IAEA-EBP-IGSCC-07LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

08-05-01

MINUTESOF THE SECOND MEETING OF THE

PROGRAMME’SSTEERING COMMITTEE

VIENNA, AUSTRIA5-7 DECEMBER 2000

EXTRABUDGETARY PROGRAMME ON MITIGATION OF INTERGRANULARSTRESS CORROSION CRACKING IN RBMK REACTORS

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2

2. MEETING SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 2

2.1. PLANT UPDATES AND REGULATORY VIEWS ...................................................... 2

2.2. PRESENTATIONS ON RELATED TOPICS................................................................. 3

2.3. WORKING GROUP 1 SUMMARY AND FUTURE PLANS....................................... 3

2.4. WORKING GROUP 2 SUMMARY AND FUTURE PLANS....................................... 4

2.5. WORKING GROUP 3 SUMMARY AND FUTURE PLANS....................................... 5

2.6. WORKING GROUP 4 SUMMARY AND FUTURE PLANS....................................... 7

3. ACTION ITEMS .................................................................................................................... 9

Appendix I PROVISIONAL AGENDA................................................................................... 11

Appendix II LIST OF PARTICIPANTS .................................................................................. 13

Appendix III PRESENTATION HANDOUTS ........................................................................ 18

2

1. INTRODUCTION

The second Meeting of the Steering Committee (SC) for the IAEA ExtrabudgetaryProgramme on Mitigation of Integranular Stress corrosion Cracking in RBMK Reactors washeld at the IAEA Headquarters in Vienna, Austria, December 5-7, 2000. The objective of theprogramme is to assist countries operating RBMK reactors in establishing an effectiveprogram to mitigate intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) in the austenitic stainlesssteel piping. It is not the objective of the programme to deal with plant lifetime extensionissues. The programme was started in May 2000 by the first Steering Committee Meeting andis to be completed in two years.

The Agenda for the Meeting is provided in Appendix I. Minor adjustments were madeto the agenda to accommodate presentation times.

The Meeting was attended by representatives of the participating organizations,including representatives of the RBMK designer, operating organizations, and regulators fromeach country with RMBK reactors. A list of the attendees is provided in Appendix II. Copiesof the presentation materials are provided in Appendix III.

2. MEETING SUMMARY

The Meeting was opened by L. Lederman of the IAEA who noted that the mainobjective of the meeting is to consolidate various activities, to identify interfaces, overlaps,and gaps in the Working Group efforts. L. Lederman introduced J. L. Sanchez Nieto fromTecnatom Spain. Spain has joined the Programme and J. L. Sanchez-Nieto is theirrepresentative to the Steering Committee.

M. Mayfield, Steering Committee Chairman, welcomed the participants and presentedthe Provisional Agenda. It was adopted without change. M. Mayfield presented the minutesof the First Steering Committee meeting and they were adopted without change.

R. Havel, IAEA Scientific Secretary to the Programme, provided an overview of theProgramme status and the outlook for completing the Programme. Appendix III R. Havelnoted that the Working Group (WG) membership had now been set and that first meetings ofthe Working Groups took place at RBMK sites. Work plans for each Working Group arebeing finalized. R. Havel noted that continuity of participation in the Working Groups ishighly important and that there was a need for improvements to the quality of interpretationfor some of the Working Group meetings. He also noted a need for better coordination of thetranslation of reports into Russian since there has been some duplication of efforts, a need forresolution of issues related to the import of equipment in support of the Task and WorkingGroup meetings, and a need for improving the availability to the IAEA of materials (reports,handouts, etc.) from the Task and Working Group meetings. Finally, R. Havel presented adetailed schedule for completion of the Programme.

2.1. PLANT UPDATES AND REGULATORY VIEWS

Each of the RBMK operating organizations made a presentation on recent inspectionand cracking experience at their plants. Representatives from each of the regulatory

3

organizations also made presentations on issues and efforts related to the RBMK plants.Copies of the presentation materials are provided in Appendix III. New instances of crackingwere reported for several of the plants but there have not been any major new occurrences. Itwas noted that the plants do not have the equipment needed to make electrochemical potentialmeasurements or to fully characterize the water environment, and that they would find thiscapability useful.

