Meeting Book pgs 61-end (PDF - 1.56 MB)

6/8/2016
Sb-124 Used in Secondary Neutron Source:
1691.02 keV Gamma (49.0%)
9
4
Be(100%)   

8
4
Be  01n
MW Shaver and DD Lanning, Secondary Startup Neutron Sources as a Source
of Tritium in a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Reactor Coolant System
(RCS), PNNL-19151, February 2010
43
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Antimony Chemistry
 Sb(III) is stable under reducing conditions and Sb(V) is stable under oxidizing
conditions.
 Reducing conditions at temperature:
– Sb(III) is insoluble and deposits on plant surfaces, most likely as insoluble Sb2O3 with Sb(OH)3 in
solution.
– Sb(OH) – and Sb(OH) + are formed in strongly basic and acidic solutions, respectively, with only Sb3+
4
2
present in very concentrated solutions.
– Behavior indicates that antimony will be limited in circulating reactor coolant during operation in PWRs.
 Oxidizing conditions (with peroxide addition):
– Upon oxidization to Sb(V) the solubility increases.
– H12-y[Sby(OH)5y+x]x– formed, with (x,y) = (12,3) to (12,7).
4–
5–
6–
7–
–
– Species such as Sb12(OH)64 , Sb12(OH)65 , Sb12(OH)66 , and Sb12(OH)67 in addition to Sb(OH)6 are
formed.
Reference: Charles F. Baes, Jr. and Robert E. Mesmer, The Hydrolysis of Cations, John Wiley & Sons, 1976, page 372
Ion exchange removal of antimony is complicated by oxyanions.
44
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
22
6/8/2016
Sources of Antimony in RCS w/ OE examples
 Breach in cladding of secondary startup neutron source.
– Braidwood 2 (ICES 176656, Secondary Neutron Source Ruptured)
– Robinson 2 (ICES 178524, Secondary Neutron Startup Source Failure)
– Indian Point 2 (OE3946, Failure of Anti-Beryllium Startup Source)
 Trace impurity in Inconel® and stainless steel.
– Vattenfall, Ringhals (Pressurized Water Reactor Primary Water Chemistry Guidelines: Volume
2, Revision 7, EPRI 3002000505, Section 3.3.1, Antimony and Silver Releases)
 Component in fire retardants (antimony(III) oxide in combination with halogenated
materials)
– Crystal River-3 (OE30437, Fire in Cold Leg Caused by Welding Activities During Steam
Generator Replacement)
 Constituent in lead-free solder
– Palo Verde 2 (OE28045, Instrument Air Copper Header Solder Joint Leaks)
45
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Antimony OE examples
 Antimony has been used in pump bearings and seals
– FitzPatrick 1 mechanical seal in Turbine-Driven Pump (ICES 231692, Planned/Scheduled Unit Power
Reduction due to Corrective Maintenance Prior to Failure of Mechanical Seal in *Fdwtr Turbine-Driven
Pump 34P-1A)
– Harris Babbitt outboard thrust bearing shoes (tin, antimony, and copper) thrust bearing in Charging Safety
Injection Pumps (OE24397, Charging Safety Injection Pump Outboard Bearing Slightly Damaged)
– Quad Cities 2 antimony depletion on the sealing face of the stationary ring (OE24640, Reactor Feed
Pump Seal Failures)
– Vermont Yankee silicon carbide and carbon antimony seal faces (OE22127, Reactor Water Clean Up
Pump Seal Leaked after Replacement)
– Hydro-Quebec, Gentilly 2 Primary Heat Transport (PHT) Primary Pump seals are made of antimonyimpregnated graphite material (Pressurized Water Reactor Primary Water Chemistry Guidelines: Volume
2, Revision 7, EPRI 3002000505, Section 3.3.1, Antimony and Silver Releases).
46
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
23
6/8/2016
Palo Verde Experience
 Original KWU mail coolant pump graphite bearings contained 30%
antimony.
 Controlled oxygenation with hydrogen peroxide was used to control
radioantimony, with total curies removed by the purification circuit
summarized below:
Alan D. Miller and Thomas P Hillmer, Decontamination and Disposal of Sb-124 at Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station,
www.wmsym.org/archives/1988/V1/76.pdf
Adding hydrogen peroxide will assist in enabling radioantimony to be cleaned up by ion
exchange.
