mineral -logun to chl,.cteriz e

 ,tebllltyolt he l'Ndor'cev#y end vessel
                                                                                                --'ling Sl-,ipo,fs

• Structural algniftcance or ,.dlatlon damage Includlng swelling due to Irradiation Duration: 2012 - 2018 Tll-*--

       '--         -~*-.,., --- C-,                                                      - EPRI T1slt1
       -----------------                             S<:!MtrMllc of RPV eupport - .

• Estimation of bounding fluence (complete)
• Structural aignlftcance or radiation damage Including awelllng and changing mec:.tw,lcal propeftles due to Irradiation PWR 1T Fluence for 80 y Operatio n (E > 0.1 MeV)
• Neutron ftuence In opemlng US PWR* at 80 YNl'I Ol)fflltlon (dala extrapolate d from ex..,.... nuance rep011ec1 In ADAMS).

Neutron Irradiation of Monocrystals at HFIR (Tnt Ructor)

                                                                                        ~ ..,._ (E > 0.1 MeV):

0.5, 4 and 20 X 1011 n.cm-'

• lll,o dilfaNnl lnNlllkln QplUle dellgna to

                                                                                                                                              ** fl ,..  *- r.

• J
• T
• BWR ftuence Is - an Ofder of magnftude kMer than PWR. lllteledso lndlllion i.mpnbn:

                                                                                          - --110-e                                         .      .             .
 ._  ... ~--....,   ---- ----                  ---- ---- ---                              - P-- C ~portM I)
 ,...... rt---1-i.. ____,__*a~.. .----- ---- --

• f>Oll*mdflllon eumllllllol'I hll illllll.ct to gauge degrN of Radlallon Induced VOMMlrlc Expansion (RIVE} IIJICePlft)lllty

                                                                                          - MO,..,....-.,,_,_               ,dlNl!r
                                                                                          - 0..-.IM O,.--(O JIIII
                                                                                          - c.tclle, C.(C0, 1,.---
                                                                                          ---~lmllod-.

                    ~~-.~-.                                                                                                       __ ,:

Molecu lar Dynamics Simulation of Irradiated Minerals Chemical Conse quenc N of Neutron-Induced

                       * * *.......    *

• Amorp hlzatlo n
• c.ldlll .... ~ -.

                                      ~    ....
                                          ...                                                                  1:

l:... *-*--- *- l..*

                     ~~.~~
                              ~
          .. ,rnclleted"'- .,.. *---.*~
            --c ....... --
          ~caldllt       .... .,....--: ...

• lw i:...~...

_,..c,11_,

                                                                                                                                                    .. :=.o:
                                                                                                                                                                                            .\

1:.._., , ~ i

                                                                                                                                                                                                       *~

f I I It II II 11 14 11 1 I I It II II II W 1' u u u ... .. u

   *Ca1xlrae"'°""'--'°'"'.......,,

_and. ..,._ln .. lrT.-.i

• lnaease of the dissolution nne of irradiated siNca In alkali solution

   *-Ca-Red:0--C

• Posalbiltty of lrradiated-Aaslsted Alkaklll ca Reaction The___ ,.nlllft ol . . . bandl ( - - - - - - - ~ ) ........

FI t $. . . lo neullon lnadlallon. .. oppoeed lo Ille Ionic nalln of c:alcllll. Mechanical Consequences of Neutron-Induced Amorphlzatlon Effects of Aggregate Amor ph~o n on Concrete

?u I:;,.. ......,.....

I... C Q_,.4Mt..V) l. f:

                                                            ,                                      ~--- u u      RIVE of lillcale mlnerlll Ughlc,ay .p,lth-lpo lllo
                                                                                                         ~I Expanalon of aggregate l

o -IMN*Y I r SA . .. ......... u,a * ...,,., Oamagel craddng of the "112 I~ *' cement pnte 1 t.t

    - - - ~ (ti" ...

u te.t v--,

                                                                                       .¥.1 Lou of mechanical propeniel              !                                     (c)

N -. _ (Mnr')

• Losa of a10mle c:onatralnt, I.e., loN of rigidity and Young modulus l 50 100 1150 :aoo WI 300 360 D11)'1
• Rediatlon-lnduced Volumetric Expansio n (RIVE)

                                                                                                             @.            ~                        MHHclll . . .    ....,_...,.."'""Aulomaled Mldllnlcl lmlgraed ~ (AMIE)

Effect of Irradiation on Concrete Properties

                                                                                  ,                                        Radiation Exposure of Concrete Biological Shield PWR'a:

Literature review

• Inner dl8meter ftuenee 1011 IO updates Hilsdorfs 7.0x1011 n/a,y- (E > 0.1 Me\/)

curve (1978):

• For 80 yea, PWR openition (92%
• 307 compreulon capadty~* I 4-toop PWR < 4.0 x strength d.t. 1011 nfan2.
• 62 tensile llrlngth dN
• 138 elas.tic modulus

_....,.(-"').,.,,IT- ,.,. BWR's:

• Max. ftuenee - 1011 n/cm21180 data years ol operation.
• 114 Hnear expentlon dN

                            ,...               ,...,,,... ....... (.rJ't .... ...                                        Flux attenuation 121 : one onter of magnitude per 12 IO 15 cm (4 to 5 in.).

