Text

July 7 Public Mtg Slides for Pre-application of NEI 16-03 & EPRI i-LAMP
	ML21187A057
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	07/07/2021
From:	Ashkeboussi N; Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	; Licensing Processes Branch
	Fields L
References
	Download: ML21187A057 (52)
	v • d • e

NEI 16-03 Pre-application Meeting Nima Ashkeboussi July 7, 2021

Meeting Objective

Review NEI 16-03 background and proposed revisions

Present Industrywide Learning Aging Management Program (i-LAMP) developments to date

Present Pilot plant case studies

Implementation path for i-LAMP

NEI 16-03 & i-LAMP Background

NEI 16-03, Revision 0

Proposed Revision to NEI 16-03

Industrywide Learning Aging Management Program (i-LAMP)

Presentation Outline

U.S. Neutron Absorber Material (NAM) Status Based on Generic Letter (GL) Responses Review the NAM status (US)

i-LAMP Overview & Analysis for Sibling Pool Determination Review the concept

Augmentation of i-LAMP via Addition of Panels from an Operating SFP Describe panels with unique history

Augmentation of i-LAMP Using Updated NAM Status & Non-US Data Describe recent enhancements

Pilot SFPs as Case Studies Describe how to use i-LAMP

Summary & Proposed Path and Schedule Discuss whats needed for implementation 2 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Neutron Absorber Material (NAM) Status*

Boralcan Boralcan

US, based on Generic Letter responses

Boraflex, Carborundum, and Tetrabor are not part of proposed industrywide monitoring program

Boral is the only neutron absorber material, among remaining NAMs, without coupons for some of the SFPs 3 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

i-LAMP: Industrywide Learning Aging Management Program Why i-LAMP?

1. About half of the SFPs in the U.S. do not have a coupon monitoring program

2. License renewal requires commitment for aging management program

3. In situ measurements are expensive and may not be reliable - can indicate false degradation as demonstrated by Zion project

4. Alternative inspection (i.e., panel removal): Not only significant cost but also potentially significant dose for workers as well as risks for damaging panels A Global Approach:

1. Given SFPs are very similar, can we develop an industrywide program that allows SFPs for which there is no coupon monitoring program to use SFPs with coupons as surrogate?

2. If similarities are demonstrated with the supporting data, potential benefits of such an approach will also include

1. Coordination of measurements

2. Easier identification of trends and potential issues For i-LAMP to be successful, need to maintain remaining coupon population. Recommended:

1. Re-insertion of coupons after analysis (instead of discarding them) after Zion comparative analysis project and implemented by the industry

Sibling Pool Criteria (SPC)

Potential Variables:

Water Chemistry - from Component 1

B levels (PWR); Cl, F, SO4, Silica levels

NAM Specification - from Component 2

Age, service time, specifications (areal density, thickness)

NAM Specification - from Component 3

Age, service time, specifications (areal density, thickness)

Additional analysis for similarity/impact determination

If there are differences (i.e., service time, water chemistry) evaluate the impact As part of learning aging management, binning will be revisited and revised as needed Analysis performed to evaluate how characterization/binning should be done 6 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Toward Determination of Sibling Pools Similarity Analysis to Determine Sibling Pool(s)

SFPs without Coupons SFPs with Coupons I. How similar are the NAM characteristics?

1. 10B Areal density Important Questions:

Thickness

1. How similar are the NAMs in SFPs?

2. Installation year(s)

2. How similar is the water chemistry between SFPs? 3. Manufacturing year(s)

3. Are there outliers that are not II. How similar is the water chemistry?

bounded? 1. Boron levels

If yes, potential approaches to 2. Cl, F, Sulfate levels address outliers?

