JANUARY 2018 | VOLUME 2, ISSUE 1 ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION ... - ASQasq.org/ee/2018/01/environmental-management-systems/energy-an… · fully staff leadership positions and recruit

Inside This Issue

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISIONNEWSLETTER

Immediate Past Chair’s Message | Greg Allen

During 2017, there was much good work accomplished in the Energy and Environmental Division and there is much more to look forward to.

The division made excellent progress during 2017 in its efforts to fully staff leadership positions and recruit members for our working committees. At year end, there were only two vacant leadership positions (see the 2018-2019 organizational chart on page 32). The division had a fantastic year in its outreach through newsletters and webinars. Three newsletters that included a wide range of topics from reporting on industry trends to detailed tutorials on basic quality concepts were published. Our thanks to the many authors who contributed articles to the

2017 newsletters (all newsletters are available at asq.org/eed). The division conducted three webinars on the topics of root cause analysis, Lean Six Sigma in sustainability, and risk analysis for ISO 14001 implementation (most available for viewing at asq.org/eed). We participated in presentations at the World Conference on Quality and Improvement and the Quality Audit Division Conference. Most importantly, we continued to refine the work plans that our committees are implementing with the overall goal of continually improving the member-value products and services created by the division.

Looking ahead, there are exciting plans and opportunities on the horizon. In the coming year, we will complete the revision of the Nuclear Quality Audit Handbook, which we have heard is in demand in the United States and other countries where nuclear energy production is dynamic and growing. The division will pursue more cooperative agreements with industry associations as we did with the Center for Offshore Safety, where we have participated in the development of standards for auditing environmental and safety management at offshore oil facilities. The division council has approved purchase of a subscription to a webinar platform that we expect will enhance our ability to deliver webinars and other learning opportunities as well as to open our division’s business meetings for member participation. We will continue to recruit members for our new Renewables Committee and for participants in activities related to updating standards that are the purview of the division. The door is always open for member participation!

There is no doubt that issues around energy production and sustainable environmental management will remain front and center in the interests of the United States and countries abroad. Quality is crit-ically important, and the development of consensus standards and our collective expertise in quality management is at the heart of what the Energy and Environmental Division has done well for decades. As of the first of 2018, I will hand the position of chair to a new leader, Jarrod Suire. I can assure you that the good work will continue under his leadership and that there will be many more opportunities for division members to grow their careers and share their knowledge through the division’s activities. As division members, you are champions of quality in energy production and the sustainability of our precious environment. It matters. Keep up the good work and share your knowledge through participa-tion in our committees.

Thank you for the opportunity to work with you as chair. All the best in 2018!

Greg Allen

Immediate Past Chair, ASQ Energy and Environmental Division [email protected]

JANUARY 2018 | VOLUME 2, ISSUE 1

EED REMEDIATION AND DECOMMISSIONING COMMITTEE UPDATES

THE USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION: THE LATIN AMERICA EXPERIENCE

INCREASED MATERIAL QUALITY, BUT WITH LIMITATIONS

RETROSPECTIVE DOSIMETRY AS A UBIQUITOUS LOW-RESOLUTION INTEGRATING GAMMA CAMERA

PERSPECTIVE ON NUCLEAR ENERGY FUTURES

OVERVIEW ON COUNTERFEIT ITEMS

TRENDING AND ANALYSIS OF YOUR DATA

ZERO DEFECT ZERO EFFECT (ZED) INITIATIVE LEADS TO RESPONSIBLE MANUFACTURING

USE OF SODIUM FAST-BREEDER REACTORS TO MANAGE THE CLOSED FUEL CYCLE OF LIGHT-WATER REACTORS

http://asq.org/eed

http://asq.org/eed

mailto:allen.greg%40epa.gov?subject=ASQ%20EED%20Newsletter

Energy & Environmental Division Newsletter

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION | JANUARY 20182

Tom Koepp | QA Consultant

EED Remediation and Decommissioning Committee Updates The EED Remediation and Decommissioning Committee has been tracking the status of the environmental cleanup located at the Oak Ridge, TN, K-25 facility (K-25 was the original uranium enrichment plant).

The status was previously reported in the January 2017 EED newsletter. There are now additional environmental cleanup programs at two other uranium enrichment sites in Portsmouth, OH, and Paducah, KY. The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) Portsmouth environmental cleanup strategically integrates environmental remediation with the disposition of waste from past operations, cleanup efforts to date, and future cleanup activities including decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of facilities. Beginning in 1989 at the Portsmouth site (Piketon, OH), various remediation efforts have taken place to address groundwater and soil contamination. These efforts have included closing landfills and lagoons, removing waste and inactive facilities, and beginning D&D of facilities. The DoE environmental cleanup program in Paducah supports site investigations, environmental response actions, and D&D of inactive facilities. Since 1988, DoE has taken steps in Paducah to clean up soil and groundwater. DoE continues to monitor and make improvements to the groundwater treatment system. Along with the removal of inactive facilities, DoE also implements an environmental monitoring and management program to ensure protection of human health and the environment, and compli-ance with all applicable laws.

Cleanup Challenges

PIKETON, OH (close to Portsmouth site) – During its nearly 60 years of operations, the cleaning, maintenance, and changeout of process equipment at the site generated spent solvents and other contaminants that were disposed of in on-site landfills and surface storage buildings. To date, contamination has been found in various locations on the Portsmouth plant site including the process buildings, the former cooling towers, landfills, wastewater ponds, and other buildings.

Officials from the village met with a representative of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency July 10 to discuss conclusions reached by a third-party environmental consultant, The Ferguson Group, who the village hired to evaluate plans for a 100-acre disposal cell that would handle low-level contaminated waste from the cleanup work.

The disposal cell has been touted as a cost saving because the cleanup of that low-level waste would not have to be shipped off the DoE property, and a record of decision approving the project called it a safer option because of increased accident risks involved with transporting waste to other locations.

PADUCAH, KY – The DoE has recently announced the award of a contract to Four Rivers Nuclear Partnership, LLC for the continued deactivation and remediation of Paducah gaseous diffusion plant facilities in Paducah. Waste with higher levels of contamination would still be sent elsewhere for disposal. The primary contamination of concern is trichloroethylene (TCE),



2018 World Conference on Quality and Improvement (WCQI)

April 30 – May 2, 2018 Seattle, WA

Washington State Convention Center 705 Pike St. Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-694-5000

Visit asq.org/wcqi for more information.

ASQ CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS

ASQ offers all of its certification exams worldwide in English. Several certification exams have translations available in Korean, Mandarin, Portuguese, and Spanish.

Certification information is available at asq.org/cert/dates.

which was used as a degreaser at the site. TCE leaked and contaminated groundwater on and off the site.

According to a press release, the total estimated value of the contract is about $1.49 billion. The services to be provided under the contract include facility characterization and stabilization (deposit/hold-up removal, removal of all fire loading, isolating systems and facility from utilities), groundwater reme-diation, waste operations, utility operations,

and surveillance and maintenance (S&M). After completion of these cleanup activities in the future, the site will be evaluated and any additional actions will be implemented, as needed, to ensure long-term protection of human health and the environment.

The EED Remediation and Decommissioning Committee will continue to track completion of actions at the DoE Portsmouth and Paducah facilities and report on it in future EED newsletters as information becomes available.

ASQ RECOGNITIONDr. Abhijit Sengupta, Ph.D., will become a Fellow of the Energy and Environmental Division in 2018.

A federal employee, Sengupta has been awarded Fellow designation in recognition for sustained contributions in the theory and application of reliability and quality control in the nuclear power industry; for long-time service to the ASQ certification process; for extensive publications in support of reliability-based thinking; and for continuous dedication to ASQ at local and division levels.

An ASQ Fellow is an individual who has an established record of contributions, both to the quality profession and to the Society. The grade of Fellow is an earned distinction. Achievement of this status is a symbol of respect from ASQ colleagues that has been accepted by the highest officers of the ASQ organization. Dr. Sengupta will be presented with his Fellow pin in conjunction with the 2018 World Conference on Quality and Improvement in Seattle, WA, in May.

http://asq.org/wcqi

http://asq.org/cert/dates


The Use of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Production: The Latin America Experience

Author

Jorge Morales Pedraza has a university diploma in mathematics and economic sciences. He has experience in diplomacy, as a university professor in mathematics, and as an invited professor in international relations. He worked as senior manager in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). He is the author and co-author of more than 80 articles, 15 chapters of books, and 12 books. He is currently a consultant on international affairs.

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Keywords: Latin America, nuclear energy, nuclear power plants, nuclear power program, nuclear safety, public opinion

Abstract

In the Latin America region, only 4 percent of electricity in 2016 came from nuclear energy sources. However, if current nuclear power expansion plans in Argentina and Brazil succeed, the nuclear power program in Mexico will be expanded, and plans for the construction of new nuclear power plants in other countries from the region, such as Chile and Peru, will be implemented. When this happens, the percent of electricity from nuclear energy sources could be more than double within a decade.

