Chemistry & Radiation Safety Action Plan Committee …© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute,...

© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Lisa EdwardsSr. Program Manager, Nuclear Chemistry,

Radiation Safety, and HLW Programs

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Chemistry & Radiation Safety

Action Plan Committee

Meeting

August 22, 2016

Pre Meeting Materials

2© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Antitrust Guidelines for EPRI

Meetings and Conferences

The antitrust laws and other business laws apply to EPRI, its Members, participants, funders, and advisers;

violations can lead to civil and criminal liability. EPRI is committed to both full compliance and maintaining the

highest ethical standards in all of our operations and activities.

These guidelines apply to all occasions: before, during, and after EPRI meetings, including in the hallways,

over lunch, during breaks and at dinner.

…is to conduct research and development relating to the generation, delivery

and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. EPRI advisory meetings are

conducted to further that purpose.

…is to follow the meeting agenda and provide advice on EPRI’s R&D program

and how to make EPRI results most useful. Consult with your company counsel if

at any time you believe discussions are touching on sensitive antitrust subjects

such as pricing, bids, allocation of customers or territories, boycotts, tying

arrangements and the like.

EPRI’S PRIMARY PURPOSE

YOUR ROLE AT EPRI

ADVISORY MEETINGS



Meetings and Conferences (continued)

…pricing, production capacity, or cost information which is not publicly available;

confidential market strategies or business plans; or other competitively sensitive

information. Do not disparage suppliers and/or competitors of EPRI, technology

providers and/or EPRI Members and participants.

…the use of particular vendors, contractors or consultants for non-EPRI projects.

EPRI will not promote or endorse commercial products or services of third parties.

You must draw your own conclusions and make your own choices independently.

…in any discussions of goods and services offered in the market by others,

including your competitors, suppliers, and customers.

DO NOT DISCUSS

EPRI DOES NOT

RECOMMEND

BE ACCURATE, OBJECTIVE,

AND FACTUAL



Meetings and Conferences (continued)

…to discriminate against or refuse to deal with (i.e., “boycott”) a supplier; or to do

business only on certain terms and conditions; or to set price, divide markets, or

allocate customers.

…or advise others on their business decisions, and do not discuss yours (except

to the extent that they are already public).

…for advice from your own legal department, if you have questions about any

aspect of these guidelines or about a particular situation or activity at EPRI; or

ask the responsible EPRI manager to contact EPRI’s Legal Department.

DO NOT AGREE WITH

OTHERS

DO NOT TRY TO

INFLUENCE

ASK


Emergency Exits: Chamber Rms. 1- 4 (Mayor’s Suite Level)

NOTE: ALL

RED DOORSARE EMERGENCY

EXIT DOORS

CHAMBERS 1-4


Emergency Exits: Crescent City BR (Mezzanine Level)

NOTE: ALL

RED DOORSARE EMERGENCY

EXIT DOORS

Crescent City Ballroom

(Lunch Location)


Chemistry and Radiation Safety Action Plan Committee Meeting

Wednesday, August 31 - Room Location: Chamber 2 & 4 (MSL)

Time Topic Lead

8:00 am Welcoming Remarks and Introductions D. Koehl, STP

8:05 amChemistry and Radiation Safety Program

Overview L. Edwards, EPRI

8:15 am Member Satisfaction Survey C. Olexik, EPRI

8:30 am

Chemistry and Radiation Safety TAC Report

• Chemistry

• Radiation Safety

J. Goldstein, Entergy

W. Harris, Exelon

9:45 am NEI Update E. Anderson, NEI

10:00 am Break

10:30 am KOH DiscussionL. Edwards

All

10:45 am Delivering the Nuclear PromiseL. Edwards

All

11:45 am Review of Actions/Recommendations for NPC D. Koehl, STP

12:00 pm Adjourn


Lisa Edwards

Senior Program Manager

Chemistry and Radiation Safety

Action Plan Committee Meeting

August 31, 2016

Program Overview Chemistry and Radiation

Safety

08/04/2016


Chemistry & Radiation Safety Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

January/February: Technical Meeting

• Review Results of Previous Year’s Work

August/September: Business Meeting

• Review and Finalize Upcoming 2 Year Portfolio

• Make Recommendations to APC for Final Funding

Jeff Goldstein and Willie Harris will provide the TAC report to the Chemistry & Radiation

Safety APC on Wednesday morning

TAC Leadership (2016-2018)

TAC Chair: Jeff Goldstein, Entergy

Past Chair: Miguel Azar, Exelon

Vice-Chair: Willie Harris, Exelon

Meeting Objectives

APC Chair: Dennis Koehl, STP transitioning to Tim Powell in January

APC Vice- Chair: Kimberly Cook, Entergy

Senior Technical Advisor: Larry Haynes, Duke


Member Satisfaction Survey


2015 Nuclear Member Satisfaction Scores, By Area

≤86% 87%-90% ≥91%

Program AreaSurveyed

Co's

%

Response

Overall

Performance

Technical

Program

Value

Ease of

Doing

Business

Overall

SatisfactionTotal

Nuclear Sector Council 19/39 48.7% 94.4% 96.6% 81.1% 93.3% 91.3%

Materials Degradation / Aging 18/40 45.0% 91.5% 92.1% 84.2% 92.1% 90.0%

Fuel Reliability 15/40 37.5% 89.5% 91.4% 89.5% 89.5% 90.0%

Used Fuel and High-Level Waste

Management16/40 40.0% 96.8% 96.0% 90.5% 97.8% 95.3%

Nondestructive Evaluation 13/40 32.5% 90.0% 92.7% 81.8% 90.0% 88.6%

Equipment Reliability 30/40 75.0% 91.0% 91.2% 83.8% 90.7% 89.2%

Risk and Safety Management 16/40 40.0% 92.2% 94.4% 91.1% 91.1% 92.2%

Strategic Initiatives (ANT and LTO) 20/40 50.0% 95.0% 95.7% 90.7% 95.7% 94.2%

Chemistry and Radiation

Safety15/40 37.5% 94.4% 94.4% 88.8% 95.8% 93.3%

Total 92.3% 93.2% 86.1% 92.4% 91.0%


Current Improvement Actions (Program)

Member Satisfaction – Chemistry & Radiation Safety ProgramFocus on Continuous Improvement

