February 2, 2026

SI Solutions, LLC Acquires Radiological Solutions, Inc., Adds to Nuclear Energy Capabilities

HUNTERSVILLE, NC – SI Solutions, LLC (“SIS”), through its advanced engineering division, Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. (“SIA”), today announced its acquisition of Radiological Solutions, Inc. (“RSI”), a trusted nuclear engineering partner specializing in advanced plant chemistry, radiological controls, radiation protection, and operational performance support. RSI brings deep technical expertise in water chemistry optimization, gamma scanning, radiological dose management, emergency preparedness, and the design of specialized sampling and monitoring systems that help nuclear facilities operate safely and efficiently.

The addition of RSI increases the breadth of SIA’s operating chemistry, equipment design, environmental, emergency preparedness, and radiation management capabilities, enabling more turnkey solutions to be available to the global nuclear power industry.

“The alignment between our two companies is remarkable,” said Mike Battaglia, Senior Vice President of Engineering Services and Chief Nuclear Officer. “RSI’s established presence within the nuclear energy industry, plus its range of technical expertise and experience, ideally complements SIA’s offerings and operating structure. Together, we expect to deliver an even greater range of asset management solutions, efficiently and effectively.”

Noting the two companies’ long-standing partnership, Richard Kohlmann, RSI President, said, “Over the years, Structural Integrity Associates has worked successfully with the RSI team to deliver positive outcomes for nuclear energy. Bringing RSI’s technical expertise together with that of SIA will undoubtedly benefit both the operating and new global nuclear industry.”

“This acquisition brings together two organizations whose strengths complement each other exceptionally well; RSI’s industry-leading expertise in chemistry, environmental, and innovative process equipment and SIA’s established asset lifecycle and engineering services platform,” said Erica Libra-Sharkey, Vice President of Nuclear at Structural Integrity Associates. “By combining our teams and capabilities, we are strengthening and expanding our commitment to the current operating fleet, research organizations and the next generation of advanced reactors.”

Noting the impact of this pivotal acquisition, Mark W. Marano, President and CEO of SI Solutions, remarked, “The RSI acquisition accelerates our strategic vision by adding talent, deep experience, and industry-leading technology that will position SIA as the leader in nuclear chemistry and strengthen our operational support services offering.” He added, “We fully welcome the RSI team as we continue to build upon our foundation of excellence.”

About Radiological Solutions, Inc.

RSI, based outside of Chicago, Illinois, has served the nuclear power industry since 2004. Over that time, the company has earned a reputation as a leading authority in nuclear plant chemistry for both boiling water reactors (BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs). RSI’s expertise spans outage and operational chemistry support, radiation protection, online fuel inspections, and the design and deployment of specialized equipment used to monitor and control water chemistry and radiological conditions in nuclear facilities.

About Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

SIA was founded in 1983 as an engineering and consulting firm dedicated to the analysis, control, and prevention of structural and mechanical failures. The company has a core focus on critical equipment and structures in power generation and utility infrastructure markets. It is known as a proven, innovative, and responsive resource. SIA relies on its technical expertise to solve challenges ranging from R&D to engineering, metallurgy, fabrication, and non-destructive examination (NDE).

About SI Solutions

SI Solutions delivers a range of services to critical infrastructure owners and operators worldwide. Backed by MidOcean Partners, the company employs 600 professionals across 14 offices globally. SIS’s technical capabilities span specialized engineering, instrumentation, electrical design and construction, controls engineering, and advanced non-destructive examination.

Media Contact
Erin Shanley
Director, Marketing
SI Solutions
[email protected]
704-977-1342

www.sisolutions.com
LinkedIn @SI Solutions, LLC

www.structint.com
LinkedIn @Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

www.radiologicalsolutions.com
LinkedIn @Radiological Solutions, Inc.

www.midoceanpartners.com
LinkedIn @MidOcean Partners

The post SI Solutions, LLC Acquires Radiological Solutions, Inc., Adds to Nuclear Energy Capabilities appeared first on Structural Integrity Associates.

Structural Integrity Associates (SIA) is pleased to announce two leadership appointments that further strengthen our growing leadership team and enhance the integrated engineering services we deliver to clients across critical industries.

Matt Freeman has been appointed Vice President, Engineering Services Business Development. In this role, Matt will help strengthen how SIA’s engineering expertise is delivered across energy and infrastructure markets, enabling clients to better engage with the firm’s integrated technical capabilities. Working closely with the engineering leadership and delivery teams, he will focus on aligning advanced analysis, innovation, and life-management solutions with the evolving needs of owners, operators, and OEM partners. By providing greater clarity around the depth and connectivity of SIA’s Engineering Services, Matt’s role supports the company’s commitment to technically rigorous, forward-looking engineering, lab, and inspection solutions.

In parallel, Steve Gressler has returned to the role of Vice President, Energy Services, where he will provide executive leadership for the continued advancement of SIA’s engineering services. In this role, Steve will lead innovation and targeted research and development efforts to deliver next-generation engineering services for both power generation and industrial clients.

