ML12061A009

University of Texas at Austin - Supplemental Information Relative to Proposed Safety Analysis Report, Appendix 15.4

ML12061A009
Person / Time
Site:	University of Texas at Austin
Issue date:	02/21/2012
From:	Whaley P University of Texas at Austin
To:	Lising A Division of Policy and Rulemaking
References
TAC ME7694
Download: ML12061A009 (24)

Text

Dcpartmcien ofX dchnic-aI En~inecrimg THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN

• 2 JP Nurcarb.ineoiV'g &"bIcingLAbourory -Austin, 7Txas 78758 A-

• 'Z,7* ~ 52-~ '2-5370" FAX5 t2-47!-4589" h~rp:!iwww~me.utexas .dtt/-n*tL/

ATTN: Document Control Desk, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Allan Jason Lising Project Manager Division of Policy and Rulemaking Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch February21, 2012

SUBJECT:

Docket No. 50-602, Supplemental Information Relative to Proposed Safety Analysis Report, Appendix 15.4, Facility Operating License R-129 (TAC ME 7694)

REFERENCE:

(1) ML110040316 (2) Letter, 12/12/2011 Docket No. 50-602, Requestfor Renewal of Facility Operating License R-129 Sir:

In accordance with USNRC direction (ADAMS ML110040316), a request for renewal of Facility Operating License R-129 (Docket 50-602) was submitted on 12/12/2011. In review of Chapter 15 (Financial Qualifications), substantial potential improvements to Appendix 15.4 (Decommissioning Cost estimate) were identified. We are requesting that the previously submitted version of Appendix 15.4 (and the SAR Table of Contents) be removed, and replaced with the attached.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 512 232 537 or whalev@mail.utexas.edu.

Your a ntion, n this matter greatly appreciated, P. M. Whaley, Assoc*. Director Nuclear Engineerin eaching Laboratory University of Texa at Austin 10100 Burnet Road, Bldg 159 Austin, Texas (78613)

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Steven Biegalski ATT

1. Appendix 14.4 DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE

1. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA II RESEARCH REACTOR, SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, Table of Contents (02/2012)

A If4..

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA II NUCLEAR RESEARCH REACTOR 0

, %if 02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, APPENDIX 15.4 DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE NUREG/CR-1576 Addendum (Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning Reference Nuclear research and Test Reactors) analyzes data from decommissioning 5 research and test reactors including the 0.1 W university reactor (OSU/AGN-201), a 0.01 MW university facility (NCSUR-3), a 0.2 MW (1 MW forced flow) commercial facility (B&W, LPR), a 250 kW Army facility (DORF), and a 5 MW heavy water moderated DOE facility (ALRR). NUREG/CR-1576 is the reference document for estimating the UT TRIGA II decommissioning costs. Calculation of decommissioning costs is recommended in the reference document as:

C,981,adju.;,ed = (X)- {(L). (L,) + (R) * (R) + (0)* (Oa)}

Where:

C1981,adjusted is the current value based on the 19981 values Xis the total reference decommissioning cost L is the labor cost as a fraction of total decommissioning costs La is the adjustment of labor costs from 1981 values R is the radwaste burial costs as a fraction of the total decommissioning costs Ra is the adjustment to account for changes between 1981 and the current year 0 is the factor of all other costs as a fraction of the total decommissioning costs 0

, is the adjustment to account for changes between 1981 and the current year TOTAL COST Total costs for decommissioning each facility from the reference document are reported in Table 15.1.

At 1.1 MW, LPR, DORF and ALRR are the best candidates for comparison. However, the ALRR installation was significantly more complex than the UT TRIGA, and would not be expected to have comparable decommissioning labor demands. The cost for decommissioning the UT reactor is therefore expected to be biased more towards the LPR and DORF; DORF decommissioning cost is used as conservative reference basis for total costs.