Program Results: 2014 2015

99%Overall Performance

Ease of Doing Business

Technical Program Value

Overall Satisfaction With EPRI

95%

94%

94%

88%

• Research/ Standardize Project Prioritization

• Research Focus Areas –• Added step to prioritization process to

request project ideas from members • Business case included where applicable• Executive Summary – quick reference for

key take-aways, target audience, where in the document to find critical information

• Emails sent when new reports are released• ADD: Quality Management Program• ADD: Target Cost Saving Projects

• Training

• New Advisor training every NPC• Include discussion of advisor roles in TAC• Develop overview of EPRI, place on

cockpit• Training RFA had very low prioritization

• Cockpits

• Feedback to sector level on search engine• Hands-on tour through the program

cockpits in August

99% 96%

98%

2015 Member Feedback (Program)• Members want products that are:

• Timely, detailed, and of high quality• Relevant to plant operation• Positive economic impact• Easily implementable

• Training:

• For new advisors• On how EPRI works & how to work with the

program

• Website/Cockpits:

• Easier Access• State-of-the-Art Search Engine


Executive Summary Implementation

Objectives

Facilitate knowledge transfer

Get results to right people more quickly

Succinct

Consistent EPRI branding

Key Features

Consistent format and content

Key findings!

Directs readers to pertinent areas within the report

DOES NOT replace the Abstract, which is public facing Incorporated into deliverable templates and a stand-alone document

Important for Technology Transfer and Engagement!


Chemistry & Radiation Safety Base Funding

Expect base funding to be flat

for 2017 & 2018

– Includes special funds for

decommissioning

– $ for CWUG are included in

base funding for 2017 & 2018

Supplemental programs

enhance R&D scope

Future funding may change

from current $-

$0.500

$1.000

$1.500

$2.000

$2.500

$3.000

$3.500

$4.000

$4.500

2016 2017 2018

Fu

nd

ing

($M

)

Year

Chemistry and Radiation Safety Funding

Chemistry Base Radiation Safety Base Decommisioning Base


$-

$2.000

$4.000

$6.000

$8.000

$10.000

$12.000

2016 2017 2018

Fu

nd

ing

($M

)

Year

Chemistry and Radiation Safety Funding

Chemistry Base Radiation Safety Base

Decommisioning Base Decommissioning Supplemental

Technical Strategy Groups Leveraged

Supplemental Program Funders Technology Innovation

Strategic Gap Funds

Chemistry & Radiation Safety Overall Funding

Significant impact to research

portfolio due to

– Decommissioning

– Technical Strategy Groups

– Leveraged

– Program

– Technology Innovation

– Strategic Gap Funds

Supplemental programs

enhance R&D scope

Future funding may change

from current


Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity


Chuck Olexik, EPRI

Chemistry and Radiation Safety APC Meeting

August 31, 2016

Member Satisfaction

Survey

August 11, 2016


Member Satisfaction - Background

EPRI has captured member satisfaction

feedback in various forms for many years

Current member satisfaction survey

adopted by Board in 2006

Results reviewed regularly with Board

– one of Corporate Performance Indices (CPIs)

Member feedback used to drive

continuous improvement across EPRI

Helps prioritize efforts

– focus on areas with greatest impact on

satisfaction


Nuclear Member Satisfaction Survey Results

Overall Performance

Ease of Doing Business

Technical Program Value

Overall Satisfaction

2015 Results

2010-2015 Trend

92.3%

Overall

PerformanceEase of Doing

BusinessTechnical

Program Value

86.1%

93.2%

92.4%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

• Impact of research on improving my business

• The program's strategic priorities and directions

• Quality of research results

• Relevance of research carried out by the program

• Technical staff expertise

Top ranked aspects of EPRI Experience

Who completed the Survey


Category Initiative Timeframe

Research and

Development

• Research Focus Areas

• Project Overview Forms

• Quality Management ProgramImplemented 2016

Tech Transfer

• Executive Summary

• Onsite EPRI updates/regional meetings

• International workshops

• International NPC

• Digital Strategy (ongoing)

Implemented 2016

Simplification

• On-line Pricing

• Invoice Review

• New Pricing Model

Implemented 2016

Website• New Search Engine

• Member Center ImprovementsImplemented 2016

Improvement Initiatives

Listening and Responding to the Feedback of our Members


Digital Delivery Enhancements

Becomes


Becomes

Digital Delivery Enhancements


New Search Engine

The search engine gets smarter over

time based on use.

It tracks what people search and where

they go with the results.

The more the search engine is used, the

faster it learns.

As it learns, features such as relevance

and search term recognition will

dramatically improve, and as a result

improve your search experience.

You make the search engine better by

using it!


Survey instrument

Key components …

1. Who you arewithout a name and organization, we can’t

count your input!

2. Number of years you have been an Advisor

3. How we’re doing

4. How you assess EPRI value

5. Key improvement in ease of doing business

6. Value you have received from this Program


Survey instrument

Key components

7. Rate each statement based on how

satisfied you are

8. Rank the top 5 statements as

indicated in the instructions

9. Would you recommend EPRI

10.If you are not satisfied with us in any

area, please tell us why

9

10

7

8


2015 Nuclear Member Satisfaction Scores, By Area≤86% 87%-90% ≥91%

Program AreaSurveyed

Co's% Response

Overall

Performance

Technical

Program Value

Ease of Doing

Business

Overall

SatisfactionTotal

Nuclear Sector Council 19/39 48.7% 94.4% 96.6% 81.1% 93.3% 91.3%

Materials Degradation / Aging 18/40 45.0% 91.5% 92.1% 84.2% 92.1% 90.0%

Fuel Reliability 15/40 37.5% 89.5% 91.4% 89.5% 89.5% 90.0%

Used Fuel and High-Level Waste Management 16/40 40.0% 96.8% 96.0% 90.5% 97.8% 95.3%

Nondestructive Evaluation 13/40 32.5% 90.0% 92.7% 81.8% 90.0% 88.6%

Equipment Reliability 30/40 75.0% 91.0% 91.2% 83.8% 90.7% 89.2%

Risk and Safety Management 16/40 40.0% 92.2% 94.4% 91.1% 91.1% 92.2%

Strategic Initiatives (ANT and LTO) 20/40 50.0% 95.0% 95.7% 90.7% 95.7% 94.2%

Chemistry, Low-Level Waste and Radiation

Management15/40 37.5% 94.4% 94.4% 88.8% 95.8% 93.3%

Total 92.3% 93.2% 86.1% 92.4% 91.0%


Jeff Goldstein, Entergy


31 August 2016

Water Chemistry Program2017-2018 Work Plan Update

Submitted 15 August 2016, Rev. 1


2017-2018 Water Chemistry PortfolioIncluding TSG and Non-Chemistry Program Funded Work