3. Other chemistry parameters (Silica levels, pH, etc.)

SFP Neutron Absorber Material (NAM) Status: Areal Density (AD)

Boral:

1. 24 SFPs out of 57 SFPs in US do not have coupon monitoring program

2. Some SFPs have multiple NAMs

3. Some SFPs with Boral have multiple installation dates (same AD) and/or varying AD Boralcan Ideal case Areal Density: For Boral, all SFPs without coupons are bounded by SFPs with coupons 8 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

SFP Neutron Absorber Material (NAM) Status: NAM Age Boral:

For SFPs, installation and manufacturing year are similar with two exceptions due to their unique history Boralcan If not ideal case, additional analysis (or alternative solution) is needed NAM Age: Not all but majority of SFPs without coupons are bounded - due to histories of two SFPs that are considered exceptions 9 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Two SFPs with Unique Histories: Outliers for Significant Differences in Manufacturing and Installation Date & Panel Histories

For both outliers, panels resided in two different SFPs (SFP-1 SFP-2, SFP-A SFP-B)

Transportation and varying storage time in between two SFPs (Wet-Dry-Wet)

Based on GL responses, in 2018 neither SFP-2 nor SFP-B had a coupon monitoring program 10 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of Panels from an Operating SFP (SFP-2 from slide 10)

These panels are unique:

1. Age and vintage (considered most susceptible for blistering)

Two panels removed from SFP-2

2. Used in two SFPs

Cut into coupon sizes

3. Storage time in between two pools (dry)

22 equal size coupon/panel

4. Long service time (~40 years)

Top sample (Sample 23) short and damaged for both panels - discarded top section 12 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Panels to Coupons Panel 1 - Bottom segments Panel 1 - Middle segments Panels are in very good condition

No blisters

Despite being considered most susceptible to blisters due to age

General flow patterns, scratches but no gross degradation Panel 2 - Bottom segments Panel 2 - Top segments 13 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Water Chemistry: SFP-2 versus Industry Boron Levels SFP-2 Relatively high Boron levels in SFP-2, compared to industry levels (shown on the right) 14 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

SFP-2 Water Chemistry - Cl and Sulfate Levels

Graphs show measurement data, from SFP-2, for ~20 years

EPRI water chemistry guidelines recommend maintaining Cl, F, Sulfate levels below 150 ppb to minimize corrosion

Cl levels well below 150 ppb

Sulfate levels mostly within recommended values (<150 ppb)

F levels, not shown but <10 ppb for the same time period 15 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Areal Density Values for Samples from Panel-1 and Panel-2 Areal Density Values for 15 Samples - 5 Points/Sample Panel Panel11 Panel Panel 2 2

For each sample, AD measurements performed at 5 locations Error bars represent 2 values

Minimum Certified Areal Density (AD): 0.0233 g10B/cm2

All the measured AD values above minimum certified AD values 16 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Average Areal Density Values: Average of 5 points/Sample Panel 1 Panel 2 Error bars represent 2 values

Minimum Certified Areal Density (AD): 0.0233 g10B/cm2

All the measured AD values above minimum certified AD values

No trend in AD as a function of axial height 17 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Comparison of Panels from Zion SFP vs. SFP-2 Zion Region 1 Zion Region 2 SFP-2 Installation Year 1994 1994 1997*

Service time (years) ~20 ~20 ~40**

of panels removed 8 6 2 Blisters 1*** N N Gross Degradation N N N Zion Module being Thickness (in.) 0.101 0.085 0.085 removed from pool Min. Cert. AD 0.03 0.023 0.023 (g 10B/cm2)

Example samples from Zion panels

Panels had previous history, in SFP-1, as shown in Slide 12

- Wet storage time, does not include dry storage time in between SFPs

- - Only one panel showed a very small blister at the corner Panels removed from Zion and SFP-2 were in very good condition:

General flow patterns, scratches but no gross degradation Example sample from Panel being removed SFP-2 panels from SFP-2 18 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

SFP-2 Updated Status

Removed two panels from in-service racks to create coupons

Developed aging management program based on coupon monitoring

Built two coupon trees

Placed coupons, representing both Panel-1 and Panel-2, in coupon trees

Did not place coupons in SS encapsulation

Placed coupon trees in locations that enable accelerated exposure Key outcomes:

1. One less SFP that does not have coupon monitoring program

2. Due to age and history, coupons from SFP-2 augment i-LAMP in a unique and valuable way - enable closing knowledge gaps

Updated NAM Status in SFPs Boral

1 SFP from US moved from No-Coupon category to Coupon category

1 SFP from Europe added to No-Coupon category

Added data from 2 SFPs, from North America (non-US), to Coupon category

Added data from 8 SFPs, from Asia, to Coupon category Metamic non-US SFPs are not added yet to the graph since current focus is on Boral - will be added 21 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Panel Histories: Pilot-1 (P-1) versus Sibling-1 (S-1)