With more than 30 years of experience supporting energy markets, Steve brings deep technical authority and institutional knowledge to the development of methodologies and tools used across the Energy Services Group. His leadership will support the continued integration of advanced analysis, materials expertise, and damage assessment technologies to address emerging challenges associated with aging infrastructure, evolving operating conditions, and the long-term safety and reliability of critical systems and components.

At SIA, we recognize that strong leadership and integrated expertise are essential to delivering meaningful, long-term value for our clients.

Learn more about our advanced engineering services: www.structint.com/advanced-engineering

The post Driving Engineering Excellence Across SIA’s Markets  appeared first on Structural Integrity Associates.

Structural Integrity Associates (SIA) is pleased to announce two leadership promotions that strengthen our engineering organization and enhance the integrated services we deliver to clients across critical industries. 

Over the past five years, Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Michael Battaglia has been instrumental in growing SIA’s Nuclear business during a period of unprecedented industry expansion. His experience and leadership have helped our clients address complex challenges related to asset life extension, safety, and operational performance. 

We are excited to announce Michael’s promotion to Senior Vice President, Engineering Services. In this newly formed role, he will oversee SIA’s engineering organization, driving operational efficiency, expanding engineering capabilities, and increasing collaboration across our businesses—including nuclear, critical infrastructure, energy, and pipeline integrity compliance. Michael will continue to serve as SIA’s Chief Nuclear Officer, ensuring continuity and sustained focus on nuclear services. 

In conjunction with this transition, SIA is proud to promote Erica Libra-Sharkey to the position of Vice President, Nuclear. Erica brings more than 20 years of nuclear industry experience and has held several key leadership roles at SIA. For the past several years, Erica has served as Mr. Battaglia’s top operational executive in Nuclear, where she has been instrumental in the success of the business unit, guiding strategy, execution, and growth. A recognized industry leader, Erica is a Project Management Professional (PMP®) and an American Nuclear Society “40 Under 40” honoree. She has successfully led large, complex initiatives—including the implementation of Continuous Noble Metal Injection (CNMI), a first-of-its-kind technology demonstration for the industry. 

Erica’s previous roles at SIA include Director of Nuclear Analytical Engineering Services and Executive Director of Operational & Analytical Engineering Services. Her technical expertise, strong client relationships, and proven leadership will support continued growth and innovation across SIA’s Nuclear organization. 

Please join us in congratulating Michael and Erica as they continue to strengthen SIA’s capabilities and deliver exceptional value to our clients. 

Learn more about the businesses and services we provide: Industries We Serve – SIA 

The post Driving Engineering Excellence Across SIA’s Markets appeared first on Structural Integrity Associates.

The post In-Line Inspection (ILI) Assessment Program appeared first on Structural Integrity Associates.

The post Steam Turbine Alstom Retrofit ND48 & ND56 LP  appeared first on Structural Integrity Associates.

The post Ultrasonic Examinations In Lieu of Radiography (UT ILO RT) appeared first on Structural Integrity Associates.

High Energy Piping (HEP) programs help ensure safe and reliable operation of piping operating at elevated temperature and pressure at power and process facilities by identifying and inspecting critical locations and evaluating fitness for service. Seamless integration between Nondestructive Examinations (NDE) and engineering helps optimize inspection targets, minimize surprises, and accelerate serviceability evaluations. This maximizes value for owners/operators, enabling confident asset management and avoiding unnecessary downtime.

High Energy Piping (HEP) programs, also known as Covered Piping System (CPS) programs, are implemented to help ensure the safe and reliable operations of these critical systems at power and processing facilities.  Effective programs rely on multiple technical disciplines, including the understanding of damage mechanisms, nondestructive examination, and engineering analysis.  Critical locations are identified through a combination of operating experience, prediction of high stress locations through analytical assessments, and risk-based engineering.  These locations are then examined using various NDE methods depending on the applicable damage mechanisms for the component and operating conditions. The results are then analyzed to determine their impact on both short- and long-term serviceability.  The findings inform key decisions regarding continued operation, repair strategies, component replacement, and reinspection planning, following widely accepted industry practices aligned with ASME B31.1 and API 579.

This article, the first in a two-part series on optimizing HEP program value through engineering and inspection, focuses on how seamless integration of NDE and engineering drives effective decision-making. Part 2 will explore emerging technologies such as online monitoring, digital twins, and machine learning.

Program Development

Effective HEP programs feature collaboration between engineering and NDE experts from the outset. Without this integration, inspections may miss critical damage, waste resources, or create unnecessary downtime. A well-designed program ensures that each inspection is strategically targeted and uses the appropriate methods to detect damage before it becomes a problem.