Chemistry Guidance (Guidelines,

Sourcebooks)

PWR Secondary Chemistry Guidelines Revision 8

(2015-2017)

Revision to the Condensate Polishing Guidelines

(2016-2018)

BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines Rev. 8

(2018-2019)*

Open Cooling Water Guidelines Review (2017)*

Risk Informed Chemistry Control (2017-2018)*

Chemistry Control for Flexible Power Operation

(2015-2018)

Chemical Mitigation

Effect of Amine Decomposition Products on

Crack Growth Rates (2017-2019)*

Hydrazine Alternatives: Demo (2018-2019)*

Qualification of KOH for Plant Trial (2017)*

Li-7 Recovery Technology (2015-2017)

Hydrazine Alternatives: Current Tech Assessment

(2016-2017)

Management of Corrosion Product

Deposition and Transport

PWR Secondary Side Filming Amine (FA)

Application (2016-2017)

Dispersants: SG Deposit Evaluation (2017-2018)*

Filming Amine Qualification Testing (2018-2019)*

Impact of Fuel Materials Changes

(2018-2019)*

Radioactivity Generation and

Control (Source Term Reduction)

Micro-Environment Effects(2015-2017)

Surface Passivation of Primary Components

(2015-2018)

Hydrophobic Coatings for Contamination Control in

NPP (2016-2017)

Behavior of Ag and Sb(2016-2018)

Optimization of Zinc for Benefits and Cost

(2018-2019)*

Davis-Besse Gamma Scan Following Zinc (-2017)

Chemistry Monitoring and Control

On-Line Monitoring of Anions

(2016-2017)

On-Line Iron Analysis: Demo (2018)*

On-Line Iron Analysis: Tech Assessment (2016-2017)

Modeling of Multiple Alkali Chemistry (KOH)

(2016-2017)

Evaluation of Optimized Sample Frequency

(2015-2017)

Silica Quantification in BWRs: Demo (2015-2017)

Base Funded Work Base Fund with Modification New* TSG Funding Other Funding

Near-term Cost Savings

Longer-term Cost Savings


Near Term Cost Saving Work


Risk Informed Water Chemistry ControlGuidance for Short Term Operation (STO) and Economic Constraints

Current water chemistry control guidance based on:– Base load, full power operation

– Long Term Operation (LTO)

What if operation for an additional 20 years isn’t an objective?– How should a plant operate if they know they will

shutdown in 2 years?

Could costs be reduced with alternate chemistry control under prerogative of STO or economic hardship?

What does guidance for Short Term Operation (STO) look like?

D. Wells


Objectives

– Provide a technical evaluation of chemistry control areas where risk and economics can be considered

– Support ‘Delivering the Nuclear Promise’ (DNP) initiatives through evaluation of flexibility in chemistry control

– Support plants that have changed from LTO to STO and want to manage cost going into decommissioning

Risk Informed Water Chemistry Control

Scope of Work

– Evaluate chemistry control guidance (technical basis) for potential modifications when risk, economics, and time till shutdown are considered

Chemistry holds, sampling frequency, analysis type, chemical additions, etc.

– Evaluate the impact of applying advanced analysis/sampling technologies

Evaluate the potential savings (and cost) associated of online monitoring technologies

What technologies (which analysis) will have the largest impact on plant economics

– Evaluate for plants heading to decommissioning

Can or should they sell equipment and consumables?

Can or should they run systems to empty

system shutting down…

STO = short term operation


Risk Informed Water Chemistry ControlConsideration of Cost Minimization and Time till Shutdown

Careful, detailed evaluation of the risk

associated with not meeting current chemistry

control programs, systems, monitoring can

help utilities meet economic demands and

reduce cost

Industry Use and Schedule

PWR Chemistry TSG started work in 2015 on

evaluating sample frequency and potentials

for reduced frequencies – this will be

leveraged

2017 will focus on BWR in order to provide

input to Guideline revision starting in 2018

and current round of plant closures

Without a revision of PWR Primary or

Secondary, information could be used to

support any necessary Guideline deviations

Proposed Duration and Timing: 2017-2018 (20 mo.)


Demonstration of Enhanced Online Monitoring of

Anionic Species in BWRs and PWRs (2016-2017 Project)Background/Need

Chemistry Guidelines now require more frequent analysis of ionic

species such as chloride and sulfate

Current grab sampling process increases technician radiation dose

and the potential for sample contamination

Current analytical techniques are time consuming…many require

hours for results

Accuracy and precision of current techniques is limited for some

water streams (sub-ppb concentrations difficult to attain)

Project Objectives

•Provide more immediate indication of out-of-specification conditions

or adverse trends, allowing for more timely corrective actions

•Improve the accuracy and precision of results

•Maintain ALARA goals and optimize chemistry technician workloads

Lab on a Chip

S. Garcia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glass-microreactor-chip-micronit.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glass-microreactor-chip-micronit.jpg


Demonstration of Enhanced Online Monitoring of Anionic

Species in BWRs and PWRs (2016-2017 Project)

Workscope

1. Select analytical technique from current 2015 base-funded Chemistry Project

2. Identify host plant site(s) for demonstrations

3. Develop test matrix

4. Coordinate and support plant demonstration(s)

5. Compile Technical Report of results

Benefits

•Allows for rapid identification of adverse trends and rapid response for water treatment or

system isolation

•Potentially improve precision of analytical results using an on-line method that eliminates

sample handling, sample contamination and reduces technician exposure

Schedule

2016 -2017 Project

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCM-N6-P-g8cCFcSYlAodgy8A8Q&url=http://www.bioprocessonline.com/doc/agilent-showcases-first-lab-on-a-chip-product-0002&ei=0LC6Vc_lI8Sx0gSD34CIDw&bvm=bv.99261572,d.dGo&psig=AFQjCNED3RIJDwT_WLVy8gEiaU2cE2eNNA&ust=1438384603427005

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRxqFQoTCM-N6-P-g8cCFcSYlAodgy8A8Q&url=http://www.bioprocessonline.com/doc/agilent-showcases-first-lab-on-a-chip-product-0002&ei=0LC6Vc_lI8Sx0gSD34CIDw&bvm=bv.99261572,d.dGo&psig=AFQjCNED3RIJDwT_WLVy8gEiaU2cE2eNNA&ust=1438384603427005