Y. Neretin, representing the Chernobyl plant, noted that Unit 3 was to be permanentlyshutdown by the end of 2000. He stated that they have stopped all development work but thatthey would be interested in making use of Unit 3 in evaluating the pipe cracking problem. A.Petrov (representing Minatom) stated that he believed this would be a very useful proposal.

A. Petrov presented an overview of the Extrabudgetary Programme progress, expressingthe views of the Minatom Russia. He expressed concern that the Working Group 1 andWorking Group 3 Task Leaders are not Western experts but RBMK plant staff. He also wasconcerned about the use of cracks in base metal rather than welds and the applicability ofthese samples to the inspection of RBMK piping welds. He indicated that the training of theexperts should come after the techniques have been selected and accepted by the regulators.He also expressed concern about the need for the pipe cracking database, the amount ofinformation being sought, and how this information would be used and protected. A. Petrovproposed that:

1. Western experts should visit Russia and do inspection trials using their own equipment;2. Western inspection techniques should be evaluated using representative weld samples; and3. The best techniques determined from this evaluation would be selected for use in the

RBMK plants.

2.2. PRESENTATIONS ON RELATED TOPICS

J. Kysela of the Nuclear Research Institute proposed a research program using theirfacilities for Boiling Water Reactors that would provide representative crack growth data forthe RBMK piping material, as well as an evaluation of the effects of alternative waterchemistry additions. J. Kysela’s presentation handout is provided in Appendix III.

J. Lance and A. Letzter made presentations on recent pipe cracking events at the V.C.Summer plant in the U.S. and the Ringhals plant in Sweden, respectively. These crackingevents are very similar in nature and appear to be due to stress corrosion cracking in weldrepair regions of high nickel content weld material. Because of the preliminary nature of theinformation presented, no formal presentation materials were provided.

2.3. WORKING GROUP 1 SUMMARY AND FUTURE PLANS

T. Taylor provided the Steering Committee with a progress report for Working Group 1.His presentation materials are provided in Appendix III. The project plan and schedule forWorking Group 1 are described in the Minutes from the meeting held at the Kursk NuclearPower Plant. Highlights from T. Taylor’s presentation include the following items.

1. An overview of the training seminar held at Smolensk Nuclear Power Plant, see AppendixIII.

4

2. A proposal from the Spanish government to sponsor the participation of Tecnatom inWorking Group 1. J. Sanchez-Nieto, representing Tecnatom, proposed a seminar forWorking Group 1 members at the Tecnatom facilities. The seminar would be scheduledfor the May or June 2001 timeframe. Exact details of the dates and seminar syllabus willbe discussed and agreed upon at the February 2001 Working Group 1 meeting in Kyiv,Ukraine. J. Sanchez-Nieto also agreed to provide non-proprietary documentation onperformance demonstrations.

During T. Taylor’s progress report for Working Group 1, there was considerablediscussion concerning the samples used for training seminars. The discussion focused on thefact that no weld samples were included that reflected actual RBMK pipe designs. TheSteering Committee requested several action items for Working Group 1 which are listed inthe Action Items section of these minutes.

2.4. WORKING GROUP 2 SUMMARY AND FUTURE PLANS

B. Brickstad provided the Steering Committee a progress report for Working Group 2.His presentation materials are provided in Appendix III. Extensive discussions were held foreach of the Working Group 2 Tasks as summarized below.

Task 1

The major issue discussed was the need for and usefulness of a data base of pipecracking events in the RMBK piping. A. Letzter offered a presentation of the Damage DataBase and why it is needed. His presentation materials are provided in Appendix III. It wasagreed that damage data and metallurgical damage reports will be collected only from theChernobyl and Ignalina plants, and will be delivered to Working Group 2 Task 1 and Task 3members. It was noted that including data only from these two plants may make it difficult toextrapolate data and conclusions from this study to other plants other than the Ignalina andChernobyl plants.

The damage data will be stored in the MS Access shell format with plants named onlyas "Plant 1" and "Plant 2". No translation of the shell parameters to Russian is necessary at thispoint. The decision to transfer these data to the International Piping Failure Database IPFD willbe taken later. It was noted that it is a condition for using the IPFD database that only thoseplants which deliver data will have access to other plant data.