Table 15.1, Summary of NUREG/CR-1576 Values FAC LITY POWER OWNER BASE COST YEAR ($1000)

OSU/AGN-2011[ 1" 0.1 W Oregon State University 1980 10 NCSUR 10 kW NC State University -- 33/part LPR 200 kW/1 MW Babcock & Wilcox 1982 86 DORF 250 kW A.S. Army 1980 336 ALRR 5 MW Department of Energy 1981 4,292 Page 15.4-1

APPENDIX 15.4, DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE 02/2012 COST FRACTIONS Individual component costs as a fraction of total cost (labor, radwaste burial, and all other) for each of the research reactors from the reference document are provided in Table 15.2.:

Table 15.1, Summary of NUREG/CR-1576 Fractional Values FACILITY POWER LABOR RADWASTE OTHER OSU/AGN-2011[11 0.1 W 64.0% 1.0% 35.0%

NCSUR 10 kW 28.0% 9.4% 62.6%

LPR 200 kW/1 MW 46.5% 7.0% 46.5%

DORF 250 kW 43.0% 1.6% 55.4%

ALRR 5 MW 42.0% 3.9% 54.0%

The average cost of labor for all the reactors in the reference document is 44.72% of the total cost. There are two outliers in the data, 64% for a very low power reactor (where the remainder of the costs were disproportionally low), and a university reactor that minimized labor costs with student labor. With these outliers removed, the average value is 43.9% with a deviation of 1.9% from the aggregate average indicating the average value is likely to be representative of the 1.1 MW UT TRIGA.

The cost of waste disposal ranges from 1% to 9.4% because of variations in the volume of waste for the cases examined. The volume of waste ranges from 1157 m 3 for the largest facility to a negligible quantity for the smallest. The average cost fraction for waste disposal across all cases is 4.6%, 4.2% if the outliers are excluded. Costs for the two highest power level facilities have fractions significantly different, 3.9% for the 5 MW facility and 1.6% for the 250 kW facility, suggesting the average may not be as representative of the 1.1 MW UT TRIGA. The 4.2% value is used as a conservative estimate for the UT reactor.

The average of the unspecified ("other") cost for all the reactors in the reference document is 50.7% of the total cost. The influence of outlier data adds some bias, but the average excluding the outliers is 52.0% (a deviation of about 2% from the aggregate), indicating the average value is likely to represent a similar fraction of costs for the 1.1 MW UT TRIGA.

The three individual fractions are normalized for 100% distribution of costs resulting in a labor fraction of 44.9%, radwaste disposal fraction of 4.2%, and non-specified "Other" fraction of 50.9%.

COST ESCALATION NURE/CR-1576 directs the use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to escalate labor costs. The Bureau of Labor and Statistics CPI calculator (http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation calculator.htm) indicates cost escalation from inflation between 1981 and 2012 is 2.49.

Page 15.4-2

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA II NUCLEAR RESEARCH REACTOR *0 *'R 02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, APPENDIX 15.4 Escalation values for disposal of radioactive waste are provided in NUREG-1307, Table 2.1. In the 2010 version, "Direct Disposal" value for "Generic LLW Disposal Site" is 27.292 for PWR and 24.356 for BWR power plants (compared to a 1986 reference year). Generic disposal site data is only available for 2008 and 2010, but is identical to the "Atlantic Compact - Direct Disposal" data. The 2010 NUREG-1307 provides data for the Atlantic Compact over the interval from 2010 to 2000, with previous versions (available on the US NRC Agency-wide Document Management System) providing data back to 1995.

Atlantic Compact data is therefore used as a proxy for generic LLW waste disposal sites in this analysis.