Online Iron AnalysisAn Assessment of Possible Technologies (TSG), In-Plant Demonstration (Base)

Description & Objectives

Measurement of feedwater iron is required for all BWRs and

PWRs (secondary)

Currently, plants manually collect corrosion product filters from

an integrated feedwater sampler, and then have those filters

analyzed

– Current analytical techniques are time consuming

Online measurement could significantly reduce resources

Two Phase Project

– Phase 1: Comprehensive technology assessment of online iron

analyses technologies (2016-2017 PWR TSG Project)

– Phase 2: Perform field trial to compare current technology with most

promising on-line monitoring technology (this project, 2018-2019)

S. Choi


Applicable for all power plants

(PWRs, BWRs, and Fossil

Units)

Online Iron AnalysisAn Assessment of Possible Technologies (TSG), In-Plant Demonstration (Base)

Online measurements

– Save personnel time and cost

– Provides for more actionable

measurements

A successful plant demonstration will

allow utilities to realize these benefits

and provide technical data to support

replacement of integrated sampling

with online measurements

Global Applicability



Long Term Cost Saving Work


Corrosion Product Mitigation Technologies

Fe2+

Filming Amine (FA) Technology

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

N

H HCH

Full Secondary System

H2O

Base Metal

CS, SS, Ni-based alloys

coolant Fe2+X

loosely adherent Fe deposits

Dispersant (PAA) Technology

SGBalance of Plant

FexOyFexOy


Evaluation of Dispersant Impacts on Steam Generator Tube Deposits

Background & Objective

Issue

– Significant benefit in reducing SG fouling rate, but effect

on plant-specific SG thermal performance is not well

understood.

Action

– A careful assessment of SG deposit characteristics,

deposit spatial profiles, and cumulative PAA exposure

Goals

– Confirmatory evidence that interactions between PAA and

SG tube deposits lead to partial removal of SG deposits.

– Greater insight concerning the relationship between PAA

exposure and changes in deposit properties and SG

thermal performance trends.

– Added input to plant-specific SG deposit management

strategies. -40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

McGuire 2(LTT - 1 yr)

Byron 1(4.9 yrs)

Byron 2(3.7 yrs)

Braidwood 1(4.5 yrs)


STP 1(2.7 yrs)

STP 2(2.4 yrs)

Ginna(1.7 yrs)

Estim

ate

d P

AA

Effe

ct o

n S

G F

ou

ling

Fa

cto

r(µ

h-f

t2-F

/Btu

)

Max Change

Change as of Most Recent Data

(0) (0)(0)(0) (0)(0)

~ 4 psi

(28 kPa)

increase

~ 4 psi

(28 kPa)

decrease

~ 4 psi

(28 kPa)

increase

~ 1 psi

(7 kPa)

increase

< 1 psi

(< 7 kPa)

decrease

~ 1 psi

(7 kPa)

increase

Lower is

Better

K. Fruzzetti

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

McGuire 2(LTT - 1 yr)

Byron 1(4.8 yrs)

Byron 2(3.5 yrs)



STP 1(2.8 yrs)

STP 2(2.5 yrs)

Ginna(1.7 yrs)

Ste

ad

y S

tate

Blo

wd

ow

n I

ron

Re

mo

va

l Eff

icie

ncy

Before PAA

With Online PAA

Not

eval.

Blowdown Removal Efficiency

SG Fouling Factor Analysis

Higher is

Better


Evaluation of Dispersant Impacts on Steam Generator Tube Deposits

Project Approach

– Optical microscopy of tube scale samples to identify any changes in physical properties

that might be associated with PAA exposure

– Analysis of routinely collected low-frequency eddy-current signals (to evaluate any change in

SG tube deposit spatial distribution with PAA exposure)

– Calculations of the integrated PAA exposure (to understand impacts of time

and concentration)

– Quantification of the total blowdown iron oxide mass removals (to estimate

removal from SG tubes)


Approved for 2017 funding in 2016-2017 Portfolio

Value: Provide improved prediction of PAA impact on SG thermal

performance to guide plant-specific SG management strategies


PWR Filming Amine Qualification TestingFollow on to 2015-2017 Scoping and Plan Development

Description & Objectives

Filming amines have been applied at fossil plants for over 25

years as a means of protecting carbon and low alloy steel

components, especially during periods of long layup

Recently, a filming amine has been applied at the Almaraz

Nuclear Power Plant in Spain and tested at Embalse in Argentina

S. Choi

Condenser Hotwell Inspection

Condenser Hotwell (close-up view)

Phase 1: Scoping and Plan Development

•Funded project

•2015-2017

Phase 2: Qualification Testing

•Current Proposal

•2018-2019

Phase 3: Plant Demo

•Future proposal if promising

• Identify 3-5 candidate

materials*

• Develop qualification

program

*Collaborative license agreement with AREVA Gmbh


PWR Filming Amine Qualification Testing2018-2019 Project

Phase 2 Objectives

Complete technical tasks in preparation for conducting a plant trial to demonstration safe use of the FA on the PWR secondary system

Phase 2 Scope: Qualification Testing

Identify a (1) commercial FA for qualification testing and eventual plant trial

– Based on selection criteria: state of commercialization, existing qualification work, similarity to other molecules, etc.

Complete qualification testing

– Purity, Stability, Efficacy, Material Compatibility, Effects on Chemistry, Thermal Performance, Effects on Flow Measurement Device

Qualify a new technology, FAs, to aid in minimizing release, generation, and accumulation of corrosion products in PWR steam generators

Assist utilities for generation of a generic 50.59 safety evaluation

Global Applicability

– Applicable for global PWRs and fossil units

– An active collaboration is under development with COG

– Working on potential collaboration from MAI


Approved co-funding with SGMP (2018) and Potential Generation being evaluated


Plan for Full Qualification of KOH – Shortest Timeline

“Plan A” (Reasonably Conservative)• Detailed project scopes developed for each technical item• 8 – 10 years• $8M - $10M

What is truly

necessary in the

face of no Li

availability?

“Plan B”

Phase 1: Qualification ahead of the PWR plant trial

Phase 2: PWR plant trial

Start of Phase 2


Next Step for KOH Qualification: Investigate a “Plan B”

Can we eliminate CGR Testing?

Can we reduce the time/scope of initiation testing?

Motivation/Scenario

• All Li-7 supply is gone.

• Operate plant with

alternate pH control

chemistry, or shutdown.

• What is the absolute

minimum to have been

completed to allow

operation with KOH?