There is a total of seven nuclear power reactors operating in the Latin American region in 2017: Argentina (three), Brazil (two), and Mexico (two). Argentina and Brazil are constructing one additional nuclear power reactor each. The total production of electricity by nuclear energy in the Latin American region in 2016 reached the amount of 33,813.59 GWe.6

Introduction

The Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) economies are facing a difficult time following a period of prosperity, driven by a decade-long commodity price boom. At the start of 2017, commodity price uncertainty remained as the most important issue impacting the decision making of energy leaders around the world. This uncertainty is heightened by the concern of many in the region

Keywords: Latin America, nuclear energy, nuclear power plants, nuclear power program, nuclear safety, public opinion

mailto:jmorales47%40hotmail?subject=ASQ%20EED%20Newsletter%20article

mailto:jmorales547%40gmail.com?subject=ASQ%20EED%20Newsletter%20article



that lower economic growth will become a continuing reality. Leaders need to manage this situation.7

The World Energy Council’s 2016 report described “the possibility that in the longer-term the region will continue to be challenged by a number of strong trends: lower employment growth driven by slower population growth, radical progression of new technologies, greater environmental challenges and a shift in economic and geopolitical power toward Asia. These trends could result in a number of potential futures depending on how well the world manages economic growth, innovation and productivity, the climate challenge, international governance and through its choice of public policies and market mechanisms.”7

A reliable and adequate supply of electricity is an indispens-able element for the economic and social development of any country. Based on this fact, providing a safe and credible supply of electricity in an economically acceptable form is an essential political, economic, and social requirement. A country cannot grow, from an economic and social point of view, if its energy system, particularly the electricity generating system, is not capable of providing the electricity that the country needs when it is needed.

When deciding on how to expand the electricity generating system of any given country, the government and the national energy industry would have to carry out comprehensive assess-ments of all energy options available in the country, with the purpose of identifying those that are in conditions to be used economically. “The reasons for choosing a specific option will differ from country to country, depending on local and regional energy resources, technological capabilities, availability of finance and qualified personnel, environmental considerations and the country’s overall energy policy.”1

Over the next decades, LAC governments will need to make massive investments in infrastructure, roads, ports, energy, and communications in order to promote economic growth in their growing urban areas, as well as for their countries as a whole. Decisions taken by governments on issues like structural reforms and private sector participation in the energy sector, will play a crucial role in determining the sources of funding and the total amounts available for making those investments. Failure to raise the necessary funds will lead to a continuation of social inequity, lack of easy access to energy, and a generally lower level of resilience of existing energy systems.

It is important to note that if a country is considering the intro-duction of a nuclear power program in the future, then it should have an energy development plan covering the whole energy system and, in particular, the electricity generating system. This plan should be prepared based on an overall energy optimi-zation that includes not only a secure supply mix of different energy sources, but also environmental considerations, decom-missioning costs, the management of nuclear waste, and the possibilities of energy conservation and efficiency improvements.

When a country is studying the introduction of a nuclear power program, the following basic criteria are fundamental to be considered:

1. Nuclear power should be considered only when it is techni-cally feasible and when it would be part of an economically viable long-term energy and electricity supplies strategy, considering all alternatives and relevant factors.

2. A nuclear power program should be launched only when it has a definite likelihood of being successful, i.e., it can be executed within the planned schedule and predicted financial limits approved, and can be operated safely and reliably once in service.

3. A nuclear power project should be finally committed only based on a comprehensive plan, and after steps have been taken to meet all necessary supporting infrastructure requirements, including assurance of financing2.

Other issues that must be considered by the government and the national energy industry within the framework of an introduction of a nuclear power program in the country are the following:

1. The economic competitiveness of the use of nuclear energy for electricity production in comparison with other available energy sources

2. The safety aspects related to the licensing of a nuclear power plant and the development of a safety culture within the country

3. The size of the electricity grids

4. Proliferation considerations



5. Environmental impact

6. The cost involved during the construction of a nuclear power plant

7. The need for trained personnel and how this training should be provided

8. The technological capability to assimilate an advanced and demanding technology

9. The safe management of the nuclear waste, particularly high nuclear waste

10. The need to gain public and political acceptance

11. The international and regional cooperation in the field of nuclear technology

12. The decommissioning strategy to be used

A nuclear power program should be viewed within a medium- to long-term electricity supply strategy. The program should also produce stability in power generation and electricity price, and an important impact on the domestic industry.

An important consideration to be made by LAC to introduce a nuclear power program is “the influence of this program in increasing the technological level of the country and enhancing the global competitiveness of the domestic industry. The participation of the domestic industry could help to speed up a nuclear power program.”1

Economics and financial issues The financing of the introduction or the expansion of a nuclear power program in the LAC region is, in most cases, a complex and difficult task for governments and for private sector interested in the use of nuclear energy for electricity production. For local industry, the introduction of a nuclear power program could be a challenging task sometimes outside of their possibili-ties from the technological point of view.

However, many LAC experts and politicians consider that the introduction of a nuclear power program is also an opportunity for the development of the national industry capability, “though it is recognized that this places high demands on the industry, technology, quality assurance and technical personnel. If a nuclear power program is to support national development efforts, the infrastructures must be developed in step with these demands. A realistic and well-formulated plan for a nuclear power program and for the development of infrastructures can stimulate a country’s general economic and industrial develop-ment. If poorly implemented, however, a plan probably would adversely affect the program schedule and the safety of the nuclear power sector.”1

The commitment from the government to introduce or expand a nuclear power program, together with strong energy policy support, is of paramount importance in order to reduce the uncertainties and risks associated with the introduction or expansion of a nuclear power program, as well as to improve the overall climate for financing. The government should prepare long-term plans for nuclear power development, clearly describing the role of nuclear energy in the national energy balance, as well as the associated financial and economic



plans. The government should also ensure that the necessary infrastructure to support the introduction of a nuclear power program is in place. It is important to note that a regulatory system for licensing nuclear power plants must be in place before any concrete actions can be implemented regarding the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation in any given country. The regulatory authority must be strictly independent of the operating organization and must have the legal power to do the following:

• Formulate the rules and regulations, which the owner/operator must follow.

• Issue licenses or permits for sitting, construction, com-missioning, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

• Apply surveillance measures to ensure that the rules and regulations are followed by the owner/operator.

• Ensure that the licensee understands its obligations and is competent to fulfill them.

• Exercise law enforcement measures.

The development of sound economic policies, good debt management, and appropriate sharing of project risks would all contribute toward this end. For financing a nuclear power project in the LAC region, it is essential for the government, as well as for the national nuclear industry, to do the following:

1. Commit itself to the introduction of a nuclear power program.

2. Make a thorough financial as well as an economic analysis for evaluating the feasibility of the program.

3. Ensure that the construction program associated with the introduction or the expansion of a nuclear power program is well planned and regulatory issues are fully addressed before construction starts in order to minimize the risk of expensive delays.

It was considered that for planning purposes, an average value of about eight years should be used during the construction period of a nuclear power plant in the case of the LAC countries, either by constructing a nuclear power plant for the

first time or by expanding an existing nuclear power program. However, it is important to note that the construction of the seven nuclear power plants currently in operation in the region took more than eight years to complete.

For this reason, LAC governments thinking to introduce a nuclear power program in the near future should be aware that the time between the initial policy decisions up to the start of operation of its first nuclear power plant is about 10 to 15 years, if unnecessary construction delays do not happen.

Some of the nuclear power plants operating in the Latin American region continue to be a generally competitive and profitable source of electricity, but for new construction, the economic competitiveness of nuclear power plants depends on several factors. These include:

• “Energy alternatives available: some countries are rich in alternative energy resources, others less so

• “Overall electricity demand and how fast it is growing

• “Market structure and the investment environment”3

The costs of research and development necessary for an endogenous nuclear power program are prohibitive for most LAC countries. Although Mexico had considerable technical and industrial resources in comparison with other countries in the 1970s, it had to rely on General Electric to build the two nuclear power reactors at Laguna Verde nuclear power plant. Brazil, after using technology from Westinghouse, had to import technology from the Federal Republic of Germany to conclude its nuclear power plants. Not until a couple of years later did Brazil manage to develop its own competing technology in the nuclear field. Of the four LAC countries that undertook nuclear power programs, Argentina, and to some extent Brazil, managed to generate a critical mass of scientists capable of reducing dependency on foreign resources. In the specific case of Argentina, the country has been able to sell nuclear research reactors built in the country to some foreign countries, including Egypt, Algeria, and Australia, and is now building a nuclear power reactor using national technology.