Red: llllcate Blue: ltnulOM Graen: rriscelllMOuaan d hull)' eggiegale Neutron Attenuation and Energy Cut-Off Structural Effects of Irradiation on Concrete Biological Shield (preliminary)

• Strong ftuence

                                                                                                                        ~

1tten111tion In the Radiation Induced concrete biological shield Volumelric Expansion (-1 onter iNer 12-15 cm)

• 95% of dpa occurs for E>

J:I.. (RIVE) creating elastic slreues: Ii .. 0.1 MeV

• Bllxial compression near lhe lD
• Circumferential tension toward the back 1.

J-as l

• Constraint effecta need to be Incorporated Into model.

                                                                                                                   - SI   *.

u u

Englne ertng Structu ral Evaluation: Engineering Structu ral Evaluation Suppor ta designs - PWR type 1/2/3/4

• EPRI Is wort<Jng with structural

                                                            -~                 *             -   vendor to perform a detailed                                     a.ar-r analysis of the type 1 support 1'¥1 detlgn                                ..a. ..
                                                            ~~
                                                                                                  - Detailed dl'II\WlCII from

• 2-loop nl3-4o op~

_.,_.._ ~- ,,..,.- -.......=- *

                                                                                                 - M ~ the INUdlon In margin
    ,.,,., ___                                                                                      cf\>> to neulnln il'rlldlatlon:
                                                                                                     *SWllllr vof
                                  ,.,,.2. MR1,,.,,,.                                                   ~con cNIII
                                                            ,._..., .. w _ _                         *~lnme c:henlc :al proper1IN
                     *C

• 1 1 ~ . .. . . . . . . . . ...., , ,

1""*--- -,...

                                                                                  --1=--=-
                                                                                                 - Relulla of the ........ wll bl publllhe cla.,EPR ITec:hnl eal Report In 04, 2018.

Flnlllt_......,meah S77'4" ofl')pa1RPVIUIJPOII

                                                                                                                                                            - 1=--=-

lntema tlonal Comm lttff on Irradiat ed Concre te (ICIC)

   * ....,,..... lndlMld ~lnbmd onl:ICN llgtF--1 1MNIIII Ol(Blnll Helllnld). Fn!Gene,a lMMtlr,o, ~ . TN, Nov2~. 2015 lonlend

• Plllllld ea~ l o t ~ lnbmMlcn (d\altll) end lllgrllng

                                                                              ~ Cllalr: T.
     ~(ORN L, USA), lll0a-a.: I. ~ ~ U.,

(VTT, Fklllnd)

                                                                        "-'>*~ M. F -

• Tedlnlcll Alaa:

       - a.uc:turlll Peibiiill d and MecMnllllc U11clll*1C111g of lie BllcDof Conaw (Y. La Pape ORNI., USA)

Aadllloll on Conc rete Degradation due to

      - ~ a n d ~ of a...ac. lnadlMtd Concml (M. OldoMz.

ENRESA. Alkall -Slllca Reactions 8pMI)

      - ,.,.,...,... , ......,,. lludlNofC oncnle & ~ (M. Koleeu, Repub.,
      - Qw.w I I II 1 4 ~C:-(C. Alldra, CSIC, &,lln)
                                                                              '-\WJIS   I RC4W, Czech
  * ,...,.,.. 1W1 lie UI (DOE. EPAI, NRC), ~end .,_
                                                                                -~-*-

iii ~-. 411'onun --1 -IW&ll=-=- iov

    ~                                      ~

ma -- 81 -u ca,1,- -

                                                                                                                                                          ---1=--=-

Integrated Efforts for ASR Studies Risk screening for ASR

• Conc:tele that p,evloualy -
• conaldered H non-l'QCtlve may be claalfted dlffnntly today due to MW lmpl0Yed testing melhoda.
• For lhoN atruduf'll lhlt haYe the potentlll to deY9lop Chis degradation, I Ml of tools for Hl1y detection of 1h11 pathology will be provided,

                                                                                                -~-              ____
                                                                                                & -===-
                                                                                                --=--a~-*--..?=---                         .,.._,...,..... __
..                                                                                                                                                          - 1=::..

Inspection of ASR affected structures MolfOdar.,_ . . . noNOEIHlaht canrelllllly II --,AIR; II) dlllmft._ IRlldAIR In I IINCUI.

                                                                           -           I Aging Management Programs for ASR

• Project on Aging

                                                                                               ~ I Program for

• EPRI hu developed 8 lltge epec:ilnaw wllh Ya,yi,1g dag!W9 dASR to be ASRdected11 1ucturn tested by UniYeralties and V9ll<kn to evaluate 1he rellabllty of NOE tec:hnf!lues 1111ttln402O 15
• New lnsp<<;tion techniques 11'1 normally developed In amall labomoly lized specimena.
• RNI atrtuctu,_ are la(ger Ind behlve d!trerently.
• EPRI apeclmena wUI be ulld lor teatlng end validation d , _ NOE techniques beheralllN CONdlnallol l_.. EPfU Nudeer S e c t o r ~ 111111111M onAeklll Reiabllro l~...-...--.- IDdallc:tA SR-20201 8

             , _ , . . . . , . ~ UTlllrdlllCll llclAlll-4QZ 011(NEUP-

( Model ing Shear Resistance of Reinforced Parametric Study of the Effects of Confinement on the Concr ete Subjected to Alkall-Silica Reaction Shear Resistance of ASR*Affected Structural Memberw.