“Plan B” Effort

• Work directly with a

utility willing to consider

this premise.

• Include 3 – 5 utility

experts

• Requires executive

level input.

Can we eliminate these evaluations from the qualification

process, and simply evaluate as part of the trial application?

Work with fuel vendors to define acceptable risks




Sourcebooks)


(2015-2017)


(2016-2018)


(2018-2019)*




(2015-2018)

Chemical Mitigation







(2016-2017)








(2018-2019)*





(2015-2018)


NPP (2016-2017)



(2018-2019)*




(2016-2017)




(2016-2017)


(2015-2017)





Covered in

RS Slides


BACKUP SLIDES


2017-2018 Water Chemistry Recommended Portfolio


Sourcebooks)


(2015-2017)


(2016-2018)


(2018-2019)*



Chemical Mitigation



Hydrazine Alternatives (2018-2019)*


High-Concentration Dispersant Corrosion Testing







Impact of Fuel Materials Changes (2018-2019)*

Gap Assessment of Boric Acid and Silica

PWR Primary Crud Reaction Kinetics

Dispersants Beyond Secondary





(2015-2018)


NPP (2016-2017)



(2018-2019)*

Impact of BWR Ultra-low Iron and Reducing Conditions


On-Line Monitoring of Anions (2016-2017)

On-Line Iron Analysis (2018)*

High Efficiency Purification Media

X-ray Fluorescence Analysis

Plant Experience with CoSeq®

Improve Quantification of Cobalt

Mean = 1.5 Mean = 1.7Mean = 1.7 Mean = 1.9 Mean = 2.0

Funded Work Unfunded Fund with Modification *new


2017-2018 Prioritization Feedback BreakdownWater Chemistry Program

40 of 49 Respondents

(82%)

US or Non-US

US20 of 23 (87%)

Non-US20 of 26 (77%)

By Plant Type

PWR (PWR, PHWR, VVER) 23 of 26 (92%)

BWR7 of 10 (88%)

Both10 of 13 (77%)

59 Comments


Incorporating Feedback and Industry Objectives into Portfolio

• Continues to be highest priority RFA

• Recommend to fund “Risk Informed Chemistry Control” Project

Chemistry Guidance (Guidelines, Sourcebooks)

• Significant change in priority; now high

• Fund highest priority work to balance with other objectives

Chemical Mitigation

• Consistently high priority

• Continue high priority technology evaluations

• Co-fund fuel materials project with RS

Management of Corrosion Product Deposition and Transport

• Significant change in priority from previous year

• Recommend reduction in scope where possible

Radioactivity Generation and Control (Source Term Reduction)

• Medium priority

• Opportunity to support utilities in DNP objectives

• Only fund online monitoring work


A significant shift in RFA priorities– Mainly reduced priority on

Source Term Reduction work

Aiding the industry in Delivering the Nuclear Promise– Opportunities for cost

saving technology from Chemistry are likely associated with sampling and analysis

Risk informed control

Online monitoring


Proposed Base Program Funding Breakdown By RFA

Proposing a gradual transition away from previous prioritization to new prioritization


2017 – 2018 Water Chemistry Budget and Funding Distribution

Funding of new projects based on completion of multi-year projects and current prioritization

Stable funding for long term, strategic projects

– Fundamentals

– Guidelines

– New and promising technologies


Willie Harris, Exelon


August 31, 2016

Radiation Safety Program2017-2018 Work Plan

APC Report

August 15, 2016


Radioactivity Generation and Control (Source

Term Reduction) Surface Passivation

(2015-2018)

Hydrophobic Coatings(2016-2017)

Micro-Environment Effect(2015-2017)

Silver and Antimony (2016-2018)

Optimized Zn(2018)*

PWR Shutdown Releases

RCP Practices during Shutdown

Impact of Flex Ops on Source Term

ALARA Strategies and Technologies

Source Term Decision Logic

(2017-2019)*

RMT for Surveys (2017)*

Review of Radiation Field Modeling

Radiation Measurement and Dosimetry

for Workers and Public

Accurate Effluent Public Dose (2015-2017)

Shielding Factors for Lens of the Eye (2017-2018)*

Ex-core Isotopic Monitoring Following Zn

Injection

HTD Radionuclides in Liquid Radwaste and

Effluents

Optimization of Source Checks for Portable

Instruments

Effluent and Radwaste

Minimization

Impacts to Effluents and Radwaste from Non-

Design Basis Materials (2017-2019)*

Fuel Material Changes on Radwaste and Corrosion Behavior (2018-2019)*

LLW Knowledge Transfer Database

GW Knowledge Transfer Database

Lesson Learned and Observations from GW

Assessments

Impact of Flex Ops on Effluents and Radwaste

Radiation Safety

Guidance

Review of Radiation Safety Guidelines for Revision (2016-2018)

PCE Guideline Revision (2017-2018)*

LLW Sampling and Characterization

Guideline Revision

GW Site Conceptual Model Template and

Sourcebook

Funded Work Fund with Modification * New TSG Funded Other Funded

2017-2018 Radiation Safety and Decommissioning PortfolioIncluding TSG and Non-Radiation Safety Program Funded Work





Fundamental: Benchmarking and Trending

Standard Radiation Field Monitoring and Characterization (SRMC)

Program(ongoing)

RadBench™ (ongoing)

Low Dose Radiation Health

Effects

Scientific Advisory Committee (ongoing)

International Dose Effect Alliance (IDEA) (ongoing)

Human and Animal Data Analysis for Low Dose Rate Effects

(2017-2019)

Cancer Risk Modeling - Phase 1

(2018-2019)*

Decommissioning Technology and

Strategies

System Automation for Reactor Internals Segmentation

(2017-2019)

DOE Technology Development (2017-2018)

Decommissioning Experience Wiki (ongoing)

Guidance for Mothballing(2017-2019)*

Decommissioning Supplemental

Guidance for Safe Storage

Review of DOE Technologies

Review of Robotic and Automation Technologies

Characterization of HTM Activation Products in Irradiated Metals

Decommissioning Waste Tracking Software Specifications

Management of Hazardous Waste

Geostatistical Approaches to Site Characterization

GW Monitoring During Decommissioning

Use of CZT for Site Characterization

Funded Work Supplemental Funding * New




Near Term Cost Savings Projects


Hydrophobic Coatings - Reduce Contamination/Worker Dose

Key Research Question:

Can commercial hydrophobic coatings assist in

decontamination control and dose reduction? Does their degradation introduce detrimental species?