NUREG-1713, StandardReview Plan for Decommissioning Cost Estimatesfor Nuclear Power Reactors, provides similar guidance for cost escalation except that "Energy Cost" replaces the "Other" category in NUREG/CR-1576. Therefore, the cost escalation factor from the NUREG-1713 methodology will be applied to the "Other" category in NUREG/CR-1576. The NUREG-1713 escalates costs factors for (1) light fuel oil and (2) industrial electric power weighted by 42% and 58% respectively, with the values taken from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics data, Producer Price Indexes (PPI) and Percent Changes for Commodity Groupings and Individual Items. The 2010 escalation for light fuel oil is 3.084, and for industrial electric power 2.043, compared to a reference year of 1982.

PROJECTIONS To simplify calculations of future/predicted cost escalation, each escalation factor (Labor, Radwaste disposal and "Other" - considering fuel oil and electricity separately) is modeled with fixed rates of increase compounded continuously over time:

A(t) =P.e Where

• P is the initial cost

• A(t) is the cost after an interval

• r is the average rate of increase

• t is the time interval The average rate of increase for each term is therefore calculated:

LP t Calculated escalation rate factors related to each category are reported in Table 15.3. The calculated radwaste escalation rate is very high, and projections based on this rate challenge the model assumption that a single rate can adequately represent escalation of radwaste costs. In fact, structural changes in the radwaste industry have led to major cost instabilities over a period of years. The proxy Page 15.4-3

APPENDIX 15.4, DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE I 02/2012 data suggests that the cost escalation for radwaste has somewhat stabilized over the last decade, although the escalation factor rate appears to be decreasing slightly as of about 2002 (Fig. 15.4-1).

Table 15.3, Escalation Costs escalation start yr end yr Rate CPI 2.49 1981 2012 0.029428 RADWASTE 27.292 1986 2010 0.137775 FUEL OIL 3.084 1982 2012 0.037541 ELECTRICITY 2.043 1982 2012 0.023814 Because of the cost structure instability, a series of average escalation rates was calculated using intervals from the year of the individual cost escalation value to 2010. The high value for all intervals 0.0560, the low value 0.0393, and the average was 0.0472 (with a standard deviation of 12.3%).

Because of the wide range between the high and low values, an additional fit to an exponential function was performed for all the proxy data (using Excel, Fig. 15.4-1). The time dependent component for PWRs is 0.0488 and for BWRs is 0.054. Although the R2 fit coefficients are only 0.9607 and 0.939 for the PWR and BWR radwaste disposal escalation, the values are consistent with the previous approach. Since the radwaste escalation factor has the highest rate of increase and a large uncertainty, projections will use a 0.054 rate factor applied to the 2010 escalation value for all times after 2010.

Cost Escalation Factors (NUREG 1307)

-.- PWRData -- 8WR Data 28 0 y = 7E-42e-*

LL 26 R' = 0.9607 0 24 0

U-22 20 Cr 18 0 V = 2E4-6e4 *

' = 0.939 16 14 12 10 -

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 20W7 2009 2011 Year Figure 15.4-1, Radwaste Cost Escalation Factor Analysis CALCULATION Projection of escalation factors over time can then be based on er(. Total decommissioning cost values for DORF, cost fractions (labor, radwaste, other) as calculated above, escalation rate factors from Table 15.3 for Labor and Other (i.e., fuel oil and industrial electricity), and a Radwaste escalation rate of 0.054 Page 15.4-4

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA II NUCLEAR RESEARCH REACTOR 02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, APPENDIX 15.4 1.fETLt are used in the formula provided by the reference document to estimate decommissioning costs for the UT TRIGA II:

+ 0.042.27.292. e°0 54.- + 0.509. (0.42. e 0 03 8 '(1+ ) + 0.58" e°024(t+24))}

0 0 294 24 24 C1 981,ased = $336k*{0.48. e (t+ )

Where t is number of years after 2010.

CONCLUSIONS Calculations were performed using the formula for the initial estimate (DORF) and the UT reactor beginning at 2010 and extending through the anticipated 20 year license interval in Table 15.4. In the table, WFL is the weighting factor for labor, WFR for Radwaste, and WFofor Other. WFFO and WFE are the weighting factors for fuel oil and industrial electric supply. EF signifies escalation factors. EFR, 201O is taken from NUREG-1307 and EFR,t signifies the time dependent part of the Radwaste escalation factor; all EF values other than EFR, 20o1 are calculated as described.