• Coopelllllan wllh the UIWW'llly d Colorado, 8cQCler
• F1nll8 Eleme nt~: COde ,,,_,,,, epecfflcally developed to - n t for ASR
• Geometry Typea: Beam (8), TNncetad a..,n ahcfs (8-lma and Peroal, 2008) (TB), PIMl(P)
• Otljec:the: ..-ion dlhellCIII-ASRNllclull i..1ng capacity
• 8oundlry COIICllloM: (1)U.,......... (2)

Rnnlned, (3) P.-tlelly Remlned a: * ~ 2 fl, 4 fl - LoNor,.,,,ol.,_,...._ fl)

    <0
                                                                                     *AAAEJq111181on0.1%,0.2'1i, O.~

• Relnb -~ Ratio 0.2'1i, 0.5%, 1" rNCM alhlff l,,,.~

(ASR) and~. r.cfa. z

• Realclull Rellllve Elllllc:Mo dlall 0.7, 0.9
• Realduel Relallve Tenale 81rlnglti 0.7, 0.9 Development of Concrete Model ing Capablllties In GRIZZLY Status of the Develo pment of the

                                                                    .             Experi mental Mocku ps at the Univer sity of Tennessee

• IIOOSE (Wtiphy llca Objed Orilnl9d Slnuallon EIMronrnent)
• Objective s: atudy the eff9d d 11Ndura1 conatrllnll on the dewloprn ent of ASR and the out-of*plane 1hear re1l1tance of thick reinforced c:onaete
• Grizzly: ~rada tlon modell panel
• Conaw l'Nllld m o d e l s ~
• Three blocb (1 non l'eKtlve, 1 reactill9f'free" expen1lon, 1 ln2015:

                                                                                    ~ In one plane): 11ze 100- x eo* x 40"
      - C<<lllldm olluwnm poMleltl nnmr, Le.,....,.. and Thongulhal'a model

• Monlortng (bulk .-id IUlface): expanalon, ~ . relative hll'nidlty,

      - A8R -'Ing model, Le., s-m.*,                                                lnllmel 11nt11, damage model

• Pl: U. ofT111111,..., TPO: ORNL
• Modlla 1D be ~ t In 2018-7:
• Cobbor dYe dlona bltwNn: U. of TN (Knoxville), U of Alabama,

     - Craddlig/d a!IIOI U. of Colorado , U. of South Crollnl, ORNL, INL, PNNL and EPRI...
     - RaMk..Hl ducadVOU MIJleexpa nalon

• Kick.of ~ting: Septemb er 4 2015

    - CrNp

• Dul'lllon: 4 ye1r1

RILEM Technical CommlttH on lntemal Swelllng Reactions

• lnternatlonal group of experts
• Acllvity Initiated In June 2014
• Chair V. S.ouma, Secntary Y. Le Pape
• State of the Art and Needs for hydro- end nuclear lnduslriet (lead. V. Boric Acid Damage of Concrete In Spent Gocevald Ind F. Amberg)

Fuel Pools E.xP*otl9o otSwitzerland from Franc::e, end V. Seouma) StN=

• WG1. Compilation of teat procedures for the Estimlltion or tbt Ba!dY*I concrete lo and Aftlctfd by Alk*H smca BHCtion*

orth America. Oead. M. Hessenudeh Creep Impact on Post-tensioned

• WG2. Survey of exi,1111!1 adyanCfd ASR*mgdel*- Benchm1rll In Containment preparation (lead. A. Sellief)
• WG3. NDE/monitodoq. State of the art report (lead. L. Jacob, and P.

Rivard)

• WG4. Ll(Pt;lctlt tUlloA (lead. Y. le Pape)

Boric Acid - Leaking PWR SfPs Boric Acid on Spent Fuel Pool*

                                                                          *3 year experimental and modeling study Problem Statement                                                         condooted at CEA in Saclay, France.

LHlalge ofPWR spilllt flNII poolscau.ws - l.udls1g and rNOllona of aqueoua boric add aqueous boric IICld lo come Into contact wNhClffllntpnll with the concrete sub8t1llcture. - RNcllona belMen aqueou1 boric acid and

                                                                               ~

IIIUe:

                                                                             - Leaching and reactlona between aqueous boric lad and concrete Impacts of accelerated /etlChi"fl on                                     - Computational modellflf/ of ractlon, concrete

• Study will be completed fourth quarter Duration: 2013-2018 2015

          ~--..
        ----*---...-°'-   -

m,oa,__ .,. ____ ____ .,

• The results of the CEA study will be published by the Materials Aging Institute and used as a basis for the 2016 AMP framework report.

1EP"f211=--=- -

( Technical Bula for Aging Management of BA on SFP Concrete Creep In Containment s

    *Currently, a framework for aging management of leaking

• EPRJ publllhed
• llnlln review (3002003220) on cr.ep In concnta ~

In 2015 spent fuel pools Is being - ~ contalrmanl IWCIUrae . . dellgMclto llbwfar ClwP Qftlll developed ~ -

                                                                                        - 6eYlrlli modlllflf cnep In conc:rele . . ....,..,,
       - Review of CEA. MPR end Sandia National Laboratoly atudiN.
      - Focua on b o t h ~

pnMdlon and potential , --*

                                                        ++-----
                                                                 --                     Reg Gulde 1.35.1 proyldea guidellneltorthep r9dlcllonof wldon a.. - lncluclng the ahda gf long 1111m CXlllCJW cnep.

c,...,..,..,,.~. atr\ldUral .n.c:ta.

      - Owrall goal la to give utilitlel
                                                                       ---.

• log functJon with time.

guklance for developmant of altlHpecfflcAM Ps fof'leaklng

• CrNp II ganeraly occunt~ **

apenl fuel poola apeafic to the concnle aubn'udl.n. predldld ~ modlll UNd b CDlllinmantdNign.