What is their durability?

How effective are they?

Can a standard qualification protocol

be developed?

What are reasonable criteria?

Project Approach:1) Survey globally nuclear and non-nuclear industry – best practices

and utilized hydrophobic coatings. Review chemical and physical

surface modification treatments and technologies for

a. Durability of hydrophobicity,

b. Release of potential detrimental species,

c. Compatibility with materials of construction.

2) Create a state-of-the-art knowledge base

3) Identify gaps and opportunities.

4) Conduct demonstration under plant-like conditions.

5) Develop criteria for plant demonstration, verification and

validation.

Objective:

Assess hydrophobic coatings effectiveness

and durability

Evaluate formation/release of species

detrimental to asset protection and fuel

reliability

Develop criteria of performance

acceptance

Value:

Assist plants in coatings selection

Improve contamination control –

fewer PCEs and lower dose

Saves cost – reduces

qualification testing

decontamination and

contamination control efforts

Particulate Surface Contamination Causes Radiation Fields & PCE’s, i.e. Worker Dose

2016

2017


Updated Evaluation of the Effect of Zinc

Background:

– EPRI published 1021111, “PWR Zinc Application: Data Analysis

and Evaluation of Primary Chemistry Responses” in 2010

– Since 2009, 30 additional PWRs have started zinc injection.

– The project will evaluate the new experiences along with changes in

practices such as:

Optimized injection programs

Varying experience with end-of-cycle injection termination

Purpose:

– The results of this project will refine the industries’ understanding of how

zinc affects primary system chemistry, and will allow optimization of zinc

programs to achieve maximum benefit with minimal risk.

J. McElrath


Updated Evaluation of the Effect of Zinc

Research Value:

This project will provide utilities with information to better optimize the zinc

injection regime and to better predict plant behavior when implementing and

continuing zinc injection (i.e., both long and short term), including:

– Estimating impact upon radiation fields

– Estimating impact upon PWSCC mitigation

– Assess concerns such as release of nickel, increased radiocobalt

concentrations, shutdown cobalt releases, etc.

– Assess potential causes for dose rates reduction outliers



Optimization of the Frequency of Source Checks of

Portable Radiation Survey Instruments

Objectives:

– Determine if a technical basis can

be developed to optimize the

frequency of portable radiation

survey meter source checks.

– This technical basis will be based

on review of:

Existing standards / guidance

Current practices - meter testing,

maintenance, and calibration

Operational performance history

and maintenance logs.

Project Tasks:

– Review regulations and guidance

documents.

– Develop data collection protocol

– Collect utility data

An ion chamber survey meter

Provide a summary report of the

results of the data collection.

– Provide recommendations and

develop technical basis to support

the optimized frequency of source

checks.

Need Help

K. Kim


Remote Monitoring for Routine Surveys

Background:– Member feedback suggests that developing a basis document for

using remote monitoring equipment to reduce or eliminate certain

types of routine surveys could be a significant efficiency.

– EPRI started initial examination of issues in 2007.

– Significant technological advancements have occurred.

– Technical and regulatory hurdles need to be addressed.

Instrument checks and calibration

Area of validity

Transients

D. Cool & K. Kim


Value for Remote Monitoring

Approach:– Brainstorming during 2016 RMT Workshop

– Initial development with RMST TSG

– Base and TSG support proposed for 2017

Research Value:– Answer the question of if, and when, remote monitoring can be used to reduce routine

surveys

– Improve radiation protection operational efficiency and reduce occupational exposures


Develop basis to reduce routine monitoring, increase efficiency, reduce dose


Shielding Factors of Protective Equipment for Lens of the Eye

Background:– Global Issue, Right Now

– Follow on to EPRI work on Lens of the Eye.

– EPRI Lens of Eye Workshop identified need for efforts in area.

– There is no methodology or quantification of protection factors for typical protective equipment used by workers in member facilities

– There are no standard phantoms or calibration protocols available, although progress is being made.

Purpose:– Develop and document a consistent approach for testing of equipment

for protection of the lens of the eye for use by industry and vendors.

– Provide a generic set of protection factors for use in planning and implementing radiation protection for lens of the eye.

D. Cool


Value of Shielding Factors

Research Value:– Provide tools and methodologies for the industry to meet new

regulatory requirements

– Consistent approach facilitates acceptance and use

– Provide a generic set of factors for protection of the lens of the eye

that could be used in a manner similar to the protection factors

found in regulations for respiratory protection.


Develop consistent approach to address Global Issue


PCE Guidelines Update

Background:– The EPRI Guidelines for Industry Response to Personal

Contaminations (Product 1011740) as last revised in

November, 2005.

– The Guidelines are a key piece of implementing an effective and protective radiation

protection program.

– Requests to assess action levels, measurement locations, further actions for facial

and wound contamination, communication of risk.

– NRC concern that the EPRI guidelines might have mischaracterized NRC

requirements1.

– A Delivering the Nuclear Promise Efficiency Bulletin2 has resulted in additional focus

on use of the guidelines.

D. Cool

1 ADAMS ML15187A388

2 NEI Efficiency Bulletin 16-03, Align Personnel Contamination

Event Response to Industry Guidance, February 2, 2016


Value of PCE Guidelines Update

Approach– Short term action to address NRC concern

– Working Group to develop revision

Research Value:

– Guidance clearly consistent with regulatory requirements and

interpretations

– Clarification of special issues not previously addressed

– Communication tools for sensitive public and worker topics

– Availability of OE and Lessons Learned on prevention, mitigation,

and response

– Increase efficiency, reduce cost while maintaining safety

Up to date guidelines address issues, facilitate communications



Decommissioning Database (2016 to 2018)

A wealth of experience is available from completed and ongoing decommissioning projects

Experience largely captured in more than 35 EPRI reports

There is a need for a searchable database for decommissioning experience covering all areas (planning, execution, site characterization and release)

Began development of Wiki-format database in 2016

– Include EPRI data and other data sources

– Database roll out in 2016

– Adding functionality and content in 2017 and 2018

R. Reid

Proposed Duration and Timing: ongoing

NEI Update - APC

Ellen AndersonDirector, Radiation Safety &

International LiaisonEPRI APC Meeting

31 August 2016 New Orleans, LA

1

Topics

• Low Dose Radiation Act

• DNP

• Prompt Remediation

• EPA PAGS for Drinking Water After a Radiological Incident

2

Low Dose Radiation Research 18-month Program

• (A) identify current scientific challenges for understanding the long-term effects of ionizing radiation;

• (B) assess the status of current low dose radiation research in the United States and internationally;

• (C) formulate overall scientific goals for the future of low-dose radiation research in the United States;

• (D) recommend a long-term strategic and prioritized research agenda to address scientific research goals for overcoming the identified scientific challenges in coordination with other research efforts;

• (E) define the essential components of a research program that would address this research agenda within the universities and the National Laboratories; and

• (F) assess the cost-benefit effectiveness of such a program.