Accompanying the initial costs associated with the introduction of a nuclear power program “are the other expenses and risks, particularly in the management and utilization of the uranium



that feeds the reactors. In addition, many nonquantifiable costs are derived from the pursuit of a nuclear power program. The largest portion of these costs comes from the necessity to train personnel, to develop specific processes without diverting resources from other areas of research and development, and to generate a robust portfolio of alternative energies. In a strategic long-term perspective, the alternatives are imperative because they are more sustainable and efficient than the conventional options and eventually can cover national energy requirements, thus relieving dependence on fossil fuels.”4

Energy security issues

Keeping in mind the weight of the energy sector in any country’s strategy for its sustained development, energy security has become one of the main concerns for all governments. For this reason, there should be no doubt that energy security, energy price, energy reserves, among other relevant issues, will be on the agenda of future regional and international forums.”5

The best way to strengthen a country’s energy supply security is by increasing the number of energy supply options. For many LAC countries, expanding the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity by growing its current nuclear power programs or by introducing this type of program in the future would increase the diversity of energy and electricity supplies. Moreover, a nuclear power program has two features that generally further increase resiliency:

1. Nuclear electricity generating costs are much less sensitive to changes in resource prices than are fossil fuel-fired electricity generating costs.

2. Uranium is available from diverse producer countries, and small volumes are required to operate a nuclear power reactor, making it easier to establish strategic inventories to ensure the uninterrupted operation of a nuclear power plant.

In practice, the trend over the years has been away from strategic stocks toward supply security based on a diverse well-functioning market for uranium and fuel supply services. However, the option of relatively low-cost strategic inventories remains available for countries that find it relevant due to political and economic considerations.

Nuclear safety

One of the most important issues limiting the wider use of nuclear energy for electricity production in the world, including the LAC region, is the current level of safety of the nuclear power reactors in operations. All countries that decide to use nuclear energy for electricity production should look carefully at all safety issues associated with the type of nuclear power reactor to be used.

Environment impact

In today’s world, environmental issues associated with the use of energy sources are of the highest priority for any government, including the Latin American countries. “The ever-increasing use of energy worldwide has become a major environmental concern.”

It has been fully demonstrated that the use of fossil fuels for electricity production is one of the main causes of the increase in the level of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. It is also one of the elements that cause the current climate changes that are affecting the whole world. Some of the actions that should be taken to reduce this emission are the following:

1. Reduce, as much as possible, the use of fossil fuel for electricity generation

2. Increase the use of renewable energy sources for the production of electricity

3. Increase the efficiency in the use of all types of energy sources, particularly those used for the production of electricity

4. Increase the participation of the nuclear energy sector in the energy balance of more LAC countries, particularly those with the economic and technological development indispens-able for the effective use of this type of energy.

To replace fossil fuels, nuclear energy has to be a part of the solution, because it is one of the few available energy sources that do not emit greenhouse gases capable of producing the large amounts of electricity required for a global sustainable development and can produce it in a sustainable manner during a long period. “Nuclear energy does not emit any greenhouse



gas or any gas-causing acid rain. It does not emit any car-cinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic metal as fossil fuels do. The utilization of nuclear energy also does not release gases or particles that cause urban smog or depletion of the ozone layer. Nuclear power is the only energy technology that treats, manages, contains, and isolates its wastes in a way to protect the human health and the environment.”3

Based on environmental considerations, the use of nuclear power for electricity generation is a realistic option for a limited group of LAC countries.

Political and public acceptance

Public acceptance is a very important issue for LAC gov-ernments now using or thinking of using nuclear energy for electricity generation in the future. However, attitudes vary from country to country. In some countries, there is certain accep-tance of the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation, while in others public opinion has turned against the use of this type of energy for the same purpose.

The arguments against the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation can be summarized as follows:

• The risk of repetition of a grave nuclear accident with serious consequences for humans and the environment like those of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents

• The claim that high-level nuclear waste presents a problem that doesn’t yet have a final solution

• The alleged close link between civilian nuclear power used for electricity generation and the production of nuclear weapons

There should be no doubt that these arguments have caused fear among the public but, at the same time, it appears that very often the public has been neither well-informed nor directly concerned, with side issues sometimes dominating the debate. Experience has shown that the only way to influence public opinion is through a carefully designed long-term education program based on correct and neutral information.

The future development of nuclear power in the LAC region will depend on overcoming several of the obstacles mentioned

above. Removing those obstacles requires a better acceptance of nuclear power before the eyes of the public and its political representatives and leaders of the energy industry. It is important to stress once again that behind a nuclear power program should be a solid nuclear and conventional industry, a well- organized and efficient regulatory organization and enough well-prepared technicians and professionals in different fields.

Rebirth of the nuclear power option

The nuclear power option, after so many years of being excluded in energy projection in most of the LAC countries, is



once again a real alternative to overcome the current fossil fuel energy crisis that is affecting the majority of countries within the region. However, after decades of implementing projects in the nuclear field in some LAC countries, the high construction costs, technological development, management of nuclear waste, environmental contamination, safety problems, nonproliferation issues, and risks in the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation demand that Latin American politicians and experts think twice before venturing down this slippery road.

In the case of the three countries in the region currently operating nuclear power plants, decisions to expand the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation were already adopted by their respective governments, after a thorough consideration of the aforementioned factors. The main decisions already adopted related to the expansion of nuclear power are the following:

1. Argentina will conclude the construction of the CAREM 25 reactor. It is also considering the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the future.

2. Brazil will conclude the construction of the Angra 3 nuclear power reactor. The government is considering the possibility to build up to four new nuclear power reactors in the future.

3. Mexico is considering the construction of one nuclear power reactor to come online by 2015 with a plan to construct up to seven more to follow it by 2025. The government has not yet approved this plan.

Conclusions

Latin America has gained experience on the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation and in the solution of problems associated with the use of this type of energy source. “The first problems to emerge in the region were those of dependence upon foreign technology and sending investment money abroad. The initial stage of a nuclear power program, which aims to satisfy domestic electricity demand, requires a considerable investment. In addition, a large part of the investment leaves the country in order to purchase technology abroad and hire or train technicians capable of maintaining stable operation. That

is because the nuclear energy market has been consolidated for several decades, creating very strict technological inertias.”5

The reduction of the current world fossil fuel reserves and the climate changes affecting all countries have put the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation again on the agenda of some LAC countries without nuclear power plants in operation and have revived the interest of those with stagnating nuclear power programs.

The role of governments and policymakers to resolve critical uncertainties in the development of the energy sector is crucial in the LAC region.

Finally, the LAC region has great potential to benefit economi-cally from regional integration and cooperation, but is slow to reap long-term benefits in the face of short-term political and economic priorities. Regional integration and cooperation as well as the adoption of a comprehensive energy plan are funda-mental elements that should be addressed by those governments that have the intention to expand the ongoing nuclear power programs or the introduction of a nuclear power program for electricity generation.7

References1. “Choosing the Nuclear Power Option: Factors to be Considered,” IAEA, Vienna, 1998, pp. 2, 11, 29, 30, 33, 47, 48, 49, 55, and 56.

2. “Promotion and Financing of Nuclear Power Programs in Developing Countries,” report to the IAEA by a senior expert group, IAEA, Vienna, 1987, pp. 7, 32, and 33.

3. Marques de Souza, J.A., “The Past and Future Role of Nuclear Power in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Brazil,” Eletrobras Termonu-clear S.A., Eletronuclear Brazil, July 1999, p. 2.

4. Fernández-Vázquez, E. and Pardo-Guerra, J.P., “Latin America Rethinks Nuclear Energy,” September 12, 2005, pp. 2 – 3.

5. Morales Pedraza, J., “The Current Situation and the Perspectives of the Energy Sector in the European Region,” Energy in Europe: Economics, Policy and Strategy, Nova Science Publishers, November 2008, p. 4.

6. IAEA PRIS database, 2017.

7. The World Energy Council’s 2016 report, “World Energy Scenarios: The Grand Transition,” 2017.


Increased Material Quality, but With Limitations

Author

Chris Ferguson is an engineer with Kansas City Power & Light. He is the vice chair of the Kansas City chapter for the American Society of Materials (ASM), a Professional Engineer (PE) registered in the state of Missouri, and a Certified Welding Inspector (CWI) through the American Welding Society (AWS).

With the development of a new material that could withstand higher pressures, retrofit projects and new construction of power plants could now utilize thinner components. However, it wasn’t long before issues arose. Grade 91 is a material that requires a certain amount of diligence in respect to chemical composition, heat treatment, and welding. With this knowledge, the ASME code strictly adopted a mandatory post-weld heat treatment parameter for all welding of Grade 91 materials regardless of thickness. This is due to a primarily martensitic microstructure in the “as welded” condition, which tends to be brittle. With correct post-weld heat treatment, most parts were installed without issue and survived service during early operation. But the question remained: What about parts that had undergone incorrect post-weld heat treatment or not ideal post-weld heat treatment? How will those parts hold up over a longer timeframe?

With the help of industry, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) developed a multifaceted research project to characterize the material, diagnose common issues, perform root cause analysis, and develop solutions valuable to the industry. Through EPRI program 87 (fossil materials repair), the first improvement in quality control was developed specifically for heat treatment and welding. A procedure was developed to have better control over the post-weld heat treatment with the use of resistance heating (no torch heating allowed), significantly lowering the post-weld heat

The electric power industry has been undergoing many changes. One of the changes dates back to the 1970s, when Grade 91 was introduced. The concept of Grade 91 was to create a material that could bridge the gap between T22 materials (2 ¼ Cr ½ Mo) and stainless steel materials. Grade 91 (9 Cr, 1 Mo) was designed to retain high strength at higher temperatures and is categorized as a creep strength enhanced ferritic (CSEF) steel.



treatment temperature ramp-up rate, and cool-down rate. These factors significantly improved post-weld heat treatment quality. Welding quality was also improved by lowering the interpass temperature and specifying a higher-than-code allowable minimum preheat.