47
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Radiation Field Changes - Big Picture
 Radiation fields are caused not only by Co-58 and Co-60
 Other isotopes are contributing to various extent in various locations – recent
operating experiences include
– Silver-110m
 Tends to plate out in cooler regions / at higher pH / affect of zinc is unclear
 Ag-110m is causing radiation field issues – Ag-108m may case waste criteria issues
– Antimony-122, Sb-124, (activation products of Sb) and Sb-125 (activation product of Sn)
 Antimony solubility increases in an oxidizing environment.
 Ion exchange removal is complicated by oxyanion formation.
– Chromium-51
 Low gamma energy – shielding is effective
 Multiple oxidation state chemistry – occurs preferentially as particulate under reducing conditions –
may carry other activation products
 Shorter half-life – long enough to cause potentially dose associated with PCE/intake
– Niobium-95/Zirconium-95
 Fuel cladding corrosion product
48
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
24
6/8/2016
Radiation Fields – Understanding and Planning for Them
Coolant Cycle Questions:
1. Were changes implemented? Which?
2. Is the RCS activity composition consistent?
3. Are new species observed?
4. Are all species trended?
Core Management Objectives:
1. Has core duty /
core management changed?
2. Has the core crud load changed?
RP
ALARA
Materials Objectives:
1. Do NDE evaluations indicate new
trends?
2. Are components replaced?
3. What materials are specified/procured/delivered?
4. How is cleanliness verified?
49
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Top EPRI Must Have’s on CY/RP Bookshelves
Chemistry
3002002922 - ANT: Preliminary Guidance for Chemistry Control in
Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor Designs
3002000505 - Pressurized Water Reactor Primary Water Chemistry
Guidelines: Revision 7
3002002623 - BWRVIP-190 Revision 1: BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines
3002001796 - Boiling Water Reactor Zinc Addition Sourcebook
3002001942 - BWRVIP-225 Revision 1: BWR Shutdown and Startup
Chemistry Experience and Application Sourcebook
1025316 - Pressurized Water Reactor Primary Zinc Application
Sourcebook Revision 1
1021112 - Corrosion Product Transport during Boiling Water Reactor
and Pressurized Water Reactor Startups
Radiation Safety/ALARA
3002005480 - Remote Monitoring Technology Guide for Radiation
Protection: Field Implementation of Remote Monitoring
3002003165 - Guidance for Optimal Performance of Shielding Programs
3002000268 - Evaluating Indoor Location Tracking Systems in a Nuclear
Facility: Experimentation with Different Techniques in an
Industrial Environment
3002000032 - 3D Radiation Field Estimation Algorithm v1.0
1025309 - Dose Reduction Options for Refueling Tasks
1021101 - Evaluation of an Advanced Radiation Shielding Material for
Permanent Installation at an Operating Nuclear Reactor
1021102 - Scaffold Program Optimization and Dose Reduction Guide
Source Term
1021103 - Cobalt Reduction Sourcebook
1003390 - Radiation Field Control Manual
3002005377 - LWR Ex-Core Surface Conditioning for Radiation Field Reduction
3002005479 - Reactor Cavity Decontamination Sourcebook
3002005484 - EPRI Plant Source Term Assessments--2015 Review
3002005481 - In-Plant Gamma Spectrometry: Isotopic Data Collection Experiences
3002003157 - EPRI BWR Radiation Level Assessment and Control (BRAC) Program: 2014 Revision
3002003155 - EPRI Pressurized Water Reactor Standard Radiation Monitoring Program: 2014 Revision
1025305 - Impacts of PWR Operational Events on Particulate Transport and Radiation Fields
1016766 - High Activity Crud Burst Impacts and Responses
Knowledge Transfer and Retention is Key to Sustainable ALARA
50
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
25
6/8/2016
RMST TSG Meetings in 2016 & knowledge transfer opportunities
 Dose Reduction for Scaffolding, Insulation, and Shielding Workshop
– June 14-16, 2016 in Charlotte, NC at EPRI Offices
 Radiation Monitoring Technology Workshop
– August 2016 – details TBD
 Radiation Field and Source Term Reduction Workshop
–
–
–
–
Sept. 12 - 14, 2016 in Charlotte, NC at EPRI Offices
Monday afternoon – Utilities only – Source Term 101
Tue/Wed – open workshop
In conjunction with PWR Chemistry TSG – Wed pm joint session
 In-Plant Gamma Isotopic Radiation Field Monitoring – Fundamentals 101