3

DNP

• 4 RP Efficiency Bulletins (EB) published

• 6 EBs under development

- EPRI currently assisting with technical basis for IO RP-8 “Source Check Frequency for Field Instruments”

• More EBs and opportunities for EPRI assistance in the months to come…

4

Background: Prompt Remediation

• Outgrowth of 2013 Decommissioning Planning Rule (DPR) which added:

- Minimization of contamination -- added language to §20.1406(c)

- Site surveys and monitoring - Modified §20.1501(a) regarding subsurface surveys

- Retention of records of residual radioactivity and other surveys -- section §20.1501(b)

- Update financial assurances

5

Prompt Remediation Draft Technical Basis Is Inadequate

• Neither 2011 or 2013 Versions of Draft Technical Basis Support Rulemaking:

- Assumes Rulemaking is Needed

- Fails to Identify a Generic Issue; Lacked Specificity on Safety Issue

- Fails to Adequately Address Backfit Implications

• NEI Letters Document Industry’s Opposition

- Sept 16, 2011 & Aug 2, 2013

6

Prompt Remediation in 2016

• In 2013 NRC Commission directed Staff to obtain data for two years on effectiveness of DPR

• FRN published on July 6th seeking comments

• Industry will response as in 2013: No regulation needed

- Firmly Committed to Planning, Funding and Conducting Safe and Efficient Facility Decommissioning

- NRC Regulations Contain Appropriate Requirements to Prevent Legacy Sites

- Industry Continues Groundwater Protection Initiative

• Objective 1.4.a requires procedure to assess prompt remediation

7

Groundwater Protection Initiative & NRC Review

NEI 07-07 Criteria 1.4:

Establish remediation protocol to prevent migration of licensed material off-site and minimize decommissioning impacts

• Establish written procedures outlining the decision making process for remediation of leaks and spills or other instances of inadvertent releases.

NRC TI 2515/173: evaluated adherence to NEI 07-07

NRC memo 4/14/2011: Roll-up Results of TI ”Follow-up on the Industry’s Groundwater Protection Initiative” documented that all but one site met this criteria and that this site was addressing the issue.

8

EPRI’s Projects & Products

• Provide technical guidance on implementation of groundwater protection and remediation programs. - Groundwater Protection Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1

(3002000546) and

- Soil and Groundwater Remediation Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants(1021104)

• Perform groundwater protection assessments

• Investigate groundwater monitoring and remediation technologies for use at nuclear power plants.

9

EPA Draft PAG for Drinking Water After a Radiological Accident - 2013

• 2013 EPA published interim “Protective Action Guides and Planning Guidance for Radiological Incidents” (2013 Interim PAG Manual)• drinking water PAGS based upon the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) per

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

• 4 mrem/yr and lifetime exposure criteria of 70 years of continued exposure

• In light of the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident “…the Agency recognizes a short-term emergency drinking water guide may by useful for public health protection”• Industry/NEI comments on 2013 draft echoed the same rationale

10

EPA Draft PAG for Drinking Water - 2016EPA proposed revision -- 81 Fed. Reg. 37,589 (June 10, 2016)

• Two-tier drinking water PAG to be used during the intermediate phase of emergencies • 500 millirem/year (5 mSv/yr) projected dose for the general population (i.e., anyone over 15

years old,

• 100 millirem/year (1 mSv/yr) projected dose for children under the age of 15, pregnant women and nursing mothers

• NEI July 25, 2016 letter:• Acknowledges improvement over original 2013 draft

• Suggest setting a range of 2-10 rem per for all anticipated pathways of exposure (inclusive of consumption of food or drinking water)

• Consistent with ICRP Publications 103 & 37

11

Conclusions

• Low Dose Research: Congratulations and thanks to EPRI for assistance on this important legislation!

• DNP: Industry will continue to rely on EPRI for technical assistance relating to DNP improvement opportunities;

• Prompt Remediation: Industry/NEI continues to Recommend Withdrawal of Prompt Remediation Rulemaking;

• EPA PAGS: Industry/NEI continues to suggest setting a range of 2-10 rem per for all anticipated pathways of exposure (inclusive of consumption of food or drinking water).

12

Questions

13


Lisa Edwards, Sr. Program Manager


31 August 2016

Li-7 Usage, Supply,

Recovery and

Alternatives (KOH)Status Update

Submitted 11 August 2016


Li-7 for PWR Primary pH Control

The Threat: Li-7 Supply

– Some utilities were challenged to procure Li-7

in 2015

Production now back up in China and

Russia

Supply is back, but at increased price

Dependability of current supply routes

unknown

– Molten salt reactors would

greatly increase demand

– Operational considerations

Flex power ops

GREATLY increases

Li-7 demand

– Growing PWR fleet

Molten Salt Reactor (LiF-BeF2-ThF4-UF4)

Approximately 26,500 kg LiOH•H2O / yr / unit *

More Li-7 than would be used by 750 PWRs

* Based on information from: Engel, J.R. et al., “Molten-Salt Reactors for Efficient

Nuclear Fuel Utilization Without Plutonium Separation”, ORNL/TM-6413, Aug

1978. Basis: 1000 MWe.**Source: IAEA PRIS Database. Updated 29 Sept 2015

**


Two Paths to Maintaining pH Control Capabilities

Stay with Li-7 Qualify KOH

Optimized

UsageLi-7

Recovery

Alternative

Enrichment

Processes

Stockpile

How long would stockpiles last, if usage is optimized? Is FULL qualification necessary if there is no supply?