Unique panel history - very similar to panel history residing in SFP-2

Wet-Dry-Wet

Old Boral panels

Pilot-1: ~30 years in-pool service history

Sibling-1: ~40 years in-pool service history Pilot-1 (P-1) Panel History

One Boral type

Pilot-1: Two boral types

Old Boral (reclaimed from SFP-A), installed in SFP-B in 1997

New Boral, installed in 1998

New Boral has higher AD but uses the same AD (lower value based on old Boral) in CSA Sibling-1 (S-1) Panel History 23 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Water Chemistry for Sibling Pool-1 (S-1) versus Pilot-1 (P-1): Boron Levels Pilot-1 Boron Levels Sibling Pool-1 Boron Levels Pilot-1 Boron levels lower than Sibling Pool-1 Boron levels and more consistent with industry averages 24 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Water Chemistry for Sibling Pool-1 (S-1) versus Pilot-1 (P-1): Cl Levels Sibling Pool-1 Cl Levels Pilot-1 Cl Levels Cl levels for Pilot-1 and Sibling Pool-1 are well below recommended values (<150 ppb) 25 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Water Chemistry for Sibling Pool-1 (S-1) versus Pilot-1 (P-1): Sulfate Levels Sibling Pool-1 Sulfate Levels Pilot-1 Sulfate Levels Cl levels for Pilot-1 and Sibling Pool-1 are well below recommended values (<150 ppb) 26 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Water Chemistry for Sibling Pool-1 (S-1) versus Pilot-1 (P-1): F Levels Pilot-1 F Levels Sibling Pool-1 F Levels F levels for Pilot-1 and Sibling Pool-1 are well below recommended values (<150 ppb) 27 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Water Chemistry for Sibling Pool-1 (S-1) versus Pilot-1 (P-1): Silica Levels Pilot-1 Silica Levels Sibling Pool-1 Silica Levels Significant differences between Pilot-1 and Sibling Pool-1 Silica levels 28 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Proposed Path - Pilot-1

Instead of simply proposing to use Sibling-1 as surrogate for Pilot-1, proposing:

1. Take some of the remaining coupons from Sibling-1 and transfer to Pilot-1 pool

2. Pilot-1 built a coupon tree

3. Keep half of coupons bare and encapsulate half of the coupons

4. Place them on coupon tree and install in Pilot-1 pool

5. Develop an aging management program based on coupons

This proposed approach has benefits for i-LAMP, Sibling-1, and Pilot-1

1. One less SFP without coupon monitoring program

2. Increased number of coupons across industry -

beneficial for the health of i-LAMP

3. Opportunity to evaluate impact of coupon size on formation of blisters in two SFPs

4. Opportunity to evaluate impact of SS encapsulation versus bare coupons

5. Opportunity to evaluate impact of higher Boron levels Specifications for Pilot-1 new Boral, installed in 1998, are in Sibling-1 versus higher Silica levels in Pilot-1 very similar to Pilot-2 Boral, described in next slides 29 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pilot - 2 versus Sibling: Description and Specifications Pilot-2* Sibling-1 Sibling-2 Installation Year 1999 1993 2003 Thickness (in.) 0.101 0.101 0.101 Min. Cert. AD 0.03 0.03 0.03 (g 10B/cm2)

Coupons N Y** Y***

Pilot-2 characteristics are very similar to Zion panels, installed in 1994, and Pilot-1 New Boral, installed in 1998.

- No blisters. No gross degradation or decrease in areal density.

- - Observed pitting, several blisters on some coupons. No gross degradation or decrease in areal density.