The contact persons for the Ignalina plant will be J. Saburov, and for Chernobyl plant,Y. Neretin will appoint a representative from the plant. For the metallurgical damage reportsfrom Chernobyl plant, V. Torop from Institute for Problems of Strength of Ukrainian Academyof Science, will be the contact person.

Task 2

The discussion under Task 2 focused on the use of target flaw sizes in establishinginspection capabilities. L. Poulter offered a presentation on break preclusion and target flawsizes. His presentation materials are provided in Appendix III. No definite conclusion wasreached at the Steering Committee meeting. The issue was referred back to the Task 2 group

5

for resolution together with Working Group 1.

Task 3

During the discussion of Task 3, A. Petrov identified a concern with the composition ofthe Task 3 team. Specifically, he was concerned that A. Tereshchenko from Prometeyseemingly represents all Russian plants. It was suggested to include N. Karpunin from Russiaand V. Torup from Ukraine in Task 3. Since these individuals are already participating inWorking Group 2, their participation in Task 3 will not create additional cost. However, it wasnoted that it would be valuable to include also in Task 3 a person experienced in waterchemistry issues and A. Oryshaka from Ignalina plant was suggested although he is presentlyparticipating on Working Group 4. It was noted that having a water chemistry expert fromIgnalina poant would be valuable since this is one of the plants where the data collection will beperformed. Specific details of participation on Task 3 along with the determination of the Taskleader and co-leader are to be resolved by the Working Group 2 and Task 3 participants.

A. Petrov proposed to use Western experience in analyzing root causes of RBMKcracking, and to consider possibility of using experts from ANL and Swiss Institute ofMetallurgy in evaluating root causes of cracking. Additionally, A. Petrov requested NUREGreports relevant to pipe cracking.

Task 4

B. Brickstad offered a presentation on the Task 4 efforts. His presentation materials areprovided in Appendix III. B. Brickstad noted the Ignalina RBI pilot study (IRBIS project) is abilateral project between Sweden and Lithuania. It was offered at the last Steering Committeemeeting that the results of IRBIS would be made available to the EBP. In the final report ofIRBIS, scheduled for December 2001, the specific procedure and input data developed forIgnalina plant, Unit 2 will be reported. The basic theory and procedures for RBI, as applied fora Swedish BWR with IGSCC as the dominating damage mechanism, have been presented at the3-day RBI training course in Visaginas, September 4-6, 2000, during which extensivedocumentation was distributed.

It was proposed that the question of how RBI technology can be incorporated into theEBP activities will be considered by Task 4 of Working Group 2, and will be reported at thenext Steering Committee meeting. This effort will be coordinated with input from T. Taylor,Working Group 1 so that an overall approach for the EBP can be considered.

A number of proposals and actions were identified for Working Group 2 which arelisted in the Action Items section of these minutes.

2.5 WORKING GROUP 3 SUMMARY AND FUTURE PLANS

J. Lance provided the Steering Committee a progress report for Working Group 3. Hispresentation materials are provided in Appendix III. The presentation began with a review ofWorking Group 3 objectives for Repair and Mitigation Technologies. J. Lance pointed outthat the original 4 tasks for the group were reformatted into 3 tasks. The task on improvedtechnologies was integrated into the existing tasks.

6

The discussion then turned to a summary of the first meeting of the Working Group 3members at Smolensk plant. The objectives of that meeting were: to develop a specific scopefor the technical work, identify task leaders and specialists to participate in activities withassigned responsibilities, agree to a schedule for future meetings.

After the specific objectives of the Working Group 3 meeting were agreed upon, thegroup turned to discussions of the specific issues each wanted to see resolved. This was anover-check on the appropriateness of the tasks to be defined later in the meeting. Some of theissues or points raised were:

�� Current approaches to address IGSCC are plant specific�� Work has been initiated to develop repair and mitigation techniques but is not

complete and has not been implemented.�� NIKIET considers weld overlay the highest priority, although some application

issues still need to be addressed.�� GAN has a similar position; mechanical stress improvement process (MSIP), is

only for defect free welds.�� Some plants repaired all defective welds to avoid repeated analysis. Original

welding procedure was used. However, was this a repeat of the original problem?�� Precise identification of root cause is necessary. It will be the basis for proper

repair and mitigation techniques.�� Early good experience with water leveling piping shows that good repair

techniques can solve problems.�� RBMK operators found average number of defective welds at 5 to 10%.