With installation concerns being addressed, the material supply stream was examined. From detailed documentation of failure across industry, it became apparent that some heats of Grade 91 material were superior to others. As industry began to identify less than desired components (failed early in their life), it was determined that a few of the superior heats did have some things in common. Chemical composition was identified as a major contributor in respect to “tramp” elements. These elements, which had not been specified in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code, in small amounts were relatively harmless, but if allowed to increase to significant amounts could cause significant issues. While not getting into the exact science, the fact is that there are suppliers out there who can, and are willing, to meet specified lower tramp elemental compositions. By selecting these suppliers, utilities have a significantly higher-quality material, which therefore justifies any additional cost.

With higher-quality welding procedures, a higher-qual-ity weld rod, a well-defined and laid out post-weld heat treatment procedure, and more tightly controlled raw materials, what else is left to do? EPRI again met the needs of industry by researching welding procedures that avoided post-weld heat treatment entirely. EPRI’s research was clear that the correct welding procedure with the correct welding consumable didn’t require post-weld heat treatment to obtain the same, if not better, quality welding results. This removal of a step in the process while creating an equal if not higher quality weld was a true win-win for industry.

The primary concern with using Grade 91 in a heat transfer application is the rate at which oxide accu-mulates and how adherent it is to the tubing at higher

temperatures and during thermal cycles. Oxide is the protective scale that forms on the surface of the tube as oxidation occurs. As oxide builds over time, it becomes protective in nature, preventing further oxidation by limiting oxygen (in the air or steam) from getting to the base material. This “layer” of oxide, if adherent, acts as a barrier, slowing down oxidation to a reasonable

rate. This is a well-studied subject at 1,000-1,010°F (where more traditional power plants operate) but limited information is available for higher temperatures. The difficulty arises when the oxide gets to roughly 10-12 mils in thickness and becomes “unstable.” Essen-tially residual stress develops in the oxide and during thermal events, at thickness above 12 mils, exfoliation is more likely. Exfoliation in the power industry leads to internal blockages, blockages lead to overheating as steam flow (the cooling media) is cut off, and overheat-ing leads to tube leaks and forced outages.

With this understanding, the use of Grade 91 in heat transfer applications above 1,100°F should be avoided. Configuration (vertical compared to horizontal flow) plays a role as well as diameter (1.75 inch OD or smaller with 1.25 inch ID or smaller should be avoided).



Research projects through EPRI led to higher quality to combat the following disadvantages:

A. Difficult to weld—EPRI-specified welding procedure and filler material

B. Difficult to post-weld heat treat—EPRI- specified ramp rates and AWS-specified thermocou-ple setup (more TCs and additional data)

C. Difficult to fabricate—EPRI-specified chemical composition controlling tramp elements and key compositions

With the use of higher-quality raw materials, welding procedures, welding electrodes, post-weld heat treatment procedures, and an understanding of limitations, Grade 91 will have a place in the power industry for the foreseeable future. Considering the increased industry knowledge described above, this would suggest that Grade 91 in a heat transfer application above 1,100°F should be avoided.

Conclusion

Our understanding of Grade 91 material has significantly improved since the introduction of the material in the 1970s. With a better understanding of what can be done to produce superior parts, how to weld them, and how to heat treat them (or to avoid it entirely) has led to signifi-cant efficiencies in the power sector. These include faster turnaround times on outages, higher thermal efficiencies from having thinner components with better heat transfer, and less forced outages due to weldability issues. With a more efficient power plant, less fuel gets burned to create the same amount of electricity, ultimately seeing significant energy efficiency gains over time.

References 1. Effect of Normalization and Temper Heat Treatment on P91 Weldment Properties, EPRI, PaloAlto, CA: 2003. 1004915.

2. Description of Past Research, Fossil Materials and Repair (Program 87): 2014 Update, Technical Update, June 2014, 3002003364.

Figure 2 Hardness mapping performed with an automated hardness test machine through EPRI showed how weld beads, if placed properly, can temper the previous weld bead, therefore reducing the need for post-weld heat treatment. They named this procedure a “controlled fill.”

Source: Integrated Life Management of 9% Cr Steels Metallurgical Risk Factors, by John A. Siefert and Jonathan D. Parker, Program 87 Fossil Materials and Repair, presented at Program 87 Technology Transfer Week, June 19-20, 2017

Figure 1 Different heats of Grade 91 material showed significantly different ductility when tensile tested (all made to the same ASME chemical specification).

B1 B2 B3 B4 TP1

0 5 10 15 20Distance (mm)

20

15

10

5

0

340

315

290

265

240

215

190

Fusion line

Dis

tanc

e (m

m)

Har

dnes

s (H

V 0

.5)


Retrospective Dosimetry as a Ubiquitous Low-Resolution Integrating Gamma Camera

Author

Robert Hayes is associate professor in the Nuclear Engineering Department at North Carolina State University.

In the nuclear industry, radiation worker dosimetry is carried out using thermoluminescence (TL) dosimeters or optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters. These techniques utilize solid-state physics (TL/OSL) methods to measure the trapped charge in crystalline insulators caused by exposure to ionizing radiation.

This technology has also been used historically to measure radiation doses in exposed popula-tions, such as atomic bomb survivors and residents of Chernobyl. This was done using quartz extracted from bricks and ceramic materials. Quartz and similar materials such as feldspars, zircons, porcelains, and carbonates can be used as dosimeters in this sense.

By measuring the dose over a grid, such as a wall, floor, or any similar array of insulating materials such as tile, the dose profile can determine where any historical radiological material may have been present. In this way, the method can “see” historical nuclear material.

By removing a cored sample of this dosimetric material exposed by a source of interest and slicing the core into many layers, the dose deposition profile from this core can be measured. The dose deposition profile will then be an indicator of the radiation type and energy distri-bution of the source that caused the dose. This dose profile can then be used to discriminate different isotopic source materials enabling gross categorization of the kind of material present (such as special nuclear material vs. industrial or medical sources).

This approach has now been demonstrated by new research from North Carolina State Univer-sity through their Nuclear Engineering Department (Hayes and Sholom 2017). There are various limitations and difficulties associated with the technique, but in a general sense it provides ubiquitous monitoring for all of human civilization. The ceramic coffee cups in your cupboard become a gamma camera and the commode in your bathroom is now a low-resolution integrat-ing gamma ray spectrometer.

Reference Hayes R.B., Sholom S.V., 2017, “Retrospective Imaging and Characterization of Nuclear Material,” Health Physics, 113(2), pp. 91-101.



ASQ EED Membership

MEMBERSHIP UPGRADE INFORMATIONSenior membership information: asq.org/membership/individuals/senior

The application for advancement to Senior member requires just a few checked boxes, your signature, member number, and date.

Requirements for advancement are:• ASQ Full member in good standing for one year

• Have 10 years of active professional experience (up to four years of this voca-tional requirement may be satisfied by graduation from a college, university, or similar institution)

• Meet any one of these professional criteria:

• Currently hold an ASQ certification that requires recertification

• Have been a Senior member or comparable type in a recognized professional organization

• Have taught quality or related arts or sciences at an accredited institution for at least two years

• Have conducted quality-related engineering, inspection or audit, or statistical work, or applied the methods and principles of quality on the job for at least two years

Advancement to Senior member is FREE!

Fellow nomination information: asq.org/members/account/fellow.html

Fellows elected by ASQ’s board of directors are recognized as having achieved profes-sional distinction and pre-eminence in the technology, theory, education, application, or management of quality control. An ASQ Fellow must be nominated by an ASQ member unit or other ASQ Fellows, is elected by the board of directors, and must meet specified criteria.

EED Membership Report

Students 151 Associate 47 Full 672 Senior 592 Fellow 27 Organizational 310 New members 24

Total number of members: 1,823

EED Student Members

EED leadership has approved an initiative to increase student participa-tion at the World Conference on Quality and Improvement, April 30 – May 2, 2018, in Seattle, WA. For EED students who would like to attend the conference, EED will pay the conference registration for two student members. A lottery will be implemented for additional student members to attend. Any student members inter-ested in taking advantage of this offer, please send an email to the membership chair, Dr. Abhijit Sengupta, at [email protected].

http://asq.org/membership/individuals/senior

http://asq.org/members/account/fellow.html

mailto:senguptaa%40hotmail.com?subject=EED%20Student%20Member



Increasing energy demand requires greater use of reliable and environmentally friendly energy sources in the United States and elsewhere. In particular, significant deployment of new energy sources will be needed by midcentury to meet expected energy demands of expanding national and international economies. Nuclear energy, which currently accounts for nearly 20 percent of electricity production in the United States, could play a substantial and beneficial role on the scale necessary to support energy security by providing economically competitive, baseload power. Deployment of new nuclear plants will contribute considerably to job growth in an expanding economy.

