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

©2021 Nuclear Energy Institute 2 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

w w w. e p r i. c o m Hatice Akkurt Technical Executive NRC Pre-application Meeting July 7, 2021 Industrywide Learning Aging Management Program (i-LAMP)

w w w. e p r i. c o m 2

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

w w w. e p r i. c o m 3

Neutron Absorber Material (NAM) Status*

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

US, based on Generic Letter responses Boralcan Boralcan

w w w. e p r i. c o m 4

i-LAMP and Analysis for Sibling Pool Determination

w w w. e p r i. c o m 5

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

2. For early shutdowns, transfer coupons (if any) to a pool with similar characteristics

w w w. e p r i. c o m 6

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 Analysis performed to evaluate how characterization/binning should be done As part of learning aging management, binning will be revisited and revised as needed

w w w. e p r i. c o m 7

Toward Determination of Sibling Pools SFPs without Coupons Similarity Analysis to Determine Sibling Pool(s)

SFPs with Coupons I.

How similar are the NAM characteristics?

1.

10B Areal density Thickness

2. Installation year(s)

3. Manufacturing year(s)

II. How similar is the water chemistry?

1. Boron levels

2. Cl, F, Sulfate levels

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

Important Questions:

1.

How similar are the NAMs in SFPs?

2.

How similar is the water chemistry between SFPs?

3.

Are there outliers that are not bounded?

If yes, potential approaches to address outliers?

w w w. e p r i. c o m 8

Areal Density: For Boral, all SFPs without coupons are bounded by SFPs with coupons 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 Ideal case Boralcan

w w w. e p r i. c o m 9

NAM Age: Not all but majority of SFPs without coupons are bounded - due to histories of two SFPs that are considered exceptions 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 If not ideal case, additional analysis (or alternative solution) is needed Boralcan

w w w. e p r i. c o m 10 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

w w w. e p r i. c o m 11 Augmentation of i-LAMP via Addition of Panels with Unique History from an Operating SFP

w w w. e p r i. c o m 12 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)

2. Used in two SFPs

3. Storage time in between two pools (dry)

4. Long service time (~40 years)

Two panels removed from SFP-2 Cut into coupon sizes 22 equal size coupon/panel Top sample (Sample 23) short and damaged for both panels - discarded top section

w w w. e p r i. c o m 13 Panels to Coupons 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 1 - Bottom segments Panel 2 - Top segments Panel 1 - Middle segments Panel 2 - Bottom segments

w w w. e p r i. c o m 14 Water Chemistry: SFP-2 versus Industry Boron Levels Relatively high Boron levels in SFP-2, compared to industry levels (shown on the right)

SFP-2

w w w. e p r i. c o m 15 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

w w w. e p r i. c o m 16 Areal Density Values for Samples from Panel-1 and Panel-2

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

All the measured AD values above minimum certified AD values For each sample, AD measurements performed at 5 locations Error bars represent 2 values Areal Density Values for 15 Samples - 5 Points/Sample Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 1 Panel 2

w w w. e p r i. c o m 17 Average Areal Density Values: Average of 5 points/Sample

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 Error bars represent 2 values Panel 1 Panel 2

w w w. e p r i. c o m 18 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

~40**

of panels removed 8

6 2

Blisters 1***

N N

Gross Degradation N

N N

Thickness (in.)