Alignment from the Start

A major step in HEP program development is defining inspection protocols—a process that hinges on accurate engineering insights. Engineering experts assess the design, material properties, operating history, consequence of failure, and stress conditions to evaluate potential damage mechanisms. This engineering assessment informs where and when service-related damage is likely to occur. NDE specialists then select the most effective inspection techniques for detecting the expected damage. Because no single method can fully characterize all potential issues, the right combination of techniques must be used:

• Surface methods like Wet Fluorescent Magnetic Particle (WFMT) or Liquid Penetrant (LP) for crack detection.
• Advanced ultrasonic techniques such as Linear Phased Array (LPA) or Time-of-Flight Diffraction (TOFD), and Focused Annular Phased Array (APA) to detect subsurface damage.

By working together early in program development, engineers and NDE specialists ensure that inspections are both targeted and efficient—focusing on high-risk areas while minimizing unnecessary examinations.

What Can Go Wrong WHEN MISALIGNED?

When engineering and NDE are not fully aligned during program development, it can lead to:

Missed Damage Due to Incorrect NDE Techniques/Instructions

• If engineering input is incorrect or missing, inspections may focus on the wrong damage mechanisms, leading to undetected flaws that could worsen over time.
• Example: For instance, a recent industry-wide issue has been found in Tee fittings that are insufficiently reinforced to handle long-term pressure stress and have failued in the crotch areas. Without an understanding of the damage mechanism including locations in which it manifests, a technician would typically only inspect the associated girth welds rather than doing a complete evaluation of the tee crotch area including the base metal to detect subsurface cracking between the girth welds.

Unnecessary Inspections That Waste Time and Resources

• A lack of engineering guidance can result in the inspection of locations which are less consequential or likely to fail. An optimized scope will provide the best value with respect to inspection budget leading to a safer operating environment.
• Example: SI has been involved with numerous cases where “random” inspection programs without the aid of stress analysis and subsequent life calculations were either not aggresive enough or not targeted to the locations with highest likelihood of failure. While welds throughout the systems were being inspected, they were not the welds with highest likelihood of failure or associated with known industry issues – as found through analysis after the incidents occured, unfortunately.

Field Inspections

Field inspections represent the hands-on element of HEP programs, ensuring that damage mechanisms are properly identified and evaluated. This process consists of four key phases—Detection, Quantification, Classification, and Documentation—each requiring engineering involvement to ensure accuracy and to make results actionable.

Detection

Detection is the foundation of any field inspection. Success depends on selecting the correct NDE technique, as informed by engineering expertise, and the technician’s expertise in flaw detection. For example, WFMT is ideal for surface-breaking flaws, while LPA excels at identifying subsurface or ID-connected cracks. Without proper alignment between engineering predictions and NDE execution, critical flaws may go undetected.

Quantification

Quantification ensures that flaw characteristics—such as location, size, and orientation—are precisely recorded. This information is critical for determining the severity of flaws and supporting accurate fitness-for-service (FFS) evaluations. Example characteristics include:

• Is the indication located on the OD, ID, or mid-wall (subsurface)?
• Is the indication located in the base metal, heat-affected zone, or weld metal?
• What is the profile of the indication (axial or circumferential length, through-wall extent, etc.)

Even minor quantification errors can lead to unnecessary repairs or missed critical damage. Engineering oversight helps ensure precision and reduces the risk of overestimating or underestimating flaw severity.

Classification

Flaw classification is the most complex phase of field inspections, requiring advanced NDE knowledge, engineering expertise, and in many cases, a metallurgical assessment of a core or boat sample. The goal is to determine whether an indication is fabrication related (e.g., slag, lack of fusion, etc.) or service-related  (e.g., creep, fatigue, etc.). This distinction is absolutely critical – two flaws of the same size can have vastly different consequences depending on their origin.

To refine classification, additional or augmented methods may be used to confirm findings. For example:

• Surface replication allows metallurgical analysis of a microstructure at the tip of a crack if it is at the outer surface, confirming whether the damage is creep-related or due to another mechanism.
• In cases where flaws are evaluated over time with two or more inspections, ultrasonic testing is used to quantify subsurface flaws, helping to determine whether a crack is propagating and at what rate.
• In cases of subsurface flaws, metallurgical assessment of a core or boat sample is often required to definitively classify a flaw origin.

Accurate classification of complex flaws requires an understanding of many factors, including probe selection, technique limitations, data processing/imaging, metallurgy, and damage morphology. Often this is best accomplished with the NDE technician and engineer sitting side-by-side.

Once a flaw is confirmed as service-related, engineering unput is often required to ascribe the specific degradation mechanism. For example, creep damage occurs due to long-term exposure to high-temperature stress, whereas fatigue cracking results from cyclic loading (e.g., starts/stops). While both indications may appear similar, their progression rates and repair priorities differ significantly.

Documentation

Documentation is the final phase—and possibly the most critical. Clear, high-quality records ensure that inspection findings are properly communicated to guide future reinspection intervals and be used to adjust program assumptions as necessary. Poor documentation can lead to lost historical data, making it difficult to track flaw progression over time. Engineering involvement helps ensure that reports capture not only inspection results but also actionable recommendations for repair, continued operation with reinspection, or further evaluation.

What Can Go Wrong IN THE INSPECTION PROCESS?

There are several critical steps to the inspection process. Mishaps in any one of the steps can lead to serious consequences.