      - 2018 AMP framewof1c EPRI
         ,.port                                      '* ,.

Plola llMII tom EPRI TR

• 10251815
• CINl)doea not appear to be * .___

lllgnlflcant eglng .ir.ct.

                                                                                                                                                      ---1==:=...

Nonlinear Ultrasound Characteriza tion of Concrete Creep Problem &aternent: Long tem, a..p (c>>lonnltlon) l'MY *rr.ct the p<<fom,anoe ofpost-19nsiorwKJ ooncn,te containment .tructurN a n d -

    #onnatlon d ooralntMnt IMrl.

NOl'ICINtnK:tJv evelu*tlon method to

    ~._,,_             _,                                                             Together*.. Shaplng the Future of Electricity Duration: 2014-2016 u
                                                                                                                                                    ---1=:::..

References References

• Slldot:
• Sidi 12:

                                                                                                                - LI Pap11, Y.: Fllld, It & Ron-. I. Rldlallon E-ln Concnlll IDr NII-P- l'lanll
  - T. - * " " Y. le P.,,.. Slotusre11011on 1M p o l l t -.......... ollmldilltdmlntral fflllop OfltOMOI tom 11t L~S / EPftl colo..,,.llon on lmldfatod .-ole, LIUlf Ropo,1

• Pt11 II: Pfflflldvl lnlmMiclomocl\anlcal ~ . - ~ 1 n d 0 N l g n . 2011, 2112, ORNIATR~14/S14, ~ 2 0 1 4. 144-151

  - T. Ro-.

t/ II. Ropo,1 on 1M po...,_ Ul""""tion or - t o d -

• I eno11>gu11 ol

                         .. _.,,.,.. LIiler R - , 0RNULTR-20t5145S, Stf,t-r2015
                                                                                                                - Oioflo, A.: Vll1o.., M.: LI Pepo, Y, & $to-r11, P. MtlO-Scllo Ml>dtlng .,, _ ~ I n T11IR*OC10<, Nucle1t~1nd0.1/f11, I011, ffl, H*73

• Slkltt:
• Sldo 13:

  - Plgnt*II 11 el, 'Onel ~ Y IE -for Dllllftng Ruc:Wlly A111ro1lon1 ol lllnorola

• Aoki, K.: Rt.... I. & LI , *
• Y, R1dlollon Efftcll on Conc:role ID< Nudlot , - PIIIU, P011 I:

Quon- ol-llo* ~ Ind Rodlo11on EIIKI&, MldterEng/M<<fl>gllldO.llfln, I011,

      ~ 1 . . . -. Tiie CnoofC,lcb ondOuolll". Sc/enlllleRo,po,11

• N.,,,,., 201' (under 212, 126-143
• Slklt10*
• Sidi 14:

  - Plgno.... I.; Kilml<, A.; Flold, K.; ~ IL; Y*, Y.; Dolle>I, H.; LI Pape, Y.; IIIINll<hwl, J,; llau<lly,     - (1JT. EIMlmtn,P. 8Nd<,

• E>lpoc1ed"""diuono1co..,.,.11191eoo1rw-oporo11on*, 1JK:Jus M, & hnt. 0 Dncl ~ - E ' - lor Olfllm9 ftNCUvtly ANMtlonl o f - rotlowlnO - .. lnc., 2013

_ ,_ ca.. olC,ldlund auonz. """"""'"""""'* NNn, 2011 ("""",......., - (2J I, R*,,..._ II ol 'Ctllrldlflullon ol Rtdllllon Fltldl In 8lofoolcal S!lll4cll of NPPI lor AaNUlnO C - t t ~ *. ~ o f t t , e F/fleenfl>__,S)n,po_on _ _

• SNdl 11:

Oountity, 2014

  - ~ . I.: Kumar. A.: Flold, It: wang, 8.: Yu, Y.; Dobbe, H.: lo Pe,-. Y; IIIMlecllwl, J.: Bllldly, M. &Slnt,O. ~~IIIE-lorlllfflm9R11CIMly Mamlonlof-~                                                     *Slldo11'
                                                                                                                - t. R-c 1111, *QlafKllliullonof Rldiltlon Filldl In lliotoglclll Slliotdt of NPPI lorAaMllinO lmldilllon: TIii Cnool~ lndOuoN. - " - " " 1 * -
   - Aoki, It: -

• 2011 (under_..,,

                        . I. & lo Pei-, Y. -llonElllcllonConc:rotefQrNudllfP-Plentl, Pon I:
      ~ of Rldietion e:_.ond ~ Elltctt, - ~

• n d l > N I V n, 2011, eo.a.11 Dtt<tdlllon',

OotoneOy, 2014

                                                                                                                                               ~.,,,.Fllltt.,,            lnlWMI/Onll s--on~ldot 2112. ue-1,3                                                                                               - I. Rlfflff, 'Slltw R'90rt on Dollnlno I U.ffled P -

• r l o r ~ - of Roct,llon tnllndocl 1Drl.,._llonof--Dot<edl1Jon*IC:-', OlkllldgoN1rlotlll,._.loly, 2013

                                                                                                            ' 1.!IIS    (1)-*i~.,.