0.101 0.085 0.085 Min. Cert. AD (g 10B/cm2) 0.03 0.023 0.023 Zion Module being removed from pool Panel being removed from SFP-2 Example sample from SFP-2 panels Example samples from Zion panels Panels removed from Zion and SFP-2 were in very good condition:

General flow patterns, scratches but no gross degradation

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

w w w. e p r i. c o m 19 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

3. SFP-2 has 15 extra coupons for EPRI/industry use - currently not in the pool

w w w. e p r i. c o m 20 Augmentation of i-LAMP Using Updated NAM Status & Non-US Data

w w w. e p r i. c o m 21 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

w w w. e p r i. c o m 22 Pilot SFPs as Case Studies to Demonstrate Implementation of i-LAMP

w w w. e p r i. c o m 23 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 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 Pilot-1 (P-1) Panel History

w w w. e p r i. c o m 24 Water Chemistry for Sibling Pool-1 (S-1) versus Pilot-1 (P-1): Boron Levels Sibling Pool-1 Boron Levels Pilot-1 Boron Levels Pilot-1 Boron levels lower than Sibling Pool-1 Boron levels and more consistent with industry averages

w w w. e p r i. c o m 25 Water Chemistry for Sibling Pool-1 (S-1) versus Pilot-1 (P-1): Cl Levels Cl levels for Pilot-1 and Sibling Pool-1 are well below recommended values (<150 ppb)

Sibling Pool-1 Cl Levels Pilot-1 Cl Levels

w w w. e p r i. c o m 26 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)

w w w. e p r i. c o m 27 Water Chemistry for Sibling Pool-1 (S-1) versus Pilot-1 (P-1): F Levels F levels for Pilot-1 and Sibling Pool-1 are well below recommended values (<150 ppb)

Sibling Pool-1 F Levels Pilot-1 F Levels

w w w. e p r i. c o m 28 Water Chemistry for Sibling Pool-1 (S-1) versus Pilot-1 (P-1): Silica Levels Sibling Pool-1 Silica Levels Pilot-1 Silica Levels Significant differences between Pilot-1 and Sibling Pool-1 Silica levels

w w w. e p r i. c o m 29 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 in Sibling-1 versus higher Silica levels in Pilot-1 Specifications for Pilot-1 new Boral, installed in 1998, are very similar to Pilot-2 Boral, described in next slides

w w w. e p r i. c o m 30 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 (g 10B/cm2) 0.03 0.03 0.03 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.

w w w. e p r i. c o m 31 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

w w w. e p r i. c o m 32 Pilot-2 versus Sibling Pool Water Chemistry - 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)

Pilot-2 Cl levels Sibling-1 Cl levels Sibling-2 Cl levels

w w w. e p r i. c o m 33 Pilot-2 versus Sibling Pool Water Chemistry - Silica Levels Silica levels for Pilot-2 and Sibling-1 pool are similar; however, Sibling-2 has higher Silica levels early in the history Pilot-2 Silica levels Sibling-1 Silica levels Sibling-2 Silica levels

w w w. e p r i. c o m 34 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

w w w. e p r i. c o m 35 Summary & Proposed Path and Schedule

w w w. e p r i. c o m 36 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 (SFP water chemistry, Coupon data) i-LAMP: Industrywide NAM Learning Aging Management Program

List of references included as backup material at the end

w w w. e p r i. c o m 37 Initial Implementation of i-LAMP 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 This finding is especially significant for panels removed from SFP-2 due to unique history of the panels The size of the blistering or pitting observed to date has negligible impact on SFP criticality as demonstrated in EPRI report 3002013119 After all data analysis, for now, proposing two bins:

Bin 1 - SFPs with coupons Bin 2 - SFPs without coupons Commitment to i-LAMP and NEI 16-03 Rev. 1 for implementation Based on the data we have to date, there is no safety significant issue for Boral aging management

w w w. e p r i. c o m 38 This approach will eliminate significant burden from industry and the NRC Initial Implementation of i-LAMP After all data analysis, for now, proposing two bins:

Bin 1 - SFPs with coupons Bin 2 - SFPs without coupons Commitment to i-LAMP and NEI 16-03 Rev. 1 for implementation

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.

w w w. e p r i. c o m 39 Question:

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

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

EPRI can share this information with each utility that do not have coupon(s) and their corresponding sibling pool(s) and related supplemental information

NAM specifications - Areal densities, installation and manufacturing years, thicknesses