Pilot-2 versus Sibling Pool Water Chemistry - Boron Levels Pilot-2 Boron levels Sibling-1 Boron levels Sibling-2 Boron levels Boron levels for Pilot-2 and Sibling pools are very similar 31 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pilot-2 versus Sibling Pool Water Chemistry - Cl Levels Pilot-2 Cl levels Sibling-1 Cl levels Sibling-2 Cl levels

Cl levels for Pilot-2 and Sibling pools are well below recommended values (<150 ppb)

Although not shown, Sulfate and F levels for Pilot-2 and Sibling pools are very similar and well below recommended values (<150 ppb) 32 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Pilot-2 versus Sibling Pool Water Chemistry - Silica Levels Pilot-2 Silica levels Sibling-1 Silica levels Sibling-2 Silica levels Silica levels for Pilot-2 and Sibling-1 pool are similar; however, Sibling-2 has higher Silica levels early in the history 33 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Proposed Path - Pilot-2

Pilot-2, where panels were installed in 1999, is bounded by two siblings that has coupon monitoring program

Sibling-1 is older, installed in 1993

Sibling-2 panels were installed ~3 years after Pilot-1 panels

Pilot-2 panels are also very similar to Zion panels

Older installation date (1994 installation for Zion panels) but the same thickness and minimum certified areal density)

Water chemistry for Pilot-2 and Sibling pools are very similar except for early Silica levels for Sibling-2

There are several other pools that do not have coupons but have very similar characteristics to Pilot-2; therefore, similar to Sibling-1 and Sibling-2 Pilot-2 can use Sibling-1 and Sibling-2 as surrogates 34 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Summary: Toward a Global Industrywide Aging Management Program for NAMs*

Laboratory: Accelerated Corrosion Test Actual panels, coupons, and in-situ measurements from SFP: Zion comparative analysis (3002008196 and 3002008195)

Modeling and Simulation: Evaluation of Impact of Blister and Pits (3002013119)

Evaluation of Panels from an Operating SFP On-going collection of operating experience i-LAMP: Industrywide NAM Learning (SFP water chemistry, Coupon data) Aging Management Program

List of references included as backup material at the end 36 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Initial Implementation of i-LAMP After all data analysis, for now, proposing two bins: Commitment to i-LAMP and NEI 16-03

Bin 1 - SFPs with coupons Rev. 1 for implementation

Bin 2 - SFPs without coupons Why no need for binning in finer resolution, at this time? Key findings to date indicate:

SFP water chemistry is maintained based on recommended values

Across the industry, Cl, F, Sulfate levels are mostly below 150 ppb

Data and analysis to date does not indicate differences in degradation for PWR vs.

BWR (Boron level effect)

Accelerated corrosion test results showed that even for clad removed coupons, no statistically significant change in areal density

Actual panels removed from two SFPs (Zion and SFP-2) do not indicate any significant degradation Based on the data we

This finding is especially significant for panels removed from SFP-2 due to have to date, there is no unique history of the panels safety significant issue for

The size of the blistering or pitting observed to date has negligible impact on SFP Boral aging management criticality as demonstrated in EPRI report 3002013119 37 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Initial Implementation of i-LAMP After all data analysis, for now, proposing two bins:

Commitment to i-LAMP and NEI 16-03

Bin 1 - SFPs with coupons Rev. 1 for implementation

Bin 2 - SFPs without coupons

i-LAMP is a learning aging monitoring program.

Data collection and analysis will continue, and number of bins will be refined, if/when needed.

Updates will be provided to regulator on agreed upon intervals.

In the future, if further binning is needed:

Based on the data analysis, EPRI developed a table that summarizes sibling pool(s) for SFPs that do not have coupons SFPs w/o Coupon Sibling Pool(s)

EPRI can share this information with each utility that do Monitoring Program not have coupon(s) and their corresponding sibling pool(s) SFP-A S-1, S-2, S-3 and related supplemental information SFP-B S-1 & S-2

NAM specifications - Areal densities, installation and SFP-C & SFP-D S-1 manufacturing years, thicknesses SFP-E, SFP-F, SFP-G S-1 & S-2

Water chemistries Question:

Once NEI 16-03, Rev. 1 approved by the NRC, what regulatory interactions are required by the utilities?