Given the number of nuclear plant retirements expected over the next few decades, the nuclear energy industry faces substantial challenges. In fact, current projections indicate that U.S. nuclear capacity could begin declining rapidly after 2030 due to a combination of market forces (including strong competition from natural gas generation), remaining useful life considerations, and regulatory effects. Many of the nation’s 99 active nuclear units are operating under license extensions that are set to expire in the next 15-30 years. Subsequent license extensions, together with a contribution from a new generation of advanced light water reactors (LWRs) and advanced small modular reactors (SMRs) could potentially offset some of this decline, but sustaining a substantial nuclear presence beyond 2050 will almost certainly require the successful development and deployment of a new generation of advanced reactors, namely Generation IV reactors. These reactors could offer significant potential advantages compared to state-of-the-art LWR technology in terms of enhanced safety, lower cost, greater resource utilization, reduced waste management chal-lenges, co-production of process heat for industrial operations, improved proliferation resistance, and easier operation.

Because various combinations of these attributes could make Generation IV reactors attractive for markets in the United

Author

Dr. John Kelly is currently vice president/president-elect of the American Nuclear Society (previously associate admin-istrator and chief scientist of the nuclear division, Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.).

Perspective on Nuclear Energy Futures



States and internationally, Generation IV technologies are already attracting interest, not only from the government sector, but also from the financial and commercial energy sectors. However, unlike LWR tech-nology, which is largely proven, Generation IV reactors still need further demonstration of their performance characteristics and validation of their “value proposition” before broader deployment can occur.

The development and ultimate deployment of Generation IV reactors is part of a broader nuclear energy strategy to promote the deployment of nuclear technology as a viable energy option for the future by 1. supporting the safe, economic, and reliable operation of the current fleet of nuclear reactors; 2. pursuing the construc-tion and operation of advanced Generation III+ light water reactor designs; 3. support-ing the development, licensing, and deploy-ment of advanced small modular reactors; and 4. implementing a strategy for the development and deployment of advanced Generation IV reactor technology.

To understand the importance of nuclear energy and the need for continued invest-ment in the development and deployment of improved nuclear technologies, it is useful to examine nuclear energy’s place in America’s overall energy portfolio—today and into the future. Nuclear energy safely, reliably, and economically contributes almost 20 percent of U.S. electricity production. The nation’s current fleet of 99 commercial reactor units has a combined capacity of 100 gigawatts (GW) and operates at an average capacity factor of 91 percent. Nuclear power remains the single largest source of carbon-free energy in the United States at present, accounting for more than 60 percent of nongreenhouse-gas-emitting electric power generation nationwide.

The amount of nuclear energy that might be needed in 2050 and beyond will depend on a number of factors. By way of providing a benchmark, it is useful to consider how much new reactor capacity would be needed to simply maintain nuclear energy’s current 20 percent share of overall U.S. electricity production in light of expected electricity demand growth over the next several decades. Given that overall U.S. demand for electrical energy is expected to grow by about 24 percent from 2013–2040, nuclear generating capacity would need to total at least 125 GW to maintain nuclear energy’s current share of electricity production. If meeting the nation’s energy demand were to require the replacement of a significant fraction of retiring fossil-fuel plants with nuclear generation options, then another 50–100 GW of nuclear energy might be needed in the coming decades. Furthermore, efforts to electrify the transportation sector could lead to significantly higher demand for electricity in general and nuclear energy in particular. Finally, the introduction of nuclear energy for non-electric applications such as desalination or industrial process heat would dictate the need for even more nuclear energy. Therefore, a projection on the order of 200 GW of nuclear capacity by midcentury would seem to be a reason-able target for the United States in light of expected demand growth.

Most of the currently operating Gener-ation II nuclear power plants received license extensions for a total of 60 years of operation per plant. Some fraction of these plants will apply for and receive a subsequent license renewal for an additional 20 years of operation. At the same time, however, market forces, such as low natural gas prices, may cause other units to shut down prematurely. Without subsequent license renewals or an aggressive new build



program, overall nuclear capacity in the United States can be expected to decline rapidly beginning in 2030. Subsequent license renewals could potentially delay this decline until 2050, but at some point the current fleet of reactors will retire. A rapid decline in nuclear power in the United States could jeopardize our ability to extend U.S. objectives related to safety, security, and nonproliferation to the interna-tional community.

How best to replace the 100 GW of existing U.S. nuclear capacity by midcentury and beyond and how best to fill the potential need for 100 GW of additional capacity are important questions for policymakers, technology developers, and power producers today because the timescales needed to deploy advanced nuclear systems are long—perhaps 20 years.

There are many good reasons to believe that LWRs will continue to fill a significant fraction of overall demand for nuclear energy in the United States. LWR technology is mature, and the recently completed DOE Nuclear Power 2010 Program led to two design certifications, several early site permits, and construction and operating licenses. Currently, new builds of Generation III+ reactors are underway. Uncertainties associated with cost, schedule, and licensing should diminish in a few years. Further, recent progress toward certifying and licensing designs for advanced SMRs, supported by the DOE SMR Licensing Technical Support Program, can be expected to provide power producers with another viable nuclear energy option. Hence, we currently expect that several new advanced LWR plants, both large and small, will be built in the coming decades accounting for a significant portion of the needed capacity.

At the same time, it is reasonable to expect that an expanded economy could drive demand for a substantial contribution from advanced Generation IV reactors, even accounting for the deployment of a new generation of advanced large LWRs and advanced SMRs. In the context of a 200 GW estimate for new nuclear capacity needed in the 2050 timeframe, a contribution of perhaps 30–50 GW from advanced Generation IV reactors is not out of the question.

At various forums in 2015 and 2016, industry participants expressed interest in developing plans for new, advanced Generation IV nuclear plants. This interest in advanced reactor technologies and that of other stakeholders reflect a view that Generation IV systems could deliver more value than LWRs and should be part of the overall power mix. Various combinations of potential attri-butes—from improved safety and lower cost to advantageous fuel-cycle characteristics, easier operation, and proliferation resis-tance—could make such systems attractive for many markets in the United States and internationally. More importantly, U.S. lead-ership in these efforts would seek to support international security objectives with respect to safety, security, and nonproliferation of nuclear energy technologies.

Given the scale of expected domestic and global energy demands, we anticipate that a mix of existing LWRs, advanced Generation III+ large LWRs, advanced SMRs, and Gener-ation IV advanced reactors could provide a significant amount of nuclear energy gener-ation through the middle of the 21st century. Thereafter, the latter three types of nuclear systems (advanced large Generation III+, advanced SMR, and Generation IV) could be expected to meet a significant portion of America’s clean, baseload energy demand.


Overview on Counterfeit Items

Authors

Dr. Abhijit Sengupta*, Karen Douglas**, and Steven Prevette***

* This report is provided for informational and educational purposes. The views expressed are those of the author Dr. Abhijit Sengupta and not necessarily those of the U.S. government.

** This report is provided for informational and educational purposes. The views expressed are those of the author Karen Douglas and not necessarily those of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) or the U.S. government.

*** The views expressed are those of the author Steven Prevette and not necessarily those of the U.S. government, Canadian govern-ment, or Fluor Corp.

Counterfeit items are a growing problem in the United States and around the world. They can be hazardous to your life! Some examples of this problem include:

If these everyday items can kill, what are the implications for our Energy and Environmental Division (EED) workplaces, with the hazards of high-pressure steam, nuclear energy, chemicals, and hazardous materials?

Suspect or counterfeit items introduced in safety applications have increased operating risks and necessitated awareness and reporting measures. The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) defines a counterfeit item as a suspect item that is a copy or substitute without a legal right or authority as a copy or one whose materials, performance, or characteristics are knowingly misrepresented by the vendor, supplier, distributor, or manufac-turer. According to DoE, a suspect item is one in which there is an indication by visual inspection, testing, or other information that it may not conform to established government- or indus-try-accepted specifications or national consensus standards.