Water chemistries SFPs w/o Coupon Monitoring Program Sibling Pool(s)

SFP-A S-1, S-2, S-3 SFP-B S-1 & S-2 SFP-C & SFP-D S-1 SFP-E, SFP-F, SFP-G S-1 & S-2

w w w. e p r i. c o m 40 Summary and Next Steps Summary

Collection and analysis of SFP data ongoing as these are live databases

Addition of panel data from an operating SFP with unique history augmented i-LAMP significantly

Demonstrated implementation of i-LAMP using two pilot plants as case studies

Proposed an alternate solution for one of the pilot plants

Implementation of proposed approach, if approved by regulator, will improve i-LAMP and shed light on few remaining questions Next Steps: i-LAMP as Alternate Monitoring Program

Publication of EPRI technical report to summarize i-LAMP components, data and sibling pool criteria in late 2021

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

Regulatory review for the proposed approach is the next step

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

EPRI will continue to maintain i-LAMP, if approved, and provide regular with updates on agreed upon intervals

w w w. e p r i. c o m 41 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

w w w. e p r i. c o m 42 EPRI i-LAMP Report Outline - DRAFT 1.

INTRODUCTION 2.

BACKGROUND 2.1 Generic Letter Issuance 2.2 NEI 16-03: Guidance for Monitoring of Fixed Neutron Absorbers in SFPs 2.3 i-LAMP Proposal 2.4 Generic Letter Closure 2.4.1 Status of NAMs Based on Generic Letter Responses 3.

i-LAMP DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Overview of Neutron Absorber Materials and Monitoring Status in i-LAMP 3.2 SFP Water Chemistry 3.3 SFP Coupon Database 3.4 SFPs with No Coupons 3.5 NAM Condition and Synergy Effects 3.5.1 Impact of age and service time 3.5.2 PWR vs. BWR 3.5.2 Impact of Silica levels 3.5.3 Impact of Cl levels 3.5.4 Impact of Sulfate levels 3.6 Sibling Pool Criteria

4. AUGMENTATION AND BOUNDING OF I-LAMP VIA EVALUATION OF PANELS FROM AN OPERATING SPENT FUEL POOL 4.1 History of Panels 4.2 Removal of Panels 4.3 Water Chemistry History 4.4 Areal Density Values 4.4.1 Sample Identification and Areal Density Measurement Locations 4.4.2 Areal Density Values for Panel 1 4.4.3 Areal Density Values for Panel 2 4.5 Comparison of Panels from Zion and SFP1 4.5.1 Blistering and Potential Coupon Size Effect 4.6 Bounding of i-LAMP for Boral via SFP1

w w w. e p r i. c o m 43 EPRI i-LAMP Report Outline - DRAFT

5. PILOT PLANTS AS CASE STUDIES FOR I-LAMP 5.1 Description of Pilot Plant 1 5.1.1 History of Pilot Plant 1 and Comparison to SFP1 5.1.2 NAM Specifications for Pilot Plant 1 and Comparison to SFP1 5.1.3 Water Chemistry for Pilot Plant 1 and Comparison to SFP1 5.1.4 Benefits of Proposed Approach 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

6. PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION OF I-LAMP AND PATH FORWARD 6.1 NEI 16-03 revisions 6.2 Proposed Updates and Frequency

7.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS

8. REFERENCES APPENDIX A: Panel Pictures for Panels from SFP1 APPENDIX B: Areal Density Values for Panels from SFP1

w w w. e p r i. c o m 44 Schedule & Milestones May-July 2021

Fee waiver request letter submitted - May 13, 2021

Fee waiver request approved, June 22, 2021

Pre-application meeting - July 7, 2021

Summary of i-LAMP, introduction of pilot plants Sept-Oct.

2021

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

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

NRC review process

w w w. e p r i. c o m 45 TogetherShaping the Future of Electricity

w w w. e p r i. c o m 46 References Zion Comparative Analysis 1.