References

• Stlcll 11:
• l*P-,Y. Sltucuol_of _ _ _ e.on11ononU-C-t

       ~ -. -~MJ°""""I01'<-CC>IIMdlorpwbtion)

• Slldl25:

    - s-<<no, V.: H - - . M ; . . . . . . . - . w. &1.aPapo,Y. P,oltminllyrw1Ultlon""'

_....,.ncoof---lllNN-concnlellffllcluru,01kllldgo

       - , ~. 2014
* &lido 2';

Roln- concrait

• Sidi 27:

Slructlnl-

    - V. S . -. M. Hlrirl-Mllllllond Y. L* P41110, EIIIClot~R-on ShoerSIIOngll ol ORNIJTll~15/518, Sell. 2015
    - S - , V.; HIM-ARlll>il. M.: ........_, W. I LI P,po, Y. P-.,.,..-cn tho 11N<W'81 llgniftconcool--1'1-inmtllrwlnlon:od concnle . - 1. 0.kRidge
       - l - . i u t y, 2014
    - Huang, H.; 5po-,, 8. & Cl!. G. Gnaly -            ol M"'1i-Spo<M1 Rud!YO Oilll-, -Ul'I/Heat Tran*llr, and All<aMlicl Ruction In Concnto, ldllto N'1/onl/ l-.,ory, 2011

From: Hjser Matthew To: ,_____ ___, -, J~J(Ell Cc: Jregooiog Robert:._!_ _ _ _ _........;= ...--..1 ( ~)(El) Subject : RE: RE: Harvested Materials at Battelle ,--,--,---------,--------,------,----, Date: Friday, May 18, 2018 10:44:1 1 AM Note to requester: Attachment is Attachments: Harvested materials info template xlsx immediately following. (b)(6) _ Hil Thank you for the brief cal l w ith us on Monday to discuss the materials that remain at Battelle. We appreciate your willingness to provide some assistance in catalogu ing the ava ilable previously harvested materia ls that you have. I have attached an Excel spreadsheet showing how we've captured information for harvest ed materials that are avai lable at Argonne National Lab. It gives you an idea of the type of information and level of detail we've been getting. Please feel free to adjust t he information as appropriate based on what you have/ can easily find for your materials. If you'd like to add more columns for more deta ils (if you have them), that would be great as well. I will be in Columbus at EWI the weeks of June 4-8 and 11-15 with Friday afternoon June 15 looking like the best potential opportun ity for a brief visit if that ends up be ing needed. Thanks! Matt (b)(6) - Jr9mf...... . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___, Sent: Tuesday, M ay 08, 2018 8:59 AM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov> (b)(6) Cc: (b)(6) Robert <Robert.Tre oning@nrc.gov>; (b)(6) -------

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Harvested Materials at Battel le Matthew, While I believe we will be able t o get everyone t ogether for teleconference, there may be issues with a site visit. We currently have no projects with t he NRC for which to charge time agai nst for this effort. We can discuss this during t he teleconference. Best Regards, (b )(6) Connect with me onl(b)(6) I Battelle 505 King Ave. Columbus, OH 43201 bttp*Uwww battelle org Connect with Battelle Facebook I Linkedln Tu.ill.er I YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any attachmenls hereto are in1ended only for lhe use of 1he individual or en1i1y to which ii is addressed, and may con1ain informa1ion 1ha1 is confidenlial. 1radc secret and/or 01herwisc exempt from disclosure under applic:1ble law. If 1hc reader of Ihis

message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient. any disclosure, dissemination, distribution , copying or other use of th.is communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return to the sender and delete from your computer system.

          -----Ori gin al App ointme nt-----

From: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:46 AM (b)(6) (b)(6) Jo;J * *

• I Tregoni ng, Ro berd.--------------...,...--,

Subject:

Harvested Mat erial s at Battelle When: Monday, May 14, 2018 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Ti me (US & Canada) . Where: Telecon: to be added (b)(6) ... Dea4 I (b)(6) - Following up from Rob's initial contact with I /I we'd like to set up a brief telecom sometime in the next few weeks to discuss what harvested materials may be available at Battelle. Please let me know if another time would be better for this call. I will be attending a training course at Edison Welding Institute in Columbus in early June, which wou ld provide a good opportunity to potentially visit and see what materials are available if there is enough to be worthwhi le. Thanks ! Matt Matthew Hiser Materials Engineer Transformation Team member US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phone: 301-415-2454 Matthew Hiser@orc gov

CASS A212--'8 CF-3 - ESCO, _ Neutttlf'l§t,,iekf~ not trom reactors !lldg. 212 Not ~*fable 2 bkJcb ot S~x5gK2", ~nd These CASS materials are not materials harveste<I from actual reactors. They were cast by companies who were reactor materials suppliers. CF-8 ESCO- not fl-om re.tcton Btdg. 212 2 blocts of s* :.s*xr. ~nd 3 CF..SM csco- not from reiKton ~ .212 s blocbof 2sx2 s~.wr Grand Gutt Slftoi!plate Rlrl1r. 212 I I I

ex-pIant . Is at IML un t este d .1rrad"1at e d matena Dose, Number of SOURCE Sample form SPECIMEN dpa samples Comments 304 ZORITA PLATE TEM 0.1- so 2 ID? Small tensile 0.1- so 5 1/4T 0.1- so 10 WELD TEM 0.1- so 2 Small tensile 0.1- so 2 1/ 4T 0.1 - 52? 4 VCSUMMER DISSIMILAR W ELD 1/2T-CT negligible 5 ID? tensile negligible 3 ID? DAVIS BESSE DISSIMILAR W ELD 1/2T-CT negligible 3 ID? 1/4T CT negligible 3 DISSIMILAR WELD= Alloy 82+Alloy 182 VC SUMMER = hotleg nozzle-to-pipe weld DAVIS BESSE = CROM nozzole #3

Note to requester: The attached email is immediately fo llowing. (b )(6) (b)(6) From: Hiser Matthew To: ._____....,I Tregoning Robert :! Harvested Materials at Battel le .____________.