• One million counterfeit parts in the Department of Defense supply chain could affect our nation’s defense. https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/senate-armed-services-committee-releases-report-on- counterfeit-electronic-parts

• You may be buying counterfeit drugs and endangering your medical health. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/buyingusingmedicinesafely/counterfeitmedicine/

• A crane collapses due to faulty welds by an unqualified vendor in New York City, killing two. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/nyregion/scrutiny-falls-on-chinese-supplier-in-crane-collapse-case.html

This article is a result of a project to document S/CI issues and prevention in the nuclear industry, both commercial and noncommercial. Due to be published in 2018, the ASQ EED Nuclear Quality Assurance Auditor Training Handbook will be an update of the 1986 ASQC Quality Systems Auditor Training Handbook and will include additional case studies and new information on software quality assurance, suspect counterfeit items, commercial grade dedication, and control of electronic records.

https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/senate-armed-services-committee-releases-report



https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/buyingusingmedicinesafely/counterfeitmedicine/

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/buyingusingmedicinesafely/counterfeitmedicine/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/nyregion/scrutiny-falls-on-chinese-supplier-in-crane-collapse-case.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/nyregion/scrutiny-falls-on-chinese-supplier-in-crane-collapse-case.html



The DoE has made S/CI prevention mandatory for its contractors through Order 414.1D “Quality Assurance.” DoE Order 414.1D calls for prevention of introduction of counterfeit items in the procurement process through the involvement of engineering, and inclusion of technical and quality specifications in procure-ment specifications. DoE requirements align with the IAEA-TECDOC-1169 specification. DoE Order 414.1D also includes inspection for compliance with procurement specifications, consensus standards, and commonly accepted industry practices. Prevention measures estab-lishing procurement and inspection system controls for each organization also include assignment of a designated individual for S/CI reporting and awareness. Tools supporting DoE employee awareness include evaluation of the DoE S/CI database for recent instances, participation in the DoE lessons learned program, and review of Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) postings for additional occurrences outside the DoE federal and contractor community.

Oversight and prevention measures estab-lished for a suspect/counterfeit item (S/CI) should be commensurate with the DoE facility or activity hazards. It may not always be cost effective to verify if a suspect item is indeed counterfeit, fraudulent, or substandard.

Mitigation is also required by DoE and includes both reporting for increased awareness and prosecution to deter future activity. Upon discovery of S/CI in DoE federal and contractor facilities, reporting measures initiated include mandatory occurrence reporting to the DoE head-quarters organization assigned, and also notification of the DoE inspector general organization responsible for prosecution. S/CI instances are shared on DoE lessons learned for routine email distribution to federal and contractor quality assurance and safety professionals.

Literature indicates that more than $272.7 million worth of counterfeit goods were seized during 2008 in the United States. These instances include integrated circuits for fighter jets and commercial airliner parts. It is estimated that counterfeiting costs the United States 750,000 jobs annually. The nuclear industry discovered S/CIs included fasteners, valves, electronic components, and circuit breakers. Examples include:

• February 2009: Authorities in Germany identified highly radioactive products at a port including bars, valves, and an elevator that may have been the result of cobalt 60 from scrap metal being introduced into blast furnaces during fabrication.

• April 2009: Counterfeit SKF bearings were seized in the Czech Republic.

• March 2010: A company was penalized for modifying certified material test reports by substituting 316ss for 304ss, 410ss in lieu of 17-4PH, and Inconel 601 for Monel 400. Material heat treat data, and physical and chemical testing results had been falsified.



In summary, nuclear industry initiatives have resulted in increased engineering involvement in the procurement process including assess-ments of suppliers, and increased awareness of counterfeiting and fraud. Implementing guidance from NRC and EPRI promotes sharing of objective information regarding procurement in industry forums. Measures to preclude introduction of S/CIs in safety applications now include procuring items from the original equipment manufacturer or authorized distributor whenever possible; establishing product performance by traceability or testing and inspection; and establishing product acceptance criteria prior to initiation of the procurement process. Observance of these additional controls can provide additional industry protection against introduction of suspect or counterfeit items in safety applications.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) also rolled out 1019163 addressing suspect or counterfeit items in 2009 with close NRC, Nuclear Procurement Issues Corporation (NUPIC), and DoE coordination.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) first addressed suspect and counterfeit item appearance in the U.S. NRC Generic Letter 89-02: Actions to Improve the Detection of Counterfeit and Fraudulently Marketed Products. NRC GL89-02 discusses effective procurement and dedication programs. NRC GL89-02 also recommends that licensees adopt effective product acceptance programs. NRC GL89-02 states that it is each licensee’s responsibility to provide reasonable assurance that nonconforming products are not intro-duced into their plants.

NRC Information Notice 2008-04 “Counterfeit Parts Supplied to Nuclear Power Plants” states that in recent years many vendors, including foreign companies, with little to no experience in the nuclear industry have entered the market to supply parts and components for both safety and nonsafety applications to nuclear power plants. It remains the licensee’s responsi-bility to ensure that all suppliers use standards and processes that conform to U.S. standards. Effective oversight of suppliers becomes increasingly more important.

The NRC requires inspection and oversight of industry vendor activities. The NRC enforce-ment policy is applicable to nonlicensees, including contractors and subcontractors, applicants or holders of NRC approvals (e.g., certificates of compliance, early site permits, standard design certificates, quality assurance program approvals), and employees of any of the foregoing who knowingly provide compo-nents, equipment, or other goods or services that relate to a licensee’s activities subject to NRC regulation.


Trending and Analysis of Your Data

Author

Steven Prevette* is an employee of Fluor Govern-ment Group, who supports four nuclear sites (including Chalk River in Ontario and Savannah River in South Carolina) with statistical analysis support based upon Dr. Deming’s manage-ment principles, including statistical process control. He is an ASQ Fellow and Certified Quality Engineer (CQE), a model railroader (see bhbf.weebly.com) and also teaches internet Infor-mation systems courses for Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

Further information about the system summarized here may be found in the quality assurance website, Elsmar Cove, at https://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=69486&highlight= hanford+trending.

* The views expressed are those of the author Steven Prevette and not necessarily those of the U.S. government, Canadian govern-ment, or Fluor Corp.

Within energy and environmental workscopes, clients often call for “trending” data. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) lists the following in its inspection requirements related to correc-tive action management:1

Verify that trend evaluations are performed in a manner and at a frequency that provides for prompt identification of adverse quality trends. Verify that trend evaluations are distributed to affected organization management. Verify that identified adverse trends are reported to the management of the organization responsible for correc-tive action. [emphasis added]

For U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) work, the Quality Assurance Guide requires the following:2

A corrective action/resolution process should consist of the appropriate steps, such as … tracking and trending conditions adverse to quality as appropriate; [and] Is a quality performance analysis system specified (e.g., Six Sigma, metrics and indicators, trending)? Does the performance analysis system provide a mechanism for feedback to affected and related entities in the organization? [emphasis added]

Regardless of these government requirements, what organization does not want to “manage by fact” and ensure that both correc-tive action and performance data are properly analyzed and trended? Unfortunately, rather than seeking out the underlying cause of an event, many organizations fall into a trap of knee-jerk reactions, seeking out someone to blame and potentially fire.

http://bhbf.weebly.com

https://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=69486&highlight=hanford+trending






ASQ has been on the forefront of good statistical analysis, starting with Dr. Walter Shewhart’s work with statistical process control and further refined by Dr. W. Edwards Deming. So here’s how it works.

A typical scenario starts with a bar chart plotting the number of problems, such as the chart to the right. We record some important defect counts each month. In January, we note that in January 2016 we had zero defects! Hurrah! Pizza for all the workers. But then the next month was the worst ever! We wish that things would get better, and have a great December 2016, but then we start off the new year of 2017 with a terrible result. What to do?

The boss remembers in his/her MBA course work that one should use moving averages to even out the fluctuations. We try the next chart. Looks like we got better November 2015 – June 2016! But wait! July 2016 got worse with exactly the same result as June. And even with the great perfor-mance in December 2016, we are getting worse!

Next we try a red-yellow-green scorecard. Certainly that will tell us what is happening. We also simplify the chart to only show the current year. Maybe that will tell us what is happening. We set a threshold of seven items per month for green, 14 per month for yellow, and anything above that threshold is red.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Number of defects/�aws/conditions adverse to quality per month

Jan-1

5Fe

b-15

Mar

-15Ap

r-15

May

-15Ju

n-15

Jul-1

5Au

g-15

Sep-

15O

ct-15

Nov

-15De

c-15

Jan-1

6Fe

b-16

Mar

-16Ap

r-16

May

-16Ju

n-16

Jul-1

6Au

g-16

Sep-

16O

ct-16

Nov

-16De

c-16

Jan-1

7

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Bar chart with six-month moving average added


Jan-1

5Fe

b-15

Mar

-15Ap

r-15

May

-15Ju

n-15

Jul-1

5Au

g-15

Sep-

15O

ct-15

Nov

-15De

c-15

Jan-1

6Fe

b-16

Mar

-16Ap

r-16

May

-16Ju

n-16

Jul-1

6Au

g-16

Sep-

16O

ct-16

Nov

-16De

c-16

Jan-1

730

25

20

15

10

5

0

Number of defects/�aws/conditionsadverse to quality per month

Red/Yellow/Green “scorecard” chart

Oct

-16

Nov

-16

Dec-1

6

Jan-1

7

Feb-

17

Mar

-17

Apr-1

7

May

-17

Jun-1

7

Jul-1

7

Aug-

17



No, now we only have four months of data that are all three different colors. We do an in-depth investigation of December 2016 and can find nothing that was done differently to give that result.

Charts like these are posted on a routine basis, likely at the facility where you work. How useful were these charts in helping you understand the process and detect whether or not there are “trends” in conditions adverse to quality? Not at all useful.