H. Akkurt, Comparison of Neutron Absorber Panels and Monitoring Coupons from Zion Spent Fuel Pool, Proc. of International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management (IHLRWM 2017), April 2017, Charlotte, NC.

2.

Evaluation and Selection of Neutron Absorber Panels for the Zion Comparative Analysis Project. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:2017. 3002010611.

3.

Evaluation of BORAL Panels from Zion Spent Fuel Pool and Comparison to Zion Coupons. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2016.

3002008196.

4.

Evaluation of BORAL Coupons from Zion Spent Fuel Pool. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2016. 3002008195.

5.

H. Akkurt, M. Harris, A. Quigley, Evaluation of Neutron Absorber Panels from Zion Spent Fuel Pool, Transactions of the American Nuclear Society. 115, 645-647 (2016).

6.

H. Akkurt, S. Feuerstein, M. Harris, and S. Baker, Overview of Zion 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).

Accelerated Corrosion Testing 1.

H. Akkurt, EPRIs Accelerated Corrosion Tests and Analysis of Pits and Blisters for BORAL Coupons, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., 123, 219-222, (2020).

2.

H. Akkurt, A. Quigley, and M. Harris, "Accelerated Corrosion Tests to Evaluate the Long-Term Performance of BORAL in Spent Fuel Pools, Proceedings of PATRAM 2019 Conference, New Orleans, LA, August 2019.

3.

H. Akkurt, A. Quigley, and M. Harris, "Accelerated Corrosion Tests for the Evaluation of Long-Term Performance of Boral in Spent Fuel Pools, Radwaste Solutions, V 25, No 1, 41-43, Spring 2018.

4.

H. Akkurt, A. Quigley, M. Harris, Update on Accelerated Corrosion Tests for the Evaluation of Long-Term Performance of BORAL in Spent Fuel Pools, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., 117, 319-322, (2017).

5.

H. Akkurt, A. Quigley, M. Harris, Accelerated Corrosion Tests to Evaluate Long-Term Performance of BORAL in Spent Fuel Pools, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., 115, 306-309, (2016).

w w w. e p r i. c o m 47 References i-LAMP 1.

H. Akkurt and A. Jenks, Toward a Global Monitoring Program for Neutron Absorber Material Monitoring in Spent Fuel Pools, Trans. Am.

Nuc. Soc., 124, 94-95, (2021).

2.

H. Akkurt and E. Wong, Industrywide Global Efforts Toward Long Term Monitoring of Neutron Absorber Materials in Spent Fuel Pools, Proceedings of IAEA Spent Fuel Management Conference, Vienna, Austria, June 2019.

3.

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

4.

H. Akkurt and E. Wong, Industrywide Learning Aging Management Program (i-LAMP) for Neutron Absorber Material Monitoring in Spent Fuel Pools, Trans. Am. Nuc. Soc., 119, 305-308 (2018).

5.

Roadmap for Industrywide Learning Aging Monitoring Program (i-LAMP): For Neutron Absorber Materials in Spent Fuel Pools. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2018. 3002013122.

Evaluation of Impact of Blistering and Pitting on SFP Reactivity 1.

Evaluation of the Impact of Neutron Absorber Material Blistering and Pitting on Spent Fuel Pool Reactivity, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2018.

3002013119.

2.

H. Akkurt, M. Wenner, A. Blanco, Evaluation of the Impact of Neutron Absorber Material Blistering and Pitting on Spent Fuel Pool Reactivity, Proceedings of International Criticality Safety Conference (ICNC 2019),

Paris, France, September 2019.

Overview 1.

H. Akkurt, Overview of EPRI Research on Evaluation of Long Term Performance of Neutron Absorber Material Performance in Spent Fuel Pools, Proceedings of International High-Level Waste Management (IHLWM) Conference, Knoxville, TN, April 2019.

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