– Sept 15, 2016 at EPRI Charlotte offices
– open to EPRI members - please email interest to cgregorich@epri.com
For more information, email cgregorich@epri.com _
51
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
52
© 2016 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
26
6/1/2016
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
INPO Update
Tim Halliday
INPO Radiation Protection
1
Update Topics
• Industry Performance Summary:
–U.S. Industry Performance
–AFI Trends
• RP Indicator
• Continuous Monitoring Process
• Efficiency Bulletins
2
1
6/1/2016
Radiological
Protection
770-644-ext
Brad Mitchell
Principal Evaluator
Ext. 8346
Paul McNulty
Manager
Ext. 8021
Phil Klar
Sr. Evaluator
Ext. 8987
Dave Kallenbach
Sr. Evaluator
Ext. 8917
Jeff Foster
Sr. Evaluator
Ext. 8873
Jim Twiggs
Sr. Evaluator
Ext. 8280
Neal McKenney
Sr. Evaluator
Ext. 8309
Tim Halliday
Sr. Evaluator
Ext. 8726
Terry Wilkerson
Sr. Evaluator
Ext. 8901
Mark Travis
Sr. Evaluator
Ext. 8263
3
CRE PWR Performance U.S. Collective Radiation Exposure (PWR)
Median Values ‐ 2016
80
75
76
68
70
69.4
69
66
59.9
60
54.9
54.3
50
person‐rem
44.9
42.8
42.2
40
37
38.5
30
30
20
10
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
4
2
6/1/2016
CRE PWR Performance U.S. Collective Radiation Exposure (PWR)
Median Values 2016 thru 1st Quarter
140
120
Person‐rem per unit
100
80
Median
34 rem
60
40
20
11.1
0
65
63
61
59
57
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
41
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
2015 – 55 plants met 2015 goal, 2016 – 60 plants meet 2020 goal
5
CRE BWR Performance U.S. Collective Radiation Exposure (BWR)
Median Values ‐ 2016 thru 1st Quarter
180
155
160
140
155
140
137
133
131
129
126
131
127
121
120
person‐rem 109
106
106
97.7
100
80
60
40
20
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016Q1
6
3
6/1/2016
CRE Performance U.S. Collective Radiation Exposure (BWR)
Median Values ‐ 2016
350.0
300.0
person‐rem per unit
250.0
Median
97 rem
200.0
150.0
100.0
59.0
50.0
0.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
7
Industry Performance and Trends (PIC Data)
Total High Radiation Events
Total HRA Events Quarterly
Total High Rad Area Controls
Reference
1
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Quarterly Events
EventsRolling 12 months
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
8
4
6/1/2016
Industry Performance and Trends (PIC Data)
Unplanned Dose
9
Industry Performance and Trends (PIC Data)
RAM Events
10
5
6/1/2016
RP and RS AFIs Through 1st Qtr 2016
16
15
14
12
12
12
10
10
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
6
5
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
2012
Dose Control
2013
Radioactive Material Control
2014
Contamination Control
2015
Collective Radiation Exposure
2016
RP & Worker Fundamentals
© 2016 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
11
2015/2016 AFIs
Collective Radiation Exposure (RS.1)
•
Station leaders have not established effective source term and dose
reduction strategies
•
Station leaders have not effectively reduced source term levels.
•
Refueling outage activities were not planned and executed to optimize
dose reduction.
Consequences:
–
Large overruns in outage CRE; dose goals not met
Causes:
-
Managers did not appropriately monitor or challenge to incorporate scope and details
in work and ALARA plans.
-
Managers do not understand the cause of rising high source term and don’t advocate
reduction strategies.
-
Managers have not incorporated previously identified actions into plans.
12
6
6/1/2016
2015/2016 AFIs: Themes / Underlying Causes
Fundamentals (RP.1, RS.1)
•
Response to changing radiological conditions
•
Radiation protection fundamental practices technicians are not correctly
performing some fundamental practices – contamination and dose control
standards, monitoring free-release of material, performing pre-work
surveys.
•
Radiation workers are not following fundamentals such as contamination
control practices and unauthorized entries into HRAs.
Causes:
-
RP Supervisors and leads do not correct deviations or rationalize deviations because
of perceived low risk or low consequence
-
Radiation workers deviate because of perceived low risk or low consequence.
-
Contributing, supervisors, including radiation protection supervision, are not
correcting or coaching to the standard.