Missed Flaws Due to Inconsistent NDE Execution

• If NDE instructions are vague, misinterpreted, or poorly executed, critical flaws may go undetected.

Inaccurate Flaw Size Leading to Incorrect Engineering Assessments

• Poor quantification can lead to dangerously unconservative Fitness-for-Service determinations or overly-conservative and expensive repairs/replacements.

Incorrect Classification Misses Critical Service-Related Damage or Causes Unnecessary Repairs

• Misidentifying a service-related as fabrication-related dlaw can lead to unmonitored damage progression and failure.

Poor Documentation Leads to Loss of Inspection History

• Lack of detailed records makes it difficult to track flaw growth over time, leading to incorrect reinspection intervals or misjudged repair priorities.

Engineering Serviceability Assessments

When inspections identify flaws, degradation, or unexpected damage, the next step is to determine whether the affected component can continue operating safely or requires repair or replacement. This evaluation is driven by engineering serviceability assessments, where advanced analysis techniques are used to quantify risk, predict failure potential, and guide operational decision-making.

Fitness-for-service (FFS) evaluations, performed in accordance with API 579 / ASME FFS-1, play a critical role in this process. These assessments involve:

• Stress analysis: evaluating operating stresses, thermal gradients, and residual stress effects.
• Fracture mechanics: determining whether detected cracks are stable or at risk of propagation, and at what rate.
• Creep life assessments: predicting localized degradation in materials exposed to high temperatures.
• Metallurgical analysis: confirming damage mechanisms and material embrittlement.

Many of these assessments require detailed finite element analysis (FEA) to model stress distributions and crack growth across a range of operating conditions. SI engineers specialize in developing detailed models that accurately characterize field conditions and provide precise inputs to remaining life calculations. Their practical experience with field configurations and inspection methodologies helps streamline analyses, enabling faster development of actionable conclusions for plant operators.

Continuous Program Optimization

A well-designed HEP program is not static—it must evolve based on inspection findings, operational conditions, and emerging degradation trends. Continuous collaboration between engineering and NDE teams ensures that inspection strategies remain data-driven, risk-informed, and aligned with long-term reliability goals.

Inspection results and engineering assessments must feed back into the HEP program to refine reinspection intervals, update risk models, and optimize NDE methodologies. Without a structured approach to cataloging and analyzing inspection data, valuable insights can be lost—leading to inefficient inspections or missed opportunities for proactive maintenance. SI’s PlantTrack software provides a centralized platform for storing, visualizing, and analyzing HEP inspection data—ensuring that past findings directly inform future asset management decisions. By leveraging PlantTrack, operator staff and SI’s engineering and NDE teams can maintain seamless integration for optimized HEP asset management.

Advancements in predictive analytics and real-time monitoring are set to fundamentally transform HEP program management, shifting from a reactive approach to a truly predictive asset management strategy. As these technologies continue to evolve, their integration with traditional inspection and engineering methodologies will be key to maximizing plant reliability and extending the life of critical piping systems. In the forthcoming Part-2 of this article, we will explore SI’s latest advancements in these areas, including digital twins, machine learning applications, and online condition monitoring.

Bringing It All Together: A Real-Word Example of Integrated HEP Program Success

When a 1,300 MW conventional boiler plant discovered a small failure in a longitudinal seam weld on its Reheat Steam line, the operator was concerned about the potential for more widespread damage. SI was engaged to perform a comprehensive inspection and engineering assessment to evaluate system integrity and prevent future failures.

The initial directive from the operator was to inspect 2/3 of the existing system.  SI’s engineering and NDE teams collaborated to develop a risk-based inspection plan, prioritizing high-risk locations to maximize impact. This risk-informed strategy was intended to maximize efficiency while ensuring no critical damage was overlooked. The resulting original work scope included:

• 1,069 feet of longitudinal seam welds.
• 115 girth welds.

SI deployed a multidisciplinary team, ensuring real-time collaboration between engineers and NDE specialists. The onsite inspections included:

• WFMT on all girth welds, longitudinal seam welds, and attachments, for detection of surface flaws.
• Fully encoded LPA UT (girth welds) and TOFD and Focused APA (seam welds) for detection of subsurface flaws.
• Metallurgical replications to confirm damage mechanisms.
• Dimensional measurements and laser profilometry for accurate component characterization.

The initial inspection findings included:

• Cracking in five additional seam welds.
• Welds fabricated with improper materials.

Based on these findings, SI recommended expanding the inspection scope and making real-time adjustments to the plan. As a result, the final inspection tally included:

• 1,375 feet of longitudinal seam welds (191 total).
• 160 girth welds.
• 15 saddle welds and 157 attachment welds.

The entire field inspection effort was completed in less than one month. In parallel, SI’s engineering team provided real-time fitness-for-service (FFS) evaluations, ensuring inspection data directly informed run-repair-replace-reinspect decisions. Destructive testing on extracted weld samples further validated material conditions and long-term risks.