An answer lies with Dr. Deming’s red bead experiment.3 There, a random number of defects are generated and management reacts to each fluctuation with the usual methods of posters, goals, firing the guilty, and praising the lucky. To no avail, the defects just keep coming because they are caused by a flawed process. Dr. Deming’s message should also strike a chord with those who follow “human performance.”

In reality, these charts were also made with a random number generator (specifically, the rand) function in Microsoft Excel multiplied by 20 and rounded to the lowest integer. If we perform a statistical process control (SPC) analysis of the data, we confirm that the data are stable and predictable in the long run. The month-to-month results that confounded us in the previous charts are recognized as random fluctuations around a stable average and with predictable limits.

The control chart to the right shows us that the process was stable and the overall results are predictable. We can predict that half of the data will be 12 or higher (assuming the average of 11.04 is close to the median) and half at 11 or less. We also can predict that there will be no more than 26 defects in a given month (the three standard deviation upper control limit is 26.22).

An important bit of credibility that SPC analysis brings us is we now have an objective criteria for “what is a trend.” Trend detection rules vary slightly from author to author, but one set in use (and reprinted in INPO 07-0074) follows:

Now we may reliably detect a trend, and can justify how we made our decision. In the case of this process, we must change the process to get a different result.

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

The average of these results plus three standard deviations

The average of these results


Jan-1

5Fe

b-15

Mar

-15Ap

r-15

May

-15Ju

n-15

Jul-1

5Au

g-15

Sep-

15O

ct-15

Nov

-15De

c-15

Jan-1

6Fe

b-16

Mar

-16Ap

r-16

May

-16Ju

n-16

Jul-1

6Au

g-16

Sep-

16O

ct-16

Nov

-16De

c-16

Jan-1

7

One point outside either three standard deviation control limit

Two of three points two standard deviations above/below the average

Four of five points one standard deviation above/below the average

Seven points the same side of the average

Ten of 11 points the same side of the average

Seven points in a row all increasing/decreasing



Let us assume we made such a change, and we now have a chart that looks like this. This now provides objective proof to any auditor or client that we have an improving trend and are making progress on correcting this issue.

Fluor Corporation has been using SPC analysis at several nuclear sites, including Hanford, WA; Savannah River, SC; Paducah, KY: Portsmouth, OH; and most recently, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), Chalk River Ontario, Canada.

The Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is a very strong success story. The Canadian Nuclear Energy Alliance (CNEA)5 has been operating the labo-ratory for the Canadian government for the past two years. One of CNEA’s early commitments to the Canadian government was to improve contractor assurance, with emphasis on applying metrics. The CNEA implemented SPC per the methods introduced in this paper, and further, used a color-coding system developed at Fluor as shown in the chart on this page.6

This system, which has gained the confidence of the government client, has led to improved performance at the site. This process started with corrective action management data, but is being applied to other areas of performance on a cross-cutting balanced scorecard of performance areas vs. organization grid.

Introduction of statistical process control has been proven to be a way to bring reliable and credible statistical analysis to the question of detection of trends to support client commitments and to improve organization performance.

References 1. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-manual/inspection-procedure/ip88110.pdf 88110-03 INSPECTION GUIDANCE 03.04 Follow-up, Closure, and Trending.

2. https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-docu-ments/400-series/0414.1-EGuide-2b-admchg2/@@images/file Section 4.3.2and Appendix A Section 4.3.

3. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckBfbvOX-DvU for Dr. Deming himself, of the author’s version at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8E522D-D542C4CA69.

4. INPO 07-007, “Performance Assessment and Trending” includes 30 pages written by the author, taken from the “Hanford Trending Primer.”

5. http://www.cnl.ca/en/home

6. http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2007/pdfs/7148.pdf

Control chart result Decision Color Leadership

action

Stable (common cause variation)

Level is acceptable Green Stay the course

Level is not acceptable Yellow Improve system

Trend (special cause variation)

Adverse Red Corrective action

Improving Green Reinforce (stay the course)

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Seven months in a row below averagefollowing a process change.

This is a trend.The average of these results


Jan-1

5

Mar

-15

May

-15

Jul-1

5

Sep-

15

Nov

-15

Jan-1

6

Mar

-16

May

-16

Jul-1

6

Sep-

16

Nov

-16

Jan-1

7

Mar

-17

May

-17

Jul-1

7

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-manual/inspection-procedure/ip88110.pdf

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/insp-manual/inspection-procedure/ip88110.pdf

https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0414.1-EGuide-2b-admchg2/@@images/fil



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckBfbvOXDvU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckBfbvOXDvU

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8E522DD542C4CA69

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8E522DD542C4CA69

http://www.cnl.ca/en/home

http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2007/pdfs/7148.pdf


Zero Defect Zero Effect (ZED) Initiative Leads to Responsible Manufacturing

Author

Ashok Kumar Jain is an ASQ Fellow, former principal advisor, Quality Council of India, and former executive director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited India.

The main objective of ZED certification is to provide unique branding and recognition of the opera-tional capabilities of quality and environmentally focused industries.

The goal of certification is to establish world-class manufacturing practices by developing a ZED culture based on the principles of:

→ Zero defect (focus on the customer)

o Zero nonconformance/noncompliance

o Zero waste

→ Zero effect (focus on society)

o Zero air pollution/liquid discharge/solid waste

o Zero wastage of energy and natural resources

To ensure sustainable development, an integrated and holistic ZED maturity assessment model has been developed by Quality Council of India in association with leading industry associations and industry experts.

The ZED model covers all key aspects of business management functions practiced in any manufacturing organization. To facilitate effective deployment of ZED parameters in a manufactur-ing organization, important business functions are classified in the following management disciplines:



• Quality management

• Environmental management

• Energy management

• Natural resource management

• Human resource development

• IPR management

• Performance management

ZED (see https://zed.org.in for more details) is an integrated, holistic certification system. Certification is based on assessment of processes and systems established to manage quality, environmental compliance, energy, natural resources, and other business management functions as per requirements of the ZED model.

The ZED maturity assessment model has been designed to offer graded benchmark levels of an organization’s performance through a set of standard enablers and outcomes, focused primarily on quality and environmental performances in practical and implementable terms.

For implementation of the ZED maturity assessment model, organizations need to develop the following operational capabilities:

• Manufacturing and design capabilities

• Quality, environment, energy, and safety assurance systems

• Standardization and measurement systems for quality, environment, and energy

• Learning and improvement systems

• Legal compliances (hygiene factor)

The above capabilities are addressed thorough 50 parameters at the operational level. To ensure a minimum standard level, 20 parameters are identified as essential and the remaining 30 parameters are optional. These 50 parameters are grouped as enablers and outcomes. These parameters are further divided in sub-groups A to R for distinguishing the same for quality, environment, safety, etc. The brief description of these sub-groups is given as follows:

Enablers A. Process design for quality: Technology selection and

continual upgradation, process capability assessment and enhancement, low-cost automation, waste management, and a safe working environment

B. Pre-Production (startup activities): Process validation and supplier development

C. Production and maintenance activities—“swachh” (Hindi word meaning “clean workplace”: 5S, daily work manage-ment, planned maintenance, and process control

D. Product design for quality design: Capability and design process and methodologies

E. Post-Production activities: Transportation and storage, timely delivery, customer education for product usage, and maintenance and customer servicing

F. Process design for environmental management: Technology selection and continual upgradation, systems for abatement of effluent/emissions/solid waste, systems for energy efficiency, and systems for natural resource conservation

G. Pre-Production (startup activities) for environmental manage-ment: Installation of environmental protection and measuring equipment

H. Maintenance of environmental and energy management equipment: Planned maintenance of environmental and energy management systems

I. Product design for environment design: Compliance with regulatory requirements

J. Disposal after use: Compliant and environmentally sound disposal

K. Internal environment: Plant layout, material management, and material handling systems

L. Human resourcing: People development plan and employee involvement activity

https://zed.org.in



M. Outsourced activities: Selection, control, and improvement of outsourced activities

N. Innovation and creativity: Safeguarding IPR through trademark, industrial design, copyright, and patents.

Outcomes

O. Quality performance: Improvement in outgoing (custom-er-end) quality performance level, in-house quality perfor-mance level, and field performance level

P. Process performance: Total employee involvement, scrap reduction, process capability (Cp/Cpk), and operational equipment efficiency

Q. Environmental and energy performance: Optimal use of natural resources and energy performance

R. Overall company performance: Turnover growth, improve-ment in operating profit, safety score, and inventory turnover

Note: For complete details of all parameters, visit https://zed.org.in.