Summary and Next Steps Next Steps: i-LAMP as Alternate Summary Monitoring Program

Collection and analysis of SFP data ongoing as

Publication of EPRI technical report to these are live databases summarize i-LAMP components, data and sibling

Addition of panel data from an operating SFP pool criteria in late 2021 with unique history augmented i-LAMP

NEI 16-03 is being revised to add i-LAMP as significantly alternate monitoring approach

Demonstrated implementation of i-LAMP using

Regulatory review for the proposed approach is two pilot plants as case studies the next step

Proposed an alternate solution for one of the

For non-US, anticipating several applications pilot plants after NRC review and approval and EPRI will

Implementation of proposed approach, if support non-US applications approved by regulator, will improve i-LAMP

EPRI will continue to maintain i-LAMP, if and shed light on few remaining questions approved, and provide regular with updates on agreed upon intervals 40 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Proposed: NEI 16-03 Revision 1 A neutron absorber monitoring program may rely on a combination of the following approaches:

1. Installation of a neutron absorber coupon tree with periodic removal and testing of neutron absorber coupons;

2. i-LAMP

3. In-situ measurements of the neutron absorbing capability of the installed neutron absorber panels, Add i-LAMP as alternate monitoring approach in NEI 16-03, Rev.1, provide brief description, and refer to EPRI report for details of i-LAMP 41 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

EPRI i-LAMP Report Outline - DRAFT

1. INTRODUCTION 3.5.3 Impact of Cl levels

2. BACKGROUND 3.5.4 Impact of Sulfate levels 2.1 Generic Letter Issuance 3.6 Sibling Pool Criteria 2.2 NEI 16-03: Guidance for Monitoring of Fixed Neutron Absorbers in SFPs

4. AUGMENTATION AND BOUNDING OF I-LAMP VIA EVALUATION OF 2.3 i-LAMP Proposal PANELS FROM AN OPERATING SPENT FUEL POOL 2.4 Generic Letter Closure 4.1 History of Panels 2.4.1 Status of NAMs Based on Generic Letter Responses 4.2 Removal of Panels

3. i-LAMP DEVELOPMENT 4.3 Water Chemistry History 3.1 Overview of Neutron Absorber Materials and Monitoring 4.4 Areal Density Values Status in i-LAMP 4.4.1 Sample Identification and Areal 3.2 SFP Water Chemistry Density Measurement Locations 3.3 SFP Coupon Database 4.4.2 Areal Density Values for Panel 1 3.4 SFPs with No Coupons 4.4.3 Areal Density Values for Panel 2 3.5 NAM Condition and Synergy Effects 4.5 Comparison of Panels from Zion and SFP1 3.5.1 Impact of age and service time 4.5.1 Blistering and Potential Coupon Size Effect 3.5.2 PWR vs. BWR 4.6 Bounding of i-LAMP for Boral via SFP1 3.5.2 Impact of Silica levels 42 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

EPRI i-LAMP Report Outline - DRAFT

5. PILOT PLANTS AS CASE STUDIES FOR I-LAMP 6. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION OF 5.1 Description of Pilot Plant 1 I-LAMP AND PATH FORWARD 5.1.1 History of Pilot Plant 1 and 6.1 NEI 16-03 revisions Comparison to SFP1 6.2 Proposed Updates and 5.1.2 NAM Specifications for Pilot Frequency Plant 1 and Comparison to SFP1 7.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1.3 Water Chemistry for Pilot Plant 1 8. REFERENCES and Comparison to SFP1 APPENDIX A: Panel Pictures for Panels from SFP1 5.1.4 Benefits of Proposed Approach APPENDIX B: Areal Density Values for Panels from SFP1 for Pilot Plant 1 and i-LAMP 5.2 Description of Pilot Plant 2 5.1.1 History of Pilot Plant 2 and Surrogate SFPs 5.1.2 NAM Specifications for Pilot Plant 2 and Surrogate SFPs 5.1.3 Water Chemistry for Pilot Plant 1 and Surrogate SFPs 43 www.epri.com © 2021 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Schedule & Milestones

Fee waiver request letter submitted - May 13, 2021

Fee waiver request approved, June 22, 2021 May-July

Pre-application meeting - July 7, 2021 2021

Summary of i-LAMP, introduction of pilot plants

TBD - If desired, NRC meeting(s) prior to submission of the EPRI report and revised NEI 16-03 Sept-Oct.

October, submission of EPRI report along with NEI 16-03 Rev. 1 for the NRC review 2021

References Zion Comparative Analysis Accelerated Corrosion Testing

1. H. Akkurt, Comparison of Neutron Absorber Panels and Monitoring 1. H. Akkurt, EPRIs Accelerated Corrosion Tests and Analysis of Pits Coupons from Zion Spent Fuel Pool, Proc. of International High-Level and Blisters for BORAL Coupons, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., 123, 219-Radioactive Waste Management (IHLRWM 2017), April 2017, 222, (2020).