Subject:

Attachments: FW RE RE Couple of things.msg Passcodes/Pin codes: Panicipant passcode: c::J.(b}(6) For security reasons. the passcode will be required 10 join the conference. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free N umber USA 888-677-86 I5 Dear! . - - - - ...-......-.... ...-.......-.. ..-.

                                                                              .... .t.J~)(?).

(b )(6) FolJ?'."in¥.~p_frs,r11R9ll:~..inilialcomactw,1h r=7 we"d hke to sci up a brieftelecom some1ime in the next few weeks to discuss what harve 1cd

             ***********ma!errnls may be avai lable at Battellc. Please~                      know ,f another time would be helter for 1lus call .

I wi ll be attending a traini ng course at Ed ison Welding lnsiitute in Columbus in early June, which would provide a good opportunity to potentially visi t and see whal ma1erials are availab le if there is enough to be worthwhile. Thank s! Mall Mallhew Hiser Materials Engineer Transformation Team member US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phone: 30 1-4 15-2454 Mallhew .Hiser@nrc.gov <mailto:Matthew.Hiser@nrc.gov>

From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Mon, 7 May 2018 14:53:38 +0000 To: Hiser, Matthew Cc: Audrain, Margaret;Purtscher, Patrick

Subject:

FW: RE: RE: Couple of things Importance: High Matt: This email has the entire thread of our discussion. Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/5 T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From:._! (b_)(_6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:28 AM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) RE: RE: Couple of things Importance: High Rob, I have pictures from ou r WJ pipe facility. It is mainly cold-leg pipe with o ne section of a nozzle branch. I will try to get you the pictures today. We could support a call next week. Regards, (b)(6) Connect with me on !(b)(6) Battelle

505 King Ave. Columbus, OH 43201 http://www.battelle.org Connect with Battelle Facebook I Linkedln Twitter I YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any atlachments hereto are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential, trade secret and/or ot herwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or its substance is prohibited. lfyou have received this communication in error, please return to the sender and delete from your computer system. From: Tregoning, Robert <Robert .Tregoning@nrc.gov> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 9:26 AM (b)(6) .JQ:...I =---------------'

Subject:

FW: RE: Couple of things I just wanted to follow-up on our activity to develop an inventory of ex-plant materials that may still exist at Battelle. We would ultimately like to possibly travel up for a day to see what's left but it might be good to have a call initially with you,! * !toseeifatripis.worthwhjle.(b)(6) Is this something that you could support? Thanks, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for M at erials US Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From: Tregoning, Robert Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 1:46 PM (b)(6) Jq:l._.... =********a******** Cc: Wallace, Jay <Jay.Wallace@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RE : Couple of t hings

      ~

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I appreciate your comments and welcome further discussion. See my responses to your initial questions/comments below, in red .

Cheers, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 (b)(6) L._ fr9m:.... . . . ._______________. Sent; Wednesday, February 07, 2018 1:01 PM To: Tregoning, Robert <Robert .Tregoning@nrc.gov> (b)(6) Cc:,___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

Subject:

[External_Sender) RE: Couple of things Importance: High Rob, Great to hear from you!! Things are well here at Battelle and also personally; I hope the same for you. I have a couple of comments about the questions on the Round Robins and Components.

1) It is difficult for us these days to do anything without a contract. I would love to see the results of the round robins, but I am not sure we can participate (Trying to convince management that it is the right thing without even a hint of billable hours from the NRC in the future is a tough sell.)

Believe me, I understand the climate but I just thought you would be interested. The final report for both projects will be made public and I can share them with you when they are complete.

2) As for the LBB Analysis Round robin, I definitely have some opinions on Cases 3 and 4 that I would like to share (hoping you can provide some insight):

a. These are SCC cracks with a morphology parameter which make take care of "twist s and turns" but the COD will still be calculated for a planar crack, not a porous media (which I am not sure what COD even means for porous media).

Agreed that this is a gross simplification of the actual geometry of a complex crack. I think we're still a little ways away from effectively modeling the effects of such a crack on COD (or leak rate for that matter) but could use sensitivity analyses to study. This is well outside the scope of the current benchmark

b. The morphology knock-down factors only effect the leak rate, not the driving force, so what is the driving force for a sec crack which has connected ligaments?

Agreed that the knock-down factors only affect leak rate; those knock-down factors also don't consider the effect of connected ligaments. As above, this is another simplification. This one, at least, is a conservative assumption.

c. Real plants have high restraint on the pipes (pumps, pressure vessels ... etc.) which restrain the crack opening (and reduce the driving force) - do any of the codes have a Restraint of Pressure Induced Bending module?

Some codes do consider the effect of end restraints on the stress state. The benchmark problem assumes freely rotated ends, again, as a simplification.

d. To my knowledge in xLPR and Pro-LOCA, WRS' s only effect the K-solutions up until a TWC occurs. WRS are not accounted for in either COD or K-solutions for TWC.

You are correct; for this exercise, we plan on calculating the effect of WRS on COD outside of xLPR and then using the CODs as input to the LEAPOR (or other) leak rate code.

e. My major concern is "How can we determine the effects of Leak Rate on LBB if we are not modeling the behavior correctly or even using the correct models?" (not saying conservative I non-conservative, just not correctly). It is kind of like inferring how fast you are going by counting the number of dead bugs on your car window.