Each parameter has five levels of maturity with a quantitative assessment score as shown below:

Rating System

The rating is based on a weighted average of all selected parameters (minimum 30 parameters or more). On the basis

of the weighted average, the grading as bronze, silver, gold, diamond, or platinum is awarded as illustrated below:

Rating Levels

Above 3.0 –up to 3.5




Above 4.0 –up to 5.0 B

RON

ZE

S

ILVER

GOLD DIAMOND PLATINU

M

Benefits of ZEDZED certified companies will have several benefits including:

→ Global recognition: Credible recognition of ZED certified companies by international organizations

→ Operational excellence: Efficient operations due to stream-lined processes based on best practices

→ Cost competitiveness: Reduced cost due to waste minimi-zation, improved process efficiency, and energy and natural resource conservation

→ Quality competitiveness: Improved quality due to systematic quality management practices

→ Clean environment: Pollution-free processes due to focused environmental management practices

→ Competent manpower: Trained manpower with competence of global best practices

→ Preferred vendor: Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) will prefer to purchase from ZED certified companies

→ Social recognition: The company as a contributor to devel-opment of society and nation by generating employment and clean environment

Maturity Level Parameter Description Score

1 Struggler No awareness of the parameter-related concept. People not trained.

0

2 Beginner People have undergone some training. System has been initiated.

2

3 Organized System and procedures developed in critical areas, people working as per procedures.

3

4 Achiever System operating with continuous monitor-ing, control, and improvement.

4

5 World-class Following world-class best practices and creating benchmarks.

5

https://zed.org.in



The flow diagram for ZED certification is depicted as below:

Conclusion

Zero defect and zero effect (ZED) is a game-changing initiative for industry to move ahead on sustainable development. It is a movement to transform the industrial leadership to responsible manufacturing. Going forward, only those industries that sow the seeds of improvement for environment, and energy and natural resource conservation, along with improving quality to meet customer expectations and delight will prosper.

1. ZED awareness and basic training: To make the people understand basic concepts and structure of ZED.

3. Self-assessment by company of current operating system against ZED criteria and submit to QCI.

7. Surveillance assessment after 18 months, if qualifies, certification valid for total of four-year period.

5. Site assessment by ZED assessors (QCI) after getting a request from the company.

4. Desktop assessment by QCI and communication to company about gaps/status with reference to ZED .

6. Certification: Based on the assessment findings, if qualifies, a certificate is awarded to the company.

2. Establish ZED operating system: Company has to implement and operate according to ZED. Can be done by company team or through a ZED certified consultant.

EED Needs You!We are always looking for interested professionals to share their leadership, organizational, and technical skills. EED offers valuable networking and educational opportunities. Please consider volunteering and be sure to keep your ASQ and EED membership current. If you have any questions about how to get involved or would like to volunteer, please contact me by email and attach your résumé.

Being a member of ASQ provides you with member benefits you can’t get elsewhere: Quality Progress magazine, a members-only website, The Insider, career assistance, member discounts on valuable ASQ resources like training, Quality Press books, professional quality certification, technical journals, LinkedIn opportunities, and more.

Our 1,700+ member website is a great place to post questions, share project updates, and discuss best practices. Join the conversation! Go to asq.org/ee for further information about EED.

If you have any interest in contributing your time and talents to help serve the members of the EED, please contact Abhijit Sengupta at [email protected].

CURRENT OPEN POSITIONS:

• Programs and Learning Committee chair

• Energy Management Committee chair

• Financial auditor

• Renewables Committee members

http://asq.org/ee

mailto:sengupta%40hotmail.com?subject=ASQ%20EED%20opportunities



M. Joel Guidez International expert in CEA, scientist responsible for Gen IV reactors, and French representative in the Safety Working Group of GIF

Use of Sodium Fast-Breeder Reactors to Manage the Closed Fuel Cycle of Light-Water ReactorsIn the future, a nuclear fuel cycle providing acceptable and reliable back-end solutions will be necessary for ecological reasons, but also to sustain dynamic growth in nuclear energy. It will also be necessary for further public acceptance.

We are currently in the 3-degrees scenario for the planet, and the continuous increase of fossil energy utilization will induce catastrophic climate changes, and bring about associated ecologic difficulties such as intensive air pollution, sea acidifica-tion, and increases in sea levels, storms, and floodings, etc.

Renewable energies such as wind and solar are intermittent. Until we are able to store large quantities of electricity at a support-able cost, their use will be limited. In Germany, for example, since 2000 there has been a big push toward these renewable energies. However, with more than 92 GW of solar and wind energy installed, solar and wind produce only 20 percent of German supply. The roughly 63 GW of nuclear French energy installed produces about 75 percent of French supply. Worse: When you need electricity, you often have no wind and no solar, so they need to maintain the classical fossil park to avoid any power failure. And when the renewables are being produced, the classical park has to reduce its production. But even so, the huge electricity quantity produced (92 GW of potential) cannot be used and is sold at a negative price or refused. This result has doubled the cost of German electricity, and with the progressive replacement of nuclear reactors by coal or lignite reactors, the CO2 production begins to increase again.

We have no choice. A goal of 20 percent of renewable intermit-tent energy seems very ambitious today for any country in the world, and nuclear energy will be necessary in the electrical mix if we want to decrease CO2 production.

Today, the cost of uranium is low and does not push nuclear operators to a reprocessing scenario. So a lot of products with a big energetic value are stored as waste in interim storage of used nuclear fuel. The amount of this used nuclear fuel will continue to increase, reaching about 1 million tons by 2050. The uranium and plutonium that could be extracted from that used fuel would be sufficient to provide fuel for at least 140 light water reactors of 1 GWe capacity for 60 years.

It makes sense to consider how to turn today’s burden into a valuable resource.

Moreover, this utilization will ensure a drastic diminution of waste quantities and toxicity, and facilitate their final storage. This point will ensure better public acceptance of nuclear energy.

In France these used fuels are reprocessed (REP) in La Hague, and only 4 percent of the REP used fuel becomes final waste. Ninety-six percent of this used fuel will be uranium and plutonium reused in light-water reactors as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. That allows a first reduction of waste and of uranium consumption. But, due to the creation of some isotopes during this second irradia-tion, the uranium and plutonium extracted from these used MOX fuels could not be reused in these light-water reactors.



View of the fuel cycle today in France

58 REPs, #400 TWhe/anr

Uranium

UR

appauvri7,000t

appauvri800t

U naturel8,000t

(UOX 1,000t)(URE 140t)(MOX 120t)

Plutonium #10t

Uranium (UR) #940t

UOX usé1,000t

LE PRINCIPE DU CYCLE DU COMBUSTIBLEEN FRANCE (ordres de grandeur, par année)

MOX usé#120t

URE usé#140t

RELs

RECYCLAGE

DéchetsPFs and AMs

#50t

Enrichissementuranium

Conversionuranium

Fabricationcombustible

Mines

Only fast-breeder reactors allow the reuse of these products in a multi-recycling activity. This type of activity has already been tested at the industrial scale on the French fast-breeder reactor Phénix, where 520 fuel elements were reprocessed and a big part of the plutonium extracted was reused as MOX in the reactor. A fast-breeder reactor project, called Astrid, is being studied in France today to replace the Phénix reactor shutdown in 2009.

View of the French fast-breeder reactor Phénix, in operation until 2009

Recently, on September 21, 2017, at the world nuclear associ-ation symposium, Liudmila Zalimskaya, general director of JSC Tenex (Russia), explained the back-end scenarios studied by Rosatom with the beginning of operation in 2016 of the sodium fast-breeder reactor BN 800 (800 MWe). Several scenarios are proposed, but it appears that the mix of light-water reactors, reprocessing activities, and fast-breeder reactors will allow the use of all the uranium and plutonium contained within light-water used fuel, decreasing much uranium consumption, and drastically decreasing the quantity of final waste production in toxicity.

View of the Russian sodium fast-breeder reactor BN 800 connected to the grid in 2016

Conclusion

From an ecological point of view, the closed fuel cycle—using both reprocessing activities and fast-breeder reactors—could be beneficial for the future of our planet, leading to decreased CO2 production and final waste quantities that are easy to manage.



ASQ Energy and Environmental Division 2018 – 2019 Proposed Organizational Chart

Vice ChairEnergy

M. Gilman

Vice ChairEnvironmental

Secretary

T. Koepp

Vice ChairAdministrationA. Richard

Immediate PastChair

G. Allen

T. MudgeTreasurer

K. Aleckson

ChairJ. Suire

Chair-ElectM. Dudley

NuclearK. Douglas

SustainabilityA. Masoudi

AuditingT. Kartachak

MembershipA. Richard

Voice of theCustomer

S. Prevette

At-Large MembersJ. Dew

G. JohnsonT. Horne

G. MerkelJ. Worthington

EED StandardsC. Moseley

Communicationsand NewsletterA. Sengupta

Body of KnowledgeM. Dudley

A. Masoudi

T. Koepp

Oil and Gas EnvironmentalRemediation andDecommissioning

B. Marguglio

RenewablesM. Dudley

Conventional andAlternative

EnvironmentalManagement

G. Lilly

EnergyManagement

Vacant

Programsand Learning

Vacant

10/27/2017

ASQ Quality Management Division/Energy and Environmental Division JOINT WEBINAR

“Contractor Assurance /INPO 07-007 Performance Analysis”BY STEVEN PREVETTE | FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2018 | 11:00 A.M. CENTRAL DAYLIGHT TIME

Documents

JANUARY 2018 | VOLUME 2, ISSUE 1 ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION ... - ASQasq.org/ee/2018/01/environmental-management-systems/energy-an… · fully staff leadership positions and recruit