13
Illustration of Tier 2 Radiological Performance Indicators
Revised May 2016
• 40%
Collective • Value is CRE refueling outage plus 24 Radiation months non‐outage CRE annualized by Exposure dividing by 2
Dose Control
Radioactive Material Control
• 45%
• Composed of five components
• Based on 12 months
• 15%
• Composed of two components
• Based on 12 months
Dose Control
• 24%
110 for BWR
40 for PWR
Unintended Exposure Occurrence
VHRA Control Event
Event
Dose Control INPO
Target values will be:
Collective Radiation Exposure
LHRA Control Event
• 21%
• 11%
Outside Protected Area
• 4%
Inside Protected Area
Total Unplanned Exposure Internal/External > 10 mrem
Dose Control INPO
•Unplanned exposure >100 mrem is loss of all points VHRA control event is loss of all points
•1 LHRA event is 50% of points
•2 LHRA events are a loss of all points
•1 Incidence ‐ Loss of one‐third points
•2 Incidence ‐ Loss of two‐third points
•3 Incidence ‐ Loss of all points
Radioactive Material Control (outside PA) •One event is loss of points
Radioactive Material Control (inside PA)
•1 event ‐ Loss of half of points
•2 events –
Loss of all points
January 2015
14
7
6/1/2016
RP Performance Indicator Indicator is:
• Trended
– Can demonstrate improvement
– Can indicate early signs of
decline
• Used for plant monitoring
and evaluators
• Triggers discussion with
RPM to:
– Determine why points are lost
– If assistance may be needed
15
Delivering Nuclear Promise Monitoring
16
8
6/1/2016
Delivering the Nuclear Promise
• RP-3 Long-Term Dose Reduction PlanGraded Approach
• RP-6 Perform Self-Briefs for Low
Radiological Risk Activities
17
Bulletin
• RP-3, A graded approach will be used for
maintaining a long-term dose reduction
plan, thereby balancing the level of effort
required to meet goals with the
performance level at a given station.
18
9
6/1/2016
Desired end-state
• A reduced level of effort will be needed to
develop / maintain a collective radiation
exposure (CRE) reduction plan for units
that sustainably achieve industry
performance goals.
19
Value proposition (Vision of Excellence)
Site resources are available for higher
priority tasks. The industry reports
approximately one full time equivalent is
committed to developing and maintaining
the long-term dose reduction plan at each
site.
20
10
6/1/2016
Why is it Important?
• The level of effort dedicated to reducing
CRE should be proportional to the
performance gap. Resources to maintain
the plan at units that sustainably achieve
the CRE industry performance goal will
be reduced and available to focus on
higher risk activities.
21
Industry Benchmark Value(s)
• Unit CRE performance should meet or
exceed industry goals.
Measure of Effectiveness
• The number of units meeting the industry
CRE performance goal remains the same
or increases.
22
11
6/1/2016
Standard
• Performance Objectives and Criteria
(INPO)
– RP.2, Individual dose and collective radiation
dose are measured accurately and are
maintained as low as reasonably achievable.
– RS.1, Station leaders and workers are
aligned to minimize dose, reduce source
term, and implement controls for radioactive
contamination and material.
23
Guidance
•
INPO 05-008, Guidelines for Radiological Protection at Nuclear Power
Stations was changed to read:
•
“Typically, a long-term dose reduction plan is developed for a five-year
period. This plan includes the dose reduction items, analysis and
expected results. A graded approach based on current dose performance
may be used in order to determine the level of involvement required for the
plan. For example, a unit exceeding industry performance goals for
collective radiation exposure would be expected to have a more robust
long-term dose reduction plan than a unit that has met the industry dose
performance goal. In contrast, a unit that has met industry performance
goals for two cycles would only be expected to maintain a list of dose
reduction initiatives to sustain performance. This plan should be
integrated with site processes such as the business plan, outage plans,
and the corrective action program. Senior management reviews and
approves scope changes, additions, and deletions to the long-term plan.”
24
12
6/1/2016
Guidance Continued
• If industry CRE goals are met, the benefits of achieving additional
dose reduction should be evaluated from a cost/benefit
perspective; continuous pursuit of top-decile or top-quartile
performance could be detrimental from a cost/benefit perspective
and is therefore a decision that should be made based on
utility/site priorities (utility discretion) and is not required.
• Additionally, CRE from occasional activities to address nuclear
safety concerns should not be included in determining sustained
performance, if implemented using ALARA principles.
25
Recommended Industry Actions
• Review unit performance relative to
industry performance goals.
• Revise applicable Fleet / Station
documents.
26
13
6/1/2016
Bulletin
• RP-6, Workers perform and document
self-briefs prior to low radiological risk
activities within the Radiologically
Controlled Area.
27
Desired end-state:
• Low radiological risk activity self-briefing
is the process where radiation workers
can brief themselves on work area
radiological conditions without having to
interface directly with radiation protection
personnel. This self-briefing process, in
Rev 2 of INPO 05-008, increases
accountability and responsibility of the
radiation worker and their direct
supervisor.