Charlotte, NC. 2. H. Akkurt, A. Quigley, and M. Harris, "Accelerated Corrosion Tests to

2. Evaluation and Selection of Neutron Absorber Panels for the Zion Evaluate the Long-Term Performance of BORAL in Spent Fuel Comparative Analysis Project. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:2017. 3002010611. Pools, Proceedings of PATRAM 2019 Conference, New Orleans, LA, August 2019.

3. Evaluation of BORAL Panels from Zion Spent Fuel Pool and Comparison to Zion Coupons. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2016. 3. H. Akkurt, A. Quigley, and M. Harris, "Accelerated Corrosion Tests for 3002008196. the Evaluation of Long-Term Performance of Boral in Spent Fuel Pools, Radwaste Solutions, V 25, No 1, 41-43, Spring 2018.

4. Evaluation of BORAL Coupons from Zion Spent Fuel Pool. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2016. 3002008195. 4. H. Akkurt, A. Quigley, M. Harris, Update on Accelerated Corrosion Tests for the Evaluation of Long-Term Performance of BORAL in

5. H. Akkurt, M. Harris, A. Quigley, Evaluation of Neutron Absorber Spent Fuel Pools, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., 117, 319-322, (2017).

Panels from Zion Spent Fuel Pool, Transactions of the American Nuclear Society. 115, 645-647 (2016). 5. H. Akkurt, A. Quigley, M. Harris, Accelerated Corrosion Tests to Evaluate Long-Term Performance of BORAL in Spent Fuel Pools,

6. H. Akkurt, S. Feuerstein, M. Harris, and S. Baker, Overview of Zion Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., 115, 306-309, (2016).

Comparative Analysis Project for Assessment of BORAL Neutron Absorber Material Performance and Monitoring in Spent Fuel Pools, Proceedings of the ANS Conference: 2015 International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Safety. Charlotte, NC (September 13-17, 2015).

7. H. Akkurt, S. Feuerstein, M. Harris, and A. Quigley, Analysis of BORAL Coupons from Zion Spent Fuel Pool, Transactions of the American Nuclear Society. 113, 372-375 (2015).

References Evaluation of Impact of Blistering and Pitting on SFP i-LAMP Reactivity 1. H. Akkurt and A. Jenks, Toward a Global Monitoring Program for Neutron Absorber Material Monitoring in Spent Fuel Pools, Trans. Am.

1. Evaluation of the Impact of Neutron Absorber Material Blistering and Nuc. Soc., 124, 94-95, (2021).

Pitting on Spent Fuel Pool Reactivity, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2018.

3002013119. 2. H. Akkurt and E. Wong, Industrywide Global Efforts Toward Long Term Monitoring of Neutron Absorber Materials in Spent Fuel Pools,

2. H. Akkurt, M. Wenner, A. Blanco, Evaluation of the Impact of Neutron Proceedings of IAEA Spent Fuel Management Conference, Vienna, Absorber Material Blistering and Pitting on Spent Fuel Pool Reactivity, Austria, June 2019.

Proceedings of International Criticality Safety Conference (ICNC 2019),

Paris, France, September 2019. 3. H. Akkurt, Toward building a global aging management program for neutron absorber materials in spent fuel pools, Nuclear News, August 2019.

Overview 4. H. Akkurt and E. Wong, Industrywide Learning Aging Management Program (i-LAMP) for Neutron Absorber Material Monitoring in Spent

1. H. Akkurt, Overview of EPRI Research on Evaluation of Long Term Fuel Pools, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., 119, 305-308 (2018).

Performance of Neutron Absorber Material Performance in Spent Fuel Pools, Proceedings of International High-Level Waste Management 5. Roadmap for Industrywide Learning Aging Monitoring Program (IHLWM) Conference, Knoxville, TN, April 2019. (i-LAMP): For Neutron Absorber Materials in Spent Fuel Pools. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2018. 3002013122.

2. H. Akkurt, K. Cummings, Overview of Neutron Absorber Materials Used in Spent Fuel Pools, Proc. of International Criticality Nuclear Safety Conference (ICNC 2015), Charlotte, NC, September 2015.

ML21187A057

Text

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search