Table 15.4, Calculation Summary Other DECOM A Year Year Labor Radwaste TOTAL Fuel Oil Electricity COST WF, EFL WFR EFR, 2010 EFR,t WFo WFFo EFFO WFE EFE EF $M 0 2010 0.48 2.03 0.042 27.29 1.00 0.509 0.42 2.49 0.58 1.78 3.18 $1.07 2 2012 0.48 2.15 0.042 27.29 1.11 0.509 0.42 2.69 0.58 1.87 3.43 $1.15 4 2014 0.48 2.28 0.042 27.29 1.24 0.509 0.42 2.90 0.58 1.96 3.71 $1.25 6 2016 0.48 2.42 0.042 27.29 1.38 0.509 0.42 3.13 0.58 2.05 4.02 $1.35 8 2018 0.48 2.56 0.042 27.29 1.54 0.509 0.42 3.37 0.58 2.16 4.35 $1.46 10 2020 0.48 2.72 0.042 27.29 1.72 0.509 0.42 3.64 0.58 2.26 4.72 $1.58 12 2022 0.48 2.88 0.042 27.29 1.91 0.509 0.42 3.93 0.58 2.37 5.11 $1.72 14 2024 0.48 3.06 0.042 27.29 2.13 0.509 0.42 4.24 0.58 2.49 5.55 $1.86 16 2026 0.48 3.24 0.042 27.29 2.37 0.509 0.42 4.57 0.58 2.61 6.02 $2.02 18 2028 0.48 3.44 0.042 27.29 2.64 0.509 0.42 4.93 0.58 2.74 6.54 $2.20 20 2030 0.48 3.65 0.042 27.29 2.94 0.509 0.42 5.32 0.58 2.87 7.11 $2.39 21 2031 0.48 3.75 0.042 27.29 3.11 0.509 0.42 5.53 0.58 2.94 7.42 $2.49 22 2032 0.48 3.87 0.042 27.29 3.28 0.509 0.42 5.74 0.58 3.02 7.73 $2.60 23 2033 0.48 3.98 0.042 27.29 3.46 0.509 0.42 5.97 0.58 3.09 8.07 $2.71 Assuming license renewal in 2013, decommissioning costs are estimated to be $2.71 million at the end of the license period.

Page 15.4-5

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA 1RESEARCH REACTOR 02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT .... T.

Table of Contents Section Page

1. THE FACILITY 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.2 Summary and conclusions on principle safety considerations 1-2 1.3 General description of the facility 1-3 A. Site 1-3 B. Building 1-3 C. Reactor 1-3 C.1 Reactor Core. 1-5 C.2 Reactor Reflector. 1-5 D. Reactor Control. 1-6 E. Experiment Facilities. 1-6 E.1 Upper Grid Plate 7L and 3L Facilities 1-6 E.2 Central Thimble 1-6 E.3 Rotary Specimen Rack (RSR) 1-6 E.4 Pneumatic Tubes 1-7 E.5 Beam Port Facilities 1-7 E.5 (1) Beam Port 1 (BP1) 1-7 E.5 (2) Beam Port 2 (BP2) 1-8 E.5 (3) Beam Port 3 (BP3) 1-9 E.5 (4) Beam Port 4 (BP4) 1-10 E.5 (5) Beam Port 5 (BPS) 1-10 F Other Experiment and Research Facilities 1-10 1.4 Overview of shared facilities and equipment 1-10 1.4.3 Reference the other facilities operating history, safety and reliability 1-10 1.5 Summary of operations 1-12 1.6 Compliance with NWPA of 1982 1-12 1.7 Facility history & modifications 1-13 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.1 GENERAL LOCATION AND AREA 2-1 2.2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT 2-7 2.3 CLIMATOLOGY 2-11 2.4 GEOLOGY 2-14 2.5 SEISMOLOGY 2-22 2.6 HYDROLOGY 2-22 2.7 HISTORICAL 2-27 3.0 DESIGN OF SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS 3-1 3.1 Design Criteria for Structures, Systems and Components for Safe Reactor Operation 3-2 3.1.1 Fuel Moderator Elements 3-2

SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, TABLE OF CONTENTS 02/2012 Table of Contents Section Page 3.1.2 Control Rods 3-3 3.1.3 Core and structural Support 3-4 3.1.4 Pool and Pool Support Systems 3-4 3.1.5 Biological Shielding 3-4 3.1.6 NETL Building/Reactor Bay 3-5 A. Building 3-6 B. Reactor Bay 3-7 3.1.7 Ventilation Systems 3-7 3.1.8 Instruments and Controls 3-8 3.1.9 Sumps and Drains 3-8 3.2 Meteorological Damage 3-9 3.3 Water Damage 3-9 3.4 Seismic Damage 3-10 A. Core and structural Support 3-10 B. Pool and pool cooling 3-10 C. Building 3-10 4.0 Reactor 4-1 4.1 Summary description 4-1 4.2 Reactor Core 4-1 4.2.1 Reactor Fuel 4-2 A. Fuel matrix 4-2 (1) Fabrication 4-3 (2) Physical Properties 4-4 (3) Operational Properties 4-7 (4) Neutronic Properties 4-7 (5) Fuel Morphology & Outgassing 4-8 (6) Zr water reaction 4-9 (7) Mechanical Effects 4-9 (8) Fission Product Release 4-10 B. Cladding 4-10 4.2.2 Control Rods and Drive Mechanisms 4-11 A. Control Rods 4-13 B. Standard Control Rod Drives 4-16 C. Transient Control Rod.Drive 4-17 D. Control Functions 4-19 E. Evaluation of the Control Rod System 4-20 4.2.3 Neutron Moderator and Reflector (Core Structure) 4-20 A. Upper grid plate 4-20 B. Reflector 4-23 ii

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA 11RESEARCH REACTOR 0. nETt 02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Table of Contents Section Page (1) Radial Reflector 4-23 (2) Graphite Rods. 4-24 (3) Axial Reflector 4-24 C. Lower grid plate 4-24 4.2.4 Neutron Startup Source 4-26 4.2.5 Core support structure 4-26 A. Core Support Platform 4-26 B. Safety plate 4-27 4.3 Reactor Pool 4-28 4.4 Biological Shield 4-30 4.5 Nuclear Design 4-32 4.5.1 Normal Operating Conditions 4-32 4.5.2 Nominal Reactivity Worth Values 4-33 4.5.3 Reactor Core Physics 4-32 A. Reference Calculations 4-34 B. Prompt Negative Temperature Coefficient 4-35 4.5.4 Operating Limits 4-39 A. Core Peaking Factors 4-39 B. Power distribution within a Fuel Element. 4-40 C. Power per rod 4-41 4.6 Core Reactivity 4-45 4.7 Thermal Hydraulic Design 4-47 4.7.1 Heat Transfer Model 4-48 4.7.2 Results 4-51 Appendix 4.1, PULSING THERMAL RESPONSE 4.1-1 5.0 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEMS 5-1 5.1 Summary Description 5-1 5.2 Reactor Pool 5-1 5.2.1 Heat Load 5-2 5.2.2 Pool Fabrication 5-3 5.2.3 Beam Ports 5-3 5.3 Pool Cooling System 5-4 5.3.1 Reactor Pool 5-4 5.3.2 Pool Heat Exchanger 5-5 5.3.3 Secondary Cooling 5-10 5.3.4 Control System 5-10 5.4 Primary Cleanup System 5-11 5.5 Makeup Water System 5-12 5.6 Cooling System Instruments and Controls 5-13 iii

SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, TABLE OF CONTENTS 02/2012 Table of Contents Section Page 6.0 ENGINEERED SAFEGUARD FEATURES 6-1 6.1 References 6-1 7.0 INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM 7-1 7.1 DESIGN BASES 7-1 7.1.1. NM-1000 Neutron Channel 7-3 7.1.2. NP-1000 Power Safety Channel 7-5 7.1.3. Reactor Control Console 7-6 7.1.4. Reactor Operating Modes 7-7 7.1.5. Reactor Scram and Shutdown System 7-11 7.1.6. Logic Functions 7-12 7.1.7 Mechanical Hardware 7-13 7.2 DESIGN EVALUATION 7-14 8.0 ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS 8-1 9.0 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS 9-1 9.1 Confinement System 9-1 9.2 HVAC (Normal Operations), 9-1 9.2.1 Design basis 9-2 9.2.2 System description 9-3 9.2.3 Operational analysis and safety function 9-4 9.2.4 Instruments and Controls 9-6 9.2.5 Technical Specifications, bases, testing and surveillances 9-8 9.3 Auxiliary Purge System 9-8 9.3.1 Design basis 9-8 9.3.2 System description 9-8 9.3.3 Operational Analysis and Safety Function 9-9 9.3.4 Instruments and controls 9-9 9.3.5 Technical Specifications, bases, testing and surveillances 9-10 9.4 Fuel storage and handling 9-10 9.4.1 Design basis 9-10 9.4.2 System description 9-10 9.4.3 Operational analysis and safety function 9-12 9.4.4 Instruments and controls 9-12 9.4.5 Technical Specifications, bases, testing and surveillances 9-12 9.5 Fire protection systems 9-13 9.5.1 Design basis 9-13 9.5.2 System description 9-13 9.5.3 Operational analysis and safety function 9-14 iv

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA II RESEARCH REACTOR e nET 02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Table of Contents Section Page 9.5.4 Instruments and controls 9-15 9.5.5 Technical Specifications, bases, testing and surveillances 9-15 9.5 Communications systems 9-15 9.5.1 Design basis 9-15 9.5.2 System description 9-15 9.5.4 Instruments and controls 9-16 9.5.5 Technical Specifications, bases, testing and surveillances 9-16 9.6 Control, storage, use of byproduct material (including labs) 9-16 9.6.1 Design basis 9-16 9.6.2 System description (drawings, tables) 9-16 9.6.3 Operational analysis and safety function 9-17 9.6.4 Instruments and controls 9-17 9.6.5 Technical Specifications, bases, testing and surveillances 9-17 9.7 Control and storage of reusable components 9-17 9.7.1 Design basis 9-17 9.7.2 System description 9-17 9.7.3 Operational analysis and safety function 9-17 9.7.4 Instruments and controls 9-17 9.7.5 Technical Specifications, bases, testing and surveillances 9-18 9.8 Compressed gas systems 9-18 9.8.1 Design basis 9-18 9.8.2 System description 9-18 9.8.3 Operational analysis and safety function 9-18 9.8.4 Instruments and controls 9-19 9.8.5 Technical Specifications, bases, testing and surveillances 9-19 10.0 EXPERIMENTAL FACILTIES AND UTILIZATION 10-1 10.1 Summary Description 10-1 10.2 In-Core Facilities 10-3 10.2.1 Central Thimble (In-Core Facility) 10-4 A. DESCRIPTION 10-4 B. DESIGN & SPECIFICATIONS 10-5 C. REACTIVITY 10-6 D. RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 10-6 E. INSTRUMENTATION 10-7 F. PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS, SHIELDS, OR BEAM CATCHERS 10-7 G. OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 10-7 H. SAFETY ASSESSMENT 10-8 10.2.2 Fuel Element Positions (In-Core Facilities) 10-8 V

SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, TABLE OF CONTENTS 02/2012 Table of Contents Section Page 10.2.2.1 Pneumatic Sample Transit System 10-8 A. DESCRIPTION. 10-8 B. DESIGN & SPECIFICATIONS. 10-9 C. REACTIVITY 10-10 D. RADIOLOGICAL ASSEMENT 10-11 E. INSTRUMENTATION 10-11 F. PHYSICAL RETRAINTS, SHIELDS, OR BEAM CATCHERS 10-12 G. OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 10-12 H. SAFETY ASSESSMENT 10-12 10.2.2.2 Three Element Irradiator 10-13 A. DESCRIPTION. 10-13 B. DESIGN & SPECIFICATIONS. 10-13 B (1) Upper and Lower Grid Plate Modifications. . 10-13 B (2) Alignment Frame. 10-14 B (3) Three Element Facility Canister. 10-14 C. REACTIVITY 10-16 C (1) Reactivity Calculation 10-17 C (2) Reactivity Measurements 10-18 D. RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 10-18 E. INSTRUMENTATION 10-19 F. PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS, SHIELDS, or BEAM CATCHERS 10-19 G. OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 10-19 H. SAFETY ASSESSMENT 10-19 H (1) Cooling 10-19 H (2) Temperature 10-20 H (3) Pressure 10-21 H (4) LOCA potential 10-22 10.2.2.3 6/7 Element Irradiator 10-22 A. DESCRIPTION 10-22 B. DESIGN AND SPESIFICATIONS 10-22 C. REACTIVITY. 10-23 D. RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 10-23 E. INSTRUMENTATION 10-23 F. PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS, SHIELDS OR BEAM CATCHERS 10-24 G. OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 10-24 H. SAFETY ASSESSMENT 10-24 H (1) Temperature (Fuel) 10-24 H (2) Temperature (Lead) 10-24 H (3) Pressure (irradiation Can) 10-24 H (4) Pressure (Lead Sleeve) 10-25 vi

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA II RESEARCH REACTOR 02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT R.;ETLt Table of Contents Section Page H (5) Mass 10-25 H (6) Structural 10-25 10.2.3 Rotary Specimen Rack 10-26 A. DESCRIPTION 10-26 B. DESIGN SPECIFICICATIONS 10-26 C. REACTIVITY 10-28 D. RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 10-28 E. INSTRUMENTATION 10-29 F. PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS, SHIELDS OR BEAM CATCHERS 10-29 G. OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 10-29 H. SAFETY ASSESMENT 10-29 10.3 Beam Ports 10-29 A. DESCRIPTION 10-29 B. DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS 10-30 C. REACTIVITY 10-31 D. RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 10-31 E. INSTRUMENTATION 10-31 F. PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS, SHIELDS, OR BEAM CATCHERS 10-31 G. OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 10-33 H. SAFETY ASSESSMENT 10-33 10.4 Cold Neutron Source 10-34 A. DESCRIPTION 10-34 B. DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS 10-34 C. REACTIVITY 10-37 D. RADIOLOGICAL 10-37 E. INSTRUMENTATION 10-37 F. PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS, SHIELDS, OR BEAM CATCHERS 10-39 G. OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 10-39 H. SAFETY ANALYSIS 10-40 10.5 Non-reactor experiment facilities 10-41 10.5.1 Neutron generator room 10-41 10.5.2 Subcritical assembly 10-42 10.5.3 Laboratories 10-42 10.5.3.1 Radiochemistry laboratory 10-42 10.5.3.2 Neuron Activation Analysis Laboratory 10-43 10.5.3.3 Radiation detection laboratory 10-43 10.5.3.4 Sample preparation laboratory 10-43 10.5.3.5 General purpose laboratory 10-43 10.6 Experiment Review 10-43 vii

SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, TABLE OF CONTENTS I 02/2012 Table of Contents Section Page 11 Radiation Protection and Waste Management