28
14
6/1/2016
Value proposition (Vision of
Excellence)
• Radiation Protection (RP) resources are
available for higher priority tasks.
Radiation Protection briefings and job
coverage will be conducted for medium
and higher risk activities, and therefore
focus on RCA entries and work that have
greater radiological significance.
29
Why is it Important?
• Eliminating RP briefs for low-risk activities
will result in improved worker efficiency and
allow RP to focus on higher risk tasks.
Industry Benchmark Value(s)
• The number high radiation area events
and contamination control events should
remain consistent with current
performance (few and infrequent).
30
15
6/1/2016
Measure of Effectiveness
• Spot-check of worker use of self-briefing
cards and observation on worker
knowledge of radiological conditions,
practices and RWP requirements.
31
Standards
• Performance Objectives and Criteria
(INPO) – NP.1, RP.1, RP.2, RP.3, RP.4,
32
16
6/1/2016
Guidance
• INPO 05-008 , Guidelines for Radiological
Protection at Nuclear Power Stations.
33
Recommended Industry Actions
• Sites should revise radiation worker
training with increased attention on newto-nuclear workers’ inexperience with
radiological safety. This inexperience
may cause a rise in non-compliance or
low-level radiological events (entry into
contaminated areas, PCEs, noncompliance with RWPs) and may require
increased oversight and focus on RP
fundamentals for this subset of workers.
34
17
6/1/2016
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
Questions & Comments
35
18
HIGH INTEREST TOPIC AND QUESTIONNAIRE
PWR ALARA Association
San Diego, CA
June 13-15, 2016
Topic:
Contact (Name)
Plant
NSSS
Ginna
2LW
Kewaunee
2LW
Point
Beach 1,2
2LW
Prairie
Island 1,2
2LW
Ringhals
2,3,4
2LW
3LW
Beaver
Valley 1,2
3LW
Farley 1,2
3LW
Harris
3LW
North
Anna 1,2
3LW
Robinson
3LW
Surry 1,2
3LW
Turkey
Point 1,2
3LW
VC
Summer
3LW
Braidwood
1,2
4LW
Byron 1,2
4LW
Callaway
4LW
Catawba
1,2
4LW
Comanche
Peak 1,2
4LW
Cook 1,2
4LW
Diablo
Canyon 1,2
4LW
Indian
Point 2,3
4LW
McGuire
1,2
4LW
Salem 1,2
4LW
Comments
Return completed form to the Committee Secretary prior to the end of the meeting so that it may be included in the meeting report.
HIGH INTEREST TOPIC AND QUESTIONNAIRE
PWR ALARA Association
San Diego, CA
June 13-15, 2016
Topic:
Contact (Name)
Plant
NSSS
Seabrook
4LW
Sequoyah
1,2
4LW
Sizewell B
4LW
South
Texas 1,2
4LW
Vogtle 1,2
4LW
Watts Bar
4LW
Wolf
Creek
4LW
Millstone
3,2
4LW,
CE
Calvert
Cliffs
CE
Ft.
Calhoun
CE
Palisades
CE
Palo Verde
1,2,3
CE
San Onofre
2,3
CE
St.Lucie
1,2
CE
Waterford
CE
ANO 2,1
CE,
B&W
Crystal
River
B&W
Davis
Besse
B&W
Oconee
1,2,3
B&W
TMI
B&W
Comments
Areva
EDF
Westinghouse
Return completed form to the Committee Secretary prior to the end of the meeting so that it may be included in the meeting report.
Name:______________________________
Utility: _____________________________
Summer 2016
San Diego, CA
June 13-15, 2016
MEETING CRITIQUE
The goal is to meet your expectations regarding this meeting. Please help us by providing your
comments and suggestions regarding the following:
Plant Status Report: Only collected at the Winter meetings
Technical Content:_____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Vendor Participation:________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Meeting Format (Breakout Session vs. Presentation, etc.):____________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Facilities (Meeting Room, Hotel Facilities, Location, etc.):____________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Please list any topics you would like to see the Board address in the future. Also include
specific recommendations relative to the suggested presentation format, where possible
(e.g. breakout session, technology presentation, survey, etc.):__________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Please provide suggestions for Board activities or actions which would help justify your
company’s continued participation in the PWR/ALARA Association:___________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Other Comments:______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Do you anticipate your plant being represented by you or another representative at the
Winter 2017 Meeting in Key West, FL? _________ If not, why?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Return completed form to the Committee Secretary prior to the end of the meeting.