The results of the effort provided the operator with a roadmap for future inspections, ensuring:

• Optimized reinspection intervals based on actual degradation rates.
• Risk-based monitoring and maintenance strategies to prevent future failures while aligning with operational goals.

By aligning engineering expertise with advanced NDE methodologies, the plant operator identified and resolved immediate safety concerns while implementing a proactive approach to future HEP asset management.

DOWNLOAD FULL ISSUE

The post Managing High Energy Piping: The Fundamental Approach, Integrating NDE and Engineering (Part-1) appeared first on Structural Integrity Associates.

SIIQ Online Monitoring – Solutions to Transform Your Operations

SIIQ is part of the next-generation approach for managing assets through online monitoring and diagnostic (M&D) systems. Advancements in sensor technology, signal transmission (both wired and wireless), data storage, and computing power enable the increasingly cost-efficient collection and analysis of ‘Big Data.’ 

Our SIIQ program is a turnkey online monitoring solution that can help transform your operations with access to real-time data, condition assessments, and operating trends. The consultants at SI are here to help you safely and intelligently reduce O&M costs, reduce outage duration, and maximize component life. 

This Webinar will cover several topics, including:

• Summary of industry issues that can be managed using monitoring 
  • Piping downstream of attemperator and control valves 
  • Collect temperature data at locations of known defects to optimize Fitness for Service Analysis
  • Monitor areas of known or suspected wall thinning 
• Overview of the SIIQ technology 
• Cost benefit: Cost efficiency versus repeated inspections 
• Case studies 

Access Your Free Webinar

The post SIIQ Online Monitoring – Solutions to Transform Your Operations appeared first on Structural Integrity Associates.

SI was engaged to design, install, and commission a site-wide impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) system for the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station (PTN) to meet the site’s ongoing subsequent license renewal (SLR) commitments. Prior to its SLR application, PTN did not have a cathodic protection (CP) system for buried piping; designing and installing an all-new ICCP system at this legacy facility posed unique challenges and required more support than a typical refurbishment project. This article summarizes the site-specific requirements, challenges and adjustments made by SI as part of our project methodology, which resulted in the first large-scale CP implementation for a nuclear site pursuing SLR.

Cathodic protection is an electrochemical technique used to prevent corrosion in buried or submerged metal structures [1], such as pipelines and storage tanks. It works by applying an electrical current to shift the metal’s potential (voltage) relative to its soil environment, effectively halting corrosion. While CP is widely used, its application in dense station environments (such as nuclear power plants) is complicated by the network of interconnected metallic systems, grounding grids, and safety-related piping. These factors create electrical discontinuities and interfere with current distribution, requiring a tailored, iterative approach to ensure effective protection.

Regulatory Basis for CP in Nuclear Plants

Guidelines for applying CP for the protection of buried piping in nuclear plants are outlined in the NRC’s GALL-SLR report [2], specifically within Aging Management Program (AMP) XI.M41. This program defines preventive measures to mitigate external corrosion and establishes criteria for evaluating CP system effectiveness. The primary criterion requires achieving a polarized potential of -850 mV relative to a copper/copper sulfate electrode (CSE), measured using an “instant-off” technique to eliminate IR drop error [3].

While the -850 mV threshold is widely used, it can be impractical in complex plant environments due to factors such as high soil resistivity and extensive buried infrastructure. The GALL-SLR allows for alternative criteria – such as demonstrating at least 100 mV of CP polarization – provided the program incorporates additional verification methods for the most corrosion-susceptible piping materials (see Figure 1). Corrosion rate monitoring (CRM) is one such method, providing direct, real-time data on material loss trends to validate CP effectiveness.

For existing sites implementing large-scale CP systems for the first time, the GALL-SLR acknowledges that achieving full compliance may require iterative design modifications and use of multiple criteria. Regardless of approach, plants must demonstrate that the system provides effective protection over time, either by meeting voltage-based criteria during periodic surveys or by confirming that corrosion rates remain within acceptable limits (e.g., via CRM). Presence of effective CP reduces the number of direct inspections, minimizing the effect to ensure aging is managed within the AMP’s regulatory framework.

Turkey Point Project Overview

In March 2021, SI was engaged by NextEra Energy (NEE) to design, install, and commission a site-wide ICCP system at the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station (PTN) to meet the commitments in NEE’s SLR application. PTN was the first U.S. nuclear plant to be granted an SLR license, extending its operating life to 80 years. However, prior to this project, the site lacked a CP system for buried piping, making the design and implementation of an entirely new system a significant undertaking.

The primary objective was to provide effective CP for two key buried piping systems—Fire Protection (FPS) and Intake Cooling Water (ICW)—in accordance with AMP XI.M41 requirements. However, this project posed several unique challenges, such as:

• Electrical discontinuities in the non-welded FPS piping and between buried pipe and above-ground appurtenances.
• A complex, congested network of buried metallic systems and grounding infrastructure.
• Limited access to critical piping sections, particularly for the ICW system.
• An aggressive project schedule, driven by SLR commitments.
• Rigid AMP commitments, employing the most-conservative criterion (-850 mV) without consideration of site-specific requirements.
• Geological constraints, which increased the difficulty of drilling and precluded the use of deep anode groundbeds.