Application of weld overlays and MSIP is important for mitigation of remainingwelds. MSIP is quicker, therefore may be more attractive.

Following the discussion of Working Group 3 issues, the Steering Committee was

presented with the specific tasks and sub-tasks. The tasks are included in the presentationmaterials and are only briefly restated here.

�� Task 1 Optimized Welding Technologies for repair of cracked piping.�� Task 2 Overlay repair welding (WOL)�� Task 3 Qualification of Mitigation Techniques.

After a discussion of the tasks and task specific actions, Working Group 3 presented its

request for actions and information from other Working Groups.

�� Working Group 1�� Define specific methods for NDE of treated welds (MSIP, WOL, Solution

Anneal)�� Provide ISI scope and schedule

7

�

�� Working Group 2�� Provide ISI scope and schedule�� Determine flaw acceptance standards for treated welds�� Determine defect size allowing/preventing MSIP�� Establish a standard WOL size for defective welds�� Establish criteria for application of techniques to new and old (specification)

pipes�� Determine post application stress state for MSIP and WOL�

�� Working Group 4� Suggest suitable decontamination techniques for reduction of dose to maintenance� personnel.

�� Others

J. Lance is to provide EPRI published information on Last Pass Heat SinkWelding, WOL, Low energy welding and joint designs, evaluation of stressreduction and stress reversal models.

J. Lance was subsequently asked to contact WANO or INPO on behalf of the RBMKreactors and the steering committee to seek financial support for a repair and mitigationworkshop. The workshop would be held in the US or other country and would provide insightand training in advanced welding processes and mitigation technologies.

B. Brickstad noted that the list of requirements specially for Working Group 2, is quitesubstantial and it is unlikely that all these items could be fully covered in the frame of theEBP.

2.6. WORKING GROUP 4 SUMMARY AND FUTURE PLANS

U. Staudt, made a presentation on the first meeting of Working Group 4 at LeningradNPP, Sosnovy Bor, Russia. His presentation materials are provided in Appendix III. Threetasks were identified there and described during the Steering Committee meeting, including atime and meeting schedule.

Two proposals were offered and approved by the Steering Committee. First was aproposal for a workshop in German BWR(s) with respect to modern chemical monitoringsystems and the transferability of this technology and methodology to RBMKs. The objectiveof this workshop is to establish relevance and validity of western chemical monitoring anddata acquisition systems to chemistry monitoring in RBMKs, and to transfer westerntechnology to RBMK operators. The workshop would include 2 to 3 days in 1 or 2 GermanBWR(s), with one plant chemist of each RBMK site and 1 or 2 chemists of research institutesor plant designers participating. The discussions would address transferability of thedemonstrated methods and devices to RBMK during the next Working Group 4 meeting,along with selection of one pilot plant for implementation of suitable instruments and/orprocedures.

The second proposal was for a pilot study of electrochemical potential measurement inRBMKs. The objectives of this study would be:

8

1. to establish relevance and validity of western ecp electrodes, data acquisition systems andanalytical models to corrosion potential measurement in RBMKs; and

2. to transfer western technology to RBMK operators.

The approach would involve a study in a single RBMK plant, where a computer modelwould be benchmarked to plant data to extend ECP calculations to other plants. The studywould include the following steps:

Step 1.

Scoping Study to determine optimum electrode types, locations for electrodes; establishinsertion procedures, regulatory requirements/approval; and protocols for data collection andanalyses.

Step 2.

Selection of appropriate computer code to simulate RBMK water chemistry and calculateECP. Identify needed plant parameters for calculations.

Step 3.

Select RBMK Test Site; obtain plant and regulatory body approvals for 6 months pilot study;install electrodes and data acquisition system. Train personnel to collect data.

Step 4.

Benchmark selected water chemistry/radiolysis code to plant data. “Calibrate” code forRBMK conductors.

Step 5.

a) Provide computer code with instruction manual to plant chemistry personnel.b) Provide reference electrode specifications, manufactures in formation and procedures forinstallation and operation to plant personnel.

E. Liszka presented a proposal to increase the Swedish contribution to the programmeand Working Group 4 by participation of a Swedish specialist from Studsvik Nuclear dealingwith water chemistry monitoring in BWRs. Furthermore, Sweden will investigate a possibilityof funding of ECP monitoring installation at Ignalina plant.

U. Staudt noted that there were funding and staffing issues associated with both of theseproposals. However, these issues will have to be resolved between the Working Group 4leader and the Scientific Secretary so that the proposals can be implemented.

9

3. ACTION ITEMS

During the presentations made by the meeting participants a number of proposals wereoffered. The actions agreed upon by the Steering Committee are listed below along with theperson or persons responsible for each action:

1. Prepare and distribute to Steering Committee members periodically (every 2-3 months)program status reports. Action: R. Havel

2. Explore potential funding mechanisms for using Chernobyl Unit 3 as a source for pipe

samples. Action: Y. Neretin, V. Gryshchenko 3. Working Group 1: Provide to T. Taylor detailed drawings and descriptions of specific

weld joints that are currently problems for effective inspection. Action: A. Petrov(deadline: January 15, 2001)

4. Working Group 1: Resolve logistics in providing actual RBMK samples at the next

seminar scheduled in March at the Leningrad facility. Action: A. Petrov (deadline: January15, 2001)

5. Working Group 1: Provide to T. Taylor a list of samples and description of those samples

that exist at the Scientific and Diagnostic Center. Action: A. Petrov (deadline: January 15,2001)

6. Working Group 2 - Task 1: RBMK pipe cracking data to be provided from Chernobyl

Unit 3 and Ignalina; data base will use “shell” from larger piping data base; plant nameswill not be revealed. Action: B. Brickstad, A. Letzter

7. Working Group 2 - Task 3: Task Group to consider A. Petrov’s proposals to use Western

experience in analyzing root causes of RBMK pipe cracking (Proposal #1 from A. Petrov)and to consider possibility of using experts from ANL and Institute of Metallurgy(Proposal #2 from A. Petrov) in evaluating root causes of cracking. Action: B. Brickstad

8. Working Group 2 - Task 3: NRC to provide to IAEA copies of NUREG reports produced

by ANL starting in 1983 (NUREG/CR-3806/2 and NUREG/CR-4667) on IGSCCpropagation (about 30 reports), and 10 copies of IPIRG Pipe Cracking Encyclopedia CD’s.Action: M. Mayfield (deadline: January 15, 2001)

9. Working Group 2 - Task 3: Other specialists from other Working Groups should join

Working Group 2 in discussing root causes of cracking. Action: B. Brickstad (deadline:before next Working Group 2 meeting)

10. Working Group 2 - Task 4: Consider how RBI technology can be incorporated into EBP

activities and report at next Steering Committee meeting. Action: B. Brickstad with inputfrom T. Taylor

11. Working Group 3: J. Lance and R. Havel to prepare specific proposal regarding transfer of

Western experience through a workshop at EPRI and to evaluate the cost impact for

10

Steering Committee review. Action: J. Lance to develop proposal and cost estimate and R.Havel to evaluate cost impact

12. Working Group 1 and Working Group 3: Working Group leaders to explore A. Petrov’s

proposal to have Western leaders or co-leaders for Working Group activities. Action: T.Taylor and J. Lance (deadline: before next Working Group meetings)

13. Provide appropriate WANO contact to R. Havel and A. Petrov. Action: J. Lance (deadline:

December 31, 2000) 14. Working Group 4: Explore funding sources to provide ECP probes to RBMK plants.

Action: E. Liszka, T. Taylor, B. Bryce 15. Working Group 4: Prepare detailed specification on installation of ECP probe. Action: B.

Liszka, U. Staudt, G. Negrivoda 16. Working Group 4: Resolve funding and staffing issues for proposed workshop and pilot

study. Action: U. Staudt and R. Havel 17. Develop process for the distribution and translation of reports. Action: R. Havel and A.

Petrov 18. Prepare proposed outline and description of final products from Extrabudgetary program.

Action: M. Mayfield, L. Poulter, R. Havel (deadline: February 28, 2001)

Next Steering Committee Meeting

The next meeting of the Extrabudgetary Program Steering Committee is scheduled forMay 29 – 31, 2001, in Vienna.

11

Appendix I

PROVISIONAL AGENDA

Tuesday, 5.12.20009:00 Opening L.Lederman9:10 Chairman’s address & adoption of the Agenda M.Mayfield9:40 Review Minutes of the previous SC meeting M.Mayfield10:00 Programme status and outlook R.Havel10:30 Coffee break11:00 Ignalina plant update G.Negrivoda11:20 Leningrad plant update O.Tchernikov11:40 Smolensk and Kursk plants update E.Brylev12:10 Chernobyl plant update Yu.Neretin12:30 Lunch14:00 Regulatory views - VATESI G.Maksimovas14:20 Regulatory views - GAN I.Kaliberda14:40 Regulatory views - NRA V.Gryshchenko15:00 EBP progress overview - Minatom Russia comments A.Petrov16:00 Coffee break16:30 Proposal on IGSCC related material research J.Kysela17:00 VC Summer NPP cracking J.Lance17:30 Ringhals plant experience A.Letzter18:00 Adjourn19:00 Reception-Heurigen “Schuebel-Auer”

Wednesday, 6.12.20009:00 Working Group 1 summary and future plans T.Taylor10:00 Working Group 2 objectives and tasks B.Brickstad10:30 Coffee break11:00 Task 1: Damage database A.Letzter11:30 Task 2: Break preclusion methodology and target flaw sizes

(interactions with Working Group 1)L.Poulter

12:00 Task 4: RBI pilot study for Ignalina 2 B.Brickstad12:30 Lunch break14:00 Working Group 2 future plans and actions B.Brickstad14:35 Working Group 3 summary and future plans… J.Lance15:50 Coffee break16:20 Review of Working Group 4 objectives and tasks U.Staudt

1st meeting of Working Group 4 in Leningrad U.StaudtTask groups and their activities U.StaudtFuture plans, actions and need for co-ordination U.Staudt

17:35 Discussion and allocation of homework M.Mayfield18:00 Adjourn

12

Thursday, 7.12.20009:00 Discussion on status and plans for Working Groups

10:30 Coffee break11:00 Discussion on status and plans for Working Groups cont’d12:30 Lunch break14:00 Discussion on specific Steering Committee actions and

presentations15:00 Consolidation of Steering Committee recommendations15:30 Coffee break16:00 Consolidation of Steering Committee recommendations

cont’d17:00 Action items and organizational matters17:30 Adjourn

13

Appendix II

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

GERMANYMr. Ulrich StaudtVGB PowerTechKlinkestrasse 27-3145136 EssenGermanyTel.: +49 201 8128 312Fax: +49 201 8128 364E-mail: Ulrich.Staudt@vgb-power.de

JAPANMr. Susumu ShibuyaFugen Nucler Power StationJapan Nuclear Cycle Development InstituteWaste Management Section3 Myojin-choTsuruga-shiFukui-ken914-8510 JapanTel.: +81 770 26 1221Fax: +81 770 26 8129E-mail: shibuya@fugen.t-hq.jnc.go.jp

LITHUANIAMr. Gytis MaksimovasPermanent Mission of LithuaniaLöwengasse 47/1/Top 8A-1030 ViennaTel.: +00 43 1 710 9780Fax: +00 43 1 710 9759

Mr. Gennady NegrivodaIgnalina NPPVisaginas4761 LithuaniaTel.: +370 66 31244Fax: +370 66 29350E-mail: gis@mail.iae.lt

14

RUSSIAMr. Evgeny BrylevConcern RosenergoatomP.O. Box 912Moscow101000 RussiaTel.: +7 095 220 6647Fax: +7 095 239 2553E-mail: brilev2000@mail.ru

Mr. Oleg TchernikovLeningrad NPPLeningrad regionSosnovy Bor188537 RussiaTel.: +7 812 692 1397Fax: +7 812 692 2518E-mail: zgin@laes.sbor.ru

Ms. Inna KaliberdaGosatomnadzor, SEC NRSAutozavodskaya str. 14/23Moscow109280 RussiaTel.: +7 095 277 4001Fax: +7 095 275 5548E-mail: sec@ntc.asvt.ru

Mr. Anatoly A. PetrovNIKIET / RDIPEP.O.Box 788Moscow101000 RussiaTel.: +7 095 263 7429Fax: +7 095 975 2019E-mail: baldin@entek.ru

SPAINMr. Jose L. SanchezTecnatom, s.a.Avda. Montes de Oca, 1San Sebastian de los ReyesMadrid28709 SpainTel.: +34 91 659 8671Fax: +34 91 659 8677E-mail: jlsanchez@tecnatom.es

15

SWEDENMr. Bjorn BrickstadDet Norske Veritas (DNV)Fracture Mechanics, Technical ConsultingWarfvinges väg 19BBox 30234Stockholm104 25 SwedenTel.: +46 8 587 940 57Fax: +46 8 651 70 43E-mail: bjorn.brickstad@dnv.com

Mr. Adam LetzterDet Norske VeritasDNV Nuclear Technology ABWarfvinges väg 19BBox 30234Stockholm104 25 SwedenTel.: +46 8 587 94 281, +46 70 561 18 47Fax: +46 8 651 70 43E-mail: adam.letzter@dnv.com

Mr. Ervin LiszkaSwedish International Project Nuclear SafetyKlarabergsviadukten 90Box 70283StockholmS-10722 SwedenTel.: +46 8 698 30 82Fax: +46 8 20 98 95E-mail: elk@sip.se

UKRAINEMr. Vadim GryshchenkoState Nuclear Regulatory AdministrationArsenalna str. 9/11KievUkraineTel.: +380 44 254 33 64, +380 44 254 33 47Fax: +380 44 254 33 11E-mail: gri@hq.nra.kiev.ua

16

UKRAINEMr. Yuri NeretinChernobyl NPPSlavutych, Kiev. Obl.255190 UkraineTel.: +380 44 934 3109Fax: +380 44 792 6314E-mail: gis@chnpp.atom.gov.ua

UNITED KINGDOMMr. Bill BryceMitsui Babcock Energy LimitedPorterfield RoadRenfrewScotlandPA4 8DJ United KingdomTel.: +44 141 885 3314Fax: +44 141 885 3379E-mail: BBRYCE@MitsuiBabcock.com

Mr. Laurence PoulterAEATechnologyRD3 Risley, WarringtonCheshireWA3 6AT United KingdomTel.: +44 1925 254255Fax: +44 1925 254629E-mail: laurence.poulter@aeat.co.uk

USAMr. Jack LanceElectric Power Research Institute (EPRI)Non-Destructive Evaluation Center1300 WT Harris Blvd.CharlotteNC 28262 USATel.: +704 547 6063Fax: +704 547 6109E-mail: jlance@epri.com

Mr. Michael MayfieldU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionDivision of Engineering TechnologyMail Stop T10-D20WashingtonDC 20555 USATel.: +1 301 415 5678Fax: +1 301 415 5074E-mail: MEM2@nrc.gov

17

USAMr. Adrian RobertsBattelle2309SW 1st AV. #745PortlandOR 97201 USATel.: +1 503 464 1017Fax: +1 503 464 1017E-mail: RobertsA@Battelle.org

Mr. Tom TaylorPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)902 Battelle Boulevard2400 StevensMail Stop K5-26RichlandWA 99352 USATel.: +1 509 375 4331Fax: +1 509 375 6736E-mail: tt.taylor@pnl.gov

IAEAMr. Radim HavelNSNIWagramer Str. 5P.O. Box 100Vienna1400 AustriaTel.: +43 1 2600 22013Fax: +43 1 2600 29649E-mail: R.Havel@iaea.org

CZECH REPUBLICMr. Jan Kysela ObserverNuclear Research Institute (5.12.00 only)25068 RezCzech RepublicTel.: +420 602 359 081E-mail: kys@nri.cz

18

Appendix III

PRESENTATION HANDOUTS

19