Philosophically I agree with your concern that we need to understand model uncertainty in order to properly evaluate the results of any calculation. This is been a principle concern for the xLPR program which has the objective of developing a "best estimate model". In reality, such a model is not achievable because a whole host of simplifying assumptions are required along the way (you've indicated as few of them). The best we're able to do at this point is to qualitatively assess each aspect of model uncertainly in an attempt to understand what the true biases are. LBB analyses, however, have never pretended to be best estimate analyses and they have always intended to be conservative simplifications of reality. The factors of 10 on leak rate and 1.4 on loading and 2 on crack size are intended to conservatively account for such uncertainties. This round robin obviously will not address such complexities and it is only intended to take a small step by considering the effects that different models and modeling assumptions have on an LBB problem. I recognize that such sensitivity studies are not new and that Battelle and EMCC (among others) have performed such studies around 20 years ago. However, the hope here is that we'll be able to look at these effects in other leak rate codes (e.g., PICEP) to better understand sensitive parameters. By the way, if you know the density of live bugs that you're traveling through , counting the number of dead bug is actually an effective strategy of measuring speed © (b)(6) ... L Jhavecopied! *** bn this message because t hey will have more knowledge on anything "left" here. To my knowledge it was all "abandoned in place", I have nothing I am keeping track of on government tags... etc. As for pipe and or components, it may have been scrapped. I appreciate you copying !(b)(6) !on the message. Please let me know if they are able to definitively address what materials/components may or may not be left at Battelle.

(b)(6) (:Qnnectwith me ori... :_. . .___. Battelle 505 King Ave. Columbus, OH 43201 http://www.battelle.org Connect with Battelle Facebook I Linkedln Twitter I YouTube CONEIPENTIALITY NOTICE This message and any attachments hereto are intended on ly for the use of the individual or entity to w hich it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidentia l, trade secre t and/or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader o f this message is not the intended recipient or the em ployee or agent responsible for delivering t he message to the intended recipient, any disclosure, d issemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication or its substance is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please retum to the sender and delete from your computer system. From: Tregoning, Robert (mailto:Robert.Tregoning@nrc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 8:24 AM {b)(6) I~~  ! Cc: Wallace, Jay <Jay.Wallace@nrc.gov>; Audrain, Margaret <M argaret.Audrain@nrc.gov>; Purtscher, Patrick <Patrick.Pu rtscher@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Couple of things Message received from outside the Battelle network. Carefully examine it before you open any links or attachments. (b)(6) f__. . . ._* * * - - How are things going? It's been awhile since I've seen or talked to you and I hope you and your family are well. I wanted to send you this email to cover a couple of topics. The first is that we (NRC) are involved in a couple of international computational round robins that are being conducted under the auspices of NEA\CSNI. The first attachment describes the xFEM round robin which was recently approved but has yet to formally begin. I've provided the proposal description. This round robin is being coordinated by France (IRSN) and Belgium (BelV). The second attachment is an LBB round robin which was approved a year or so ago, but we're really just getting rolling on this effort as well. The US (me) and Sweden (SSM) are the leads on this round robin. Let me know if you guys have any interest in possibly participating in either activity. I can also answer any questions that you many have on both of these projects. On another note, we have recently started to compile a database of ex-plant materials/components that we have accumulated through the years at various laboratories. We're trying to get a good accounting of what materials we have left for possible future research projects. Of course, we've sponsored quite a bit of work at Battelle over the years and while I'm generally aware of the projects, I'm not sure how much, if any, excess materials, components, or specimens still remain at Battelle.

Do you have a good handle on what ex-plant materials/components still exist at Battelle? (b)(6) Woulditbeworthcontacting! !or other past-Battelle workers to help out? We've developed a spreadsheet for the database to capture the information but I think we'd ultimately like to visit so that we can actually view any remains. Thanks so much for your help with this. Warm regards, Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, M/S T-10 A36 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax : 301-415-6671

From: lchjroKOMURA To: Prokofiev louri Cc: Jregonjng Robert: Iyengar Raj: Hjser Matthew Subject : [External_Sender] RE: Info about NPP Materials Harvesting Workshop Date: Thursday, February 9, 2017 2:26:04 AM

Dear Iouri,

Thank you for the information about Japanese relation with NRC's Harvesting program. I was relieved to hear your information and your conversation with Dr. Tregoning, which explain t hat Kazunobu Sakamoto has participated and would participate to your program. Personally, 1 am interested in the material degradation under the actual environment compared with accelerated condition. In the recent situation of Japan/NRA, such NRA's R&D or information gathering would be conducted with JAEA(JAEA is the government organization). And it would be out of scope of JAPEIC unfortunately. I will ask to Kazu about the future updated situation and information. Best regards, Ichiro From: Prokofiev, Iouri [mailto: louri.Prokotiev@nrc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 7:00 AM To: IchiroKOMURA Cc: Tregoning, Robert; Iyengar, Raj; Hiser, Matthew

Subject:

Info about NPP Materials Harvesting Workshop

Dear Ichiro,

I sent attachments to you to ask your persona! opinion. I hope you received the attachments, if a problem- please let me know. Please contact with Kazunobu Sakamoto about the Harvesting W orks hop! * **!anddidn'.t . ( b)(6~ participate in the NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Mee ting on Materials Issues that was organized at NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD, USA, August 8 - 9, 2016 I asked Dr. Rob Tregoning for the updated information related to Harvesting . P lease see below o ur conversation. Best Regards, l o uri louri: The update is that we have been working with JNRA (K. Sakamoto) on the Japanese workshop participation. We currently will have participants from ]NRA (Sakamoto), CRIEPI (Sonada), and JAEA (Chimi). Only CRIEPI is making formal presentations but it is expected that all will participate in the discussion. Please let me know ifyou have any other questions. Rob Robert Tregoning Technical Advisor.for Materials US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Two White Flint North, MIS T-l 0 A36 I 1545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738 ph: 301-415-2324 fax: 301-415-6671 From : Prokofiev, louri Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:30 AM To: Hiser, Matthew < Matthew.Hiser@nrq,::ov>; Tregoning, Robert <Robert.Tregoning@nrq~ov> Cc: Iyengar , Raj <Raj.Iycngar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Query M eeting with NRA in Aug Good M orning, l am sorry bother you. I am working with PA RENT Follow o n proj ect proposal and r sent the attached email "more thoughts* Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting" to Dr. Ichiro Komura, Steering

Committee member from JAPEIC komura-ichjrou@japeic or jp. with the Harvesting info. It was surprised me, he asked question re lated to Harvesting; "Can 1 distribute the attached document you sent me to the people of NRA, MHI, other e lectric powe r company in Japan, and University?" Can you please update the info rmation from NRC/NRAJ Bilateral Meeting on Materials Issues Summary? From: IchiroKOMURA [mailto*komura-ichjrou@japeic.orjpl Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 7:26 PM To: Prokofiev, Iouri <Iouri.Prokofiev@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] FW: more thoughts: Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting

Dear Iouri,

Can I distribute the attached document you sent me to the people of NRA, MHl, other electric power company in Japan, and Univers ity ? lchiro From: Prokofiev, lourilmailto:lourjProkofiev@nrc,i:ovJ Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 9:47 AM To: lchiroKOMURA Cc: Lin, Bruce; Iyengar, Raj

Subject:

more thoughts: Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting Good Morning

Dear Ichiro,

Thank you very much for taking the initiative and accelerating the process with the Scope of Work preparation. I a m working with topics related to 3) and 2). I have two personal questions:

1. What do you think about this - will it be interesting for JAPEIC/NRA activity with Harvesting (please see the Attachments)?

2. I read The Mainichi, 2016-12-20; Japan: Gap emerges between gov't, private sector over Monju reactor and my question is -- did you or our NDE MHI colleagues have experience with components of Fast Reactors examination?

I have really enjoyed knowing and working with you during these past years. It has been a privilege (b)(6) for11:1e: I  ! (b)(6) . *****' - I-=;;.__......------,,--------1 Always my Best regards, lo uri From: Lin, Bruce Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 l:39 PM To: IchiroKOMURA <komurn-ichjrou@japeic orjp> ; Prokofiev, louri <Iouri Prokofiev@nrc gov>

Subject:

R E: RE: Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting

Dear Ichiro,

Ryan and l are working on the draft work scope for the fo llow on project. We are hoping to get that out to PARENT members for review soon. Based on PARENT 13 meeting, the three potential topic areas are: l) NDE Modeling and Simulation, 2) Flaw Releva nce Evaluation, and 3) Material Degradation Monitoring. From NRC perspective, there is strong support for tasks l and 2. However, at this point, there is no decision on the follow on project yet. We need to finalize the work scope and then present to the management for approval. It is likely there will be a gap between the end of PARENT extension and the start of the follow-on project. If we don't have an agreement in place prior to the end of PARENT extension, we can continue to work on putting the agreement in place. Regards, Bruce From: IchiroKOMURA [mailto*komura-jchjrou@japeic or jp) Sent: Tuesday, January 3 1, 20 17 3:01 AM To: Prokofiev, Iour i <Iourj Prokofiev@nrc.gov>; Lin, Bruce <Bruce Lin@nrc gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Reflections on PARENT 13 Meeting

Dear Iouri and Bruce,

Today, I am sending this e-mail to you for requesting to hear your supposition about the schedule for starting the Follow-on Project. PARENT Extension is scheduled to finjsh at the end of July in this year. I trunk that the Follow-on Pj would not be fixed at that time. In the PARENT-13 meeting, Iouri said that all the orgaruzation would work for discussion and planning about Follow-on Pj under the umbrella agreement with NRC. How do you think/schedule the period Ibetween the end of pARENT Extension and the decision m the suuting of Follow-on Pj ? (b)(S)I I would like to hear your opinion, if it would be temporary plan. Best regards , lchiro

From: Hiser, Matthew Sent: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:34:48 +0000 To: Purtscher, Patrick

Subject:

FW: You have files ready for pickup Hi Pat, I assume you received a similar email from Pradeep? Thanks! Matt

---

Original Mcssage-----

From: Ramuhalli, Pradeep [7] Sent: Sunday, July 23,2017 8:09 PM To: Hiser, Matthew <Matthew. Hiser@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender] You have files ready for pickup

Hello, Ramuhalli, Pradeep (Pradeep.Ramuhalli@pnnl.gov) has sent you the following I file(s:)

Subject:

TLR Comments: Patrick, Looks like the earlier emails have not made it. I am re-sending via FTP. Let me know if you get this. Pradeep The following files have been uploaded to the MassTransit Web File Transfer Services. You can download them by going to: (b)(4) an se cctmg t 1e . NOTE: This link and contained passkey are only good for 14 days. Harvesting TLR DRAFT.docx (5.07M bytes) This message was automatically generated from the PNNL FX Web File Transfer Service. If you have questions about its validity, please contact the sender listed above.}}