To address these challenges, SI and its CP subcontractor, Bass Engineering, took an iterative approach to system design, installation, and commissioning. This process required multiple design refinements and targeted adjustments to achieve compliance with CP effectiveness criteria while navigating site-specific constraints. The following sections outline the overall CP implementation process and examine key challenges encountered at PTN, along with the solutions developed to address them.

General CP Implementation Process

SI follows a structured process for large-scale CP projects, enabling adaptation to site-specific challenges while minimizing uncertainty and maintaining schedule adherence. These phases are outlined below.

Project-Specific Challenges and Optimization

The design and installation of an ICCP system at PTN presented multiple challenges due to tight project timelines, complex site infrastructure, and unique environmental conditions. SI employed the process shown below to achieve a successful implementation, through an iterative approach that allowed for refinement throughout the design, implementation, testing, and acceptance stages.

Project Timeline and Execution Constraints

The PTN CP implementation was constrained by a strict 18-month timeline, driven by commitments made to the NRC during the Subsequent License Renewal Application (SLRA). The project schedule was particularly demanding because Turkey Point had never previously installed a CP system for its buried piping. Unlike a CP refurbishment—where existing system data can be leveraged—this required a full site assessment, design, installation, and commissioning from scratch.

To stay on schedule, SI and its partners had to prioritize design-phase activities, focusing early efforts on:

• Assessing electrical continuity in the fire protection system (FPS), which was suspected to have discontinuities.
• Planning logistics for deep anode and shallow distributed groundbeds, given space and geological constraints.
• Collecting buried piping data for modeling and system layout.

Initial Assessment and Planning
Site evaluation, environmental considerations, and corrosion risk analysis to establish project scope and key design inputs. Determination of structure or structures to be protected.

Engineering Design and Equipment Specification
Iterative phase includes initial current requirement calculations and determination of system type / configuration (e.g., galvanic vs. ICCP, distributed vs. remote). Development of system layout, selection of materials and components (e.g., anodes, rectifiers, cables, bonding locations), and approximation of current distribution. May also include evaluation of cost and feasibility.

Field Implementation
Installation of CP system infrastructure, including anode groundbeds, power feeds, connections to target structures, and CP test equipment (i.e., test stations).

Initial Testing and Evaluation
System energization, validation of electrical continuity or isolation, baseline testing, and rough balancing based on field data.

System Optimization
Refinement of system parameters and final balancing of rectifier outputs to achieve maximum performance. If initial testing identifies performance gaps, additional modifications may be required (e.g., isolation bonding, additional groundbeds, etc.).

Ongoing Maintenance and Updates
Routine system monitoring, annual CP surveys, and any program-specific testing to confirm continued effectiveness. Adjustments and corrective actions are implemented as needed.

Despite efforts to streamline the process, some design phases were compressed compared to typical CP projects. This meant that certain design inputs—such as soil resistivity and total buried surface area—were estimated rather than measured directly. These unknowns contributed to gaps in the initial design, requiring later modifications to meet system performance requirements.

Even with these challenges, SI and its partners successfully delivered the first large-scale ICCP system for an SLR-licensed plant on time. However, the accelerated timeline meant that some early assumptions had to be revisited during implementation, leading to iterative system refinements.

Complexity of Existing Infrastructure

A significant challenge in implementing CP at PTN was the highly congested underground environment. The plant’s buried infrastructure included a mix of metallic systems, grounding grids, and safety-related piping, many of which were electrically interconnected in unpredictable ways.

A critical issue was the electrical discontinuity within the FPS piping system, which used non-welded, mechanically joined ductile iron piping. These joints do not always provide reliable electrical continuity, resulting in sections of piping that were unintentionally isolated from CP protection. This posed a risk of stray current corrosion, where unprotected pipe segments could experience accelerated metal loss instead of protection.

Further complicating the design, the station’s grounding grid was assumed to be continuous across the site. However, post-installation testing revealed that grounding connections varied significantly, leading to unexpected current distribution issues. This misalignment required additional continuity bonding and negative rectifier connections to improve current return paths and prevent stray current interference.

Additionally, gaps in design input—such as undocumented fire protection piping—led to errors in estimating total CP current demand. The system was initially undersized, requiring supplemental anodes and rectifier output adjustments to compensate.

Site-Specific Installation Challenge

Beyond electrical complexities, the physical installation of the ICCP system was complicated by Turkey Point’s geology. The original CP design included deep anode groundbeds, but porous limestone formations created drilling difficulties that exceeded expectations.

During installation, drill crews encountered subsurface voids, which resulted in:

• Frequent drilling fluid loss, making borehole stabilization difficult.
• Equipment failures, increasing installation delays and costs.
• Higher-than-anticipated resistivity variations, affecting CP current distribution.