Higher upfront research costs, Lower operational costsLower upfront research costs, Higher operational costs

Materials

Chemistry

Control

Fuels

Radiation

Safety


L-7 Stockpiles

US Department of Energy (DOE)– 500 kg as LiOH

Partially purified

– Approximately enough for 28 PWR operating cycles (does not include that necessary for CVCS bed lithiation)

– Contains 3100 ppm SO4

DOE understands this is unacceptable

DOE is considering means for purification

– NEI will prepare process for dissemination

Utility Stockpiles– May provide some flexibility in supply

– Cost approaching $2,500/kg


Benefits of KOH

Lower Operational Costs

– LiOH•H2O: Approximately $2,500/kg

– KOH: Approximately $25/kg (Reagent Grade)

– Standard vs Lithium saturated CVCS bed (approx. $300 vs $6000 per ft3)

– Estimated savings per yearEach PWR unit: $140kU.S. Fleet (65 PWR units): $9.1M

May be more beneficial for Fuel

– Data indicates much lower corrosion rates

May mitigate IASCC* initiation (e.g. baffle-former bolts)

– Much lower lithium concentrations possible with KOH

*IASCC: Irradiation Assisted Stress Corrosion Cracking

10

100

1000

10000

1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Co

rro

sio

n R

ate

(mg/

dm

2)

Concentration of Cations (ppm)

Zircaloy 2

NaOH

LiOH

KOH

Co

rro

sio

n R

ate

(m

g/d

m2)

Corrosion Rate of

Zircaloy 2 at 360°C

Concentration of Cation (ppm)

H. Coriou, L. Grall, J. Neunier, M.

Pelras, and H. Willermoz, “The

Corrosion of Zircaloy in Various

Alkaline Media at High Temperature”,

Corrosion of Reactor Materials, Vol. II,

193, IAEA, Vienna (1962).

NaOH

LiOH

KOH


Full Qualification Plan – Shortest Timeline

“Plan A” (Reasonably Conservative)• Detailed project scopes developed for each technical item• 8 – 10 years• $8M - $10M

What is truly

necessary in the

face of no Li

availability?

“Plan B”

Phase 1: Qualification ahead of the PWR plant trial

Phase 2: PWR plant trial

Start of Phase 2


Qualification Plan – Next Step: Investigate a “Plan B”

Can we eliminate CGR Testing?

Can we reduce the time/scope of initiation testing?

Motivation/Scenario

• All Li-7 supply is gone.

• Operate plant with

alternate pH control

chemistry, or shutdown.

• What is the absolute

minimum to have been

completed to allow

operation with KOH?

“Plan B” Effort

• Work directly with a

utility willing to consider

this premise.

• Include 3 – 5 utility

experts

• Requires executive

level input.

Can we eliminate these evaluations from the qualification

process, and simply evaluate as part of the trial application?

Work with fuel vendors to define acceptable risks


Questions Where We Need Help

How long will stockpiles last?

What does the emergency KOH plan “B” look like?

What is this APC’s position on pursuit of this work?


Lisa Edwards, EPRI


August 31, 2016

Delivering the Nuclear Promise:

EPRI Balance Between

Strategic Research and Near

Cost Savings

August 11, 2016




Sourcebooks)


(2015-2017)


(2016-2018)


(2018-2019)*




(2015-2018)

Chemical Mitigation







(2016-2017)








(2018-2019)*





(2015-2018)


NPP (2016-2017)



(2018-2019)*




(2016-2017)




(2016-2017)


(2015-2017)



Near-Term Cost Savings

Longer-Term Cost Savings


Radioactivity Generation and Control (Source

Term Reduction) Surface Passivation

(2015-2018)

Hydrophobic Coatings(2016-2017)

Micro-Environment Effect(2015-2017)

Silver and Antimony (2016-2018)

Optimized Zn(2018)*

PWR Shutdown Releases

RCP Practices during Shutdown

Impact of Flex Ops on Source Term

ALARA Strategies and Technologies

Source Term Decision Logic

(2017-2019)*

Use of RMT for Reduced Survey Frequency

(2017)*

Review of Radiation Field Modeling

Radiation Measurement and Dosimetry

for Workers and Public

Accurate Effluent Public Dose (2015-2017)

Shielding Factors for Lens of the Eye (2017-2018)*

Ex-core Isotopic Monitoring Following Zn

Injection

HTD Radionuclides in Liquid Radwaste and

Effluents

Optimization of Source Checks for Portable

Instruments

Effluent and Radwaste

Minimization

Impacts to Effluents and Radwaste from Non-

Design Basis Materials (2017-2019)*

Fuel Material Changes on Radwaste and Corrosion Behavior (2018-2019)*

LLW Knowledge Transfer Database

GW Knowledge Transfer Database

Lesson Learned and Observations from GW

Assessments

Impact of Flex Ops on Effluents and Radwaste

Radiation Safety

Guidance

Review of Radiation Safety Guidelines for Revision (2016-2018)

PCE Guideline Revision (2017-2018)*

LLW Sampling and Characterization

Guideline Revision

GW Site Conceptual Model Template and

Sourcebook

Funded Work Fund with Modification * New TSG Funded Other Funded






Fundamental: Benchmarking and Trending

Standard Radiation Field Monitoring and Characterization (SRMC)

Program(ongoing)

RadBench™ (ongoing)

Low Dose Radiation Health

Effects

Scientific Advisory Committee (ongoing)

International Dose Effect Alliance (IDEA) (ongoing)

Human and Animal Data Analysis for Low Dose Rate Effects

(2017-2019)

Cancer Risk Modeling - Phase 1

(2018-2019)*

Decommissioning Technology and

Strategies

System Automation for Reactor Internals Segmentation

(2017-2019)

DOE Technology Development (2017-2018)

Decommissioning Experience Wiki (ongoing)

Guidance for Mothballing(2017-2019)*

Decommissioning Supplemental

Guidance for Safe Storage

Review of DOE Technologies

Review of Robotic and Automation Technologies

Characterization of HTM Activation Products in Irradiated Metals

Decommissioning Waste Tracking Software Specifications

Management of Hazardous Waste

Geostatistical Approaches to Site Characterization

GW Monitoring During Decommissioning

Use of CZT for Site Characterization

Funded Work Supplemental Funding * New




Top 10 Cost Savings Projects

Short Term Realization

Longer Term

Below the Line • KOH Qualification

• PCE Guidelines

• Source Check frequency for RP Instrumentation

• RMT to Reduce Routine Survey Frequency

• Shielding Factors for Lens of the Eye

• On Line Monitoring for Anions

• On Line Monitoring for Fe

• Risk Informed Chemistry Control

• Optimized Zinc

• On Line Monitoring for Chemistry

Chemistry & Radiation Safety Action Plan Committee …© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute,...

Documents

Transcript of Chemistry & Radiation Safety Action Plan Committee …© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute,...