To mitigate these risks, SI and its partners modified the deep groundbed design, reducing borehole depth from 300 ft to 150 ft while increasing the number of anodes per groundbed. This adjustment maintained CP coverage while improving constructability.

Another major challenge was physical space limitations. The plant’s discharge side had minimal room for CP infrastructure, requiring customized rectifier placement and cable routing. In some cases, anode locations had to be shifted or replaced with alternative CP methods to accommodate space constraints.

CP System Performance and Optimization

One of the most significant project challenges was meeting the rigid acceptance criteria defined in PTN’s SLRA commitments. While the GALL permits flexibility in CP effectiveness criteria – including a 100 mV polarization shift alternative – PTN initially committed to the most conservative threshold, requiring -850 mV polarized potential at all monitored test locations.

During initial commissioning, early test results revealed that meeting this standard was not technically feasible due to:

• Higher-than-expected soil resistivity, which limited CP current flow.
• Greater-than-estimated buried metallic surface area, significantly increasing CP output demand.
• Electrical discontinuities and grounding grid separation, disrupting uniform current distribution.

To address these issues, SI and its partners implemented an iterative optimization strategy, including:

• Installing additional dedicated test stations with corrosion rate monitoring (CRM) hardware to directly measure local corrosion rates.
• Rebalancing rectifier outputs to improve current distribution.
• Installing additional continuity bonds to mitigate electrical discontinuities.
• Adding three supplemental deep anode groundbeds, increasing overall CP current capacity.

Even with these modifications, it was clear that full compliance with the -850 mV criterion was neither practical nor necessary for effective corrosion prevention. SI and NEE initiated a licensing amendment process to adopt the 100 mV polarization shift criterion, while utilizing the CRM data as an independent verification method to confirm CP effectiveness.

The optimization process was executed in multiple phases, beginning in late-2022 and concluding in early-2024. Throughout implementation, progress toward the 100 mV criterion was verified through site-wide “annual” CP surveys, conducted at key milestones.  Figure 4 illustrates the survey results overlaid on a map of the plant and target piping systems, while Figure 5 shows the progression of system improvements at each step in the optimization process. Additionally, CRM data confirmed that actual corrosion rates were well within acceptable limits (less than 1 mil / year), further validating that the CP system provided adequate protection – even in areas where 100 mV polarization was not fully achieved.

Conclusion

The implementation of a full-scale ICCP system at PTN marked a significant milestone, both for the site and for the nuclear industry’s approach to management of aging piping under SLR. As the first U.S. nuclear plant granted an SLR license, PTN’s CP system had to be designed and implemented from the ground up, introducing challenges that ranged from electrical discontinuities and geological constraints to strict licensing commitments and a compressed project timeline.

Through an iterative approach, SI and its partners were able to navigate these challenges while refining system performance. Early assumptions—particularly regarding electrical continuity, system grounding, and total CP current demand—required ongoing adjustments, including design modifications, additional bonding, and increased CP capacity. By leveraging corrosion rate monitoring (CRM) as an alternative assessment method, the team successfully demonstrated that the system provided effective protection, even when compliance with the original -850 mV criterion was impractical.

The PTN project provides key lessons for CP implementation at other nuclear facilities, particularly for sites transitioning to long-term aging management strategies. These insights are summarized in the box below. As other plants implement SLR AMP strategies for long-term buried piping protection, the experiences gained at PTN will help guide more efficient, flexible, and technically sound CP implementation.

Key Takeaways

This project demonstrated that from-scratch, large-scale CP implementation in response to SLR-commitments requires flexibility and iteration.

• Regulatory commitments should be made with practical implementation in mind, considering alternative performance criteria where appropriate.
• Design assumptions must be verified early to avoid later rework.
• Geological constraints should be factored into deep groundbed feasibility before finalizing the design.
• Electrical continuity must be tested across all metallic systems to prevent isolation issues.

Through a structured yet adaptive approach, SI successfully delivered an effective ICCP system, balancing design compliance, site constraints, and long-term system maintainability.

References

1. Luciano, Lazzari and Pietro, Pedeferri. Cathodic Protection. Milan : Polipress, 2006.
2. NRC. NUREG-2191 Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL_SLR) Vol. II. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017.
3. SP0169 Control of External Corrosion on Underground or Submerged Metallic Piping Systems. Houston : NACE International, 2013.

DOWNLOAD FULL ISSUE

The post Cathodic Protection for SLR: Lessons Learned from System Implementation appeared first on Structural Integrity Associates.

In a nuclear power plant, the quality of water used in the primary and secondary processes is critical for safe and efficient operation. Resin selection plays a key role in maintaining water quality by removing ionic impurities and radioactive contaminants from cooling and wastewater systems to support corrosion control and minimize radiation fields while balancing O&M costs. Over time, resins become exhausted and must be replaced or regenerated, leading to waste generation, added costs, and potential operational inefficiencies. SI’s Operational Support Services (OSS) team specializes in resin optimization programs designed to maximize resin lifespan, improve water chemistry and filtration performance, as well as reduce waste. This article details SI’s industry-leading approach to resin optimization, with several case studies illustrating the measurable impact of these projects.

Background on Resin Usage

Figure 1. Scanning Electron Microscope images of cation and anion resin beads

Resin typically consists of polymer beads that exchange undesirable ions with more desirable ones, helping to prevent or minimize corrosion and minimize radiation exposure. However, these benefits come at a cost, as both the initial purchase and subsequent disposal of resin is a significant O&M expense. Spent resin is typically classified by radioactivity levels, Class A, Class B, or Class C, and disposal costs range greatly. In addition to cost savings realized from optimizing resin configurations and purchasing, annualized disposal cost savings from reduced radioactive waste disposal support a thorough evaluation of resin programs at nuclear power plants.

While the fundamental purpose of resin is the same across nuclear plants, its application differs between pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs):

Resin Optimization Approach

Resin optimization is a data-driven process that balances cost savings, chemistry control, and operational reliability. Many nuclear sites use more resin than necessary, leading to higher procurement and disposal costs without additional benefit. Our team works closely with sites to analyze resin performance, historical loading trends, and chemistry requirements to determine whether adjustments can be made without adversely impacting plant operations.

Key steps in the optimization process include:

• Assessing Current Resin Usage: Reviewing baseline chemistry and operational conditions to identify potential inefficiencies.
• Evaluating Licensing and Regulatory Considerations: Ensuring that any reductions in resin usage comply with site licensing requirements (e.g., UFSAR assumptions on failed fuel scenarios).
• Adjusting Resin Loading: Identifying opportunities to reduce resin volume while maintaining or improving performance.
• Optimizing Resin Composition: Adjusting cation-to-anion resin ratios or resin type to better match site-specific chemistry.
• Mitigating High-Temperature Degradation: Recommending resin formulations that can better withstand elevated condensate temperatures, which has become increasingly relevant for a number of nuclear sites.
• Implementation Planning: Developing a phased approach to gradually introduce changes, ensuring seamless integration into site operations.

Example #1: Detailed Fleet Resin Assessment

The SI team conducted a comprehensive resin optimization analysis for a nuclear utility fleet, which consists of both PWR and BWR reactor types. For each site, the current resin strategy was reviewed for opportunities to reduce purchase and disposal costs while maintaining performance and regulatory compliance (UFSAR requirements). Key findings from the study are summarized as follows:

• At one of the PWR locations, there was no opportunity to reduce resin volume, but the team identified an opportunity to implement more cost-effective resins already in use elsewhere in the fleet. In addition, optimized cation to anion resin ratios were recommended to improve bed longevity. These actions resulted in annual savings of more than $60,000.
• At a BWR location, the team confirmed that the existing resin strategy is effective. An alternative resin was recommended to improve chemistry performance, though it did not offer direct cost savings. However, several potential equipment upgrades were identified which would have measurable cost savings if implemented.
• At a separate PWR location, the team identified an opportunity for resin volume reductions (20 cubic feet per fuel cycle) in addition to other optimizations. This led to significant savings in both purchase and disposal costs, totaling almost $160,000 per year.

Overall, the resin optimization project for the nuclear utility fleet was very successful, identifying potential performance enhancements and netting the utility more than $220,000 in annual savings.

This structured approach has helped multiple nuclear fleets reduce resin procurement and disposal costs by hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per cycle, while maintaining chemistry control and reactor efficiency.

Example #2: Fleet-Wide Optimization Study

SI performed a similar study for a different nuclear utility fleet with a mix of BWR and PWR units. The study was highly quantitative, analyzing existing operational chemistry behavior of the historical resin programs being implemented at each site. Through this process, the team identified numerous opportunities to reduce resin usage while maintaining or improving performance. The study also provided an opportunity to benchmark the sites against best practices within the fleet and the industry at-large and identified instances where standardizing resin strategies (as appropriate) would result in improved operational performance at certain individual sites. In total, SI’s recommendations have the potential to save the fleet over $1M in operating costs annually. SI’s OSS team is actively supporting implementation of these recommendations at several additional sites.

Conclusion

Resin optimization is a proven strategy for nuclear plants seeking to improve chemistry control while reducing operational costs and radioactive waste. By taking a quantitative approach, SI has helped major utilities identify measurable improvements in resin usage, achieving millions of dollars in annual savings. With increasing industry focus on efficiency and waste reduction, proactive resin management will continue to be a key driver of operational excellence.

Figure 2. Layout of Condensate Filter/Demineralizer Beds at a BWR Plant

SIA has been servicing the nuclear power industry with specialized chemistry solutions throughout our decades of experience and operation. As we continue to grow and evolve, our Operational Support Services (OSS) group has expanded our service offerings into several new areas including, Radiation Management, Emergency Preparedness, and Environmental, while simultaneously advancing our Chemistry and Equipment support. Our experienced staff look forward to continuous advancements in nuclear and non-nuclear spaces to support our clients in all their needs.

DOWNLOAD FULL ISSUE

The post Nuclear Plant Resin Optimization appeared first on Structural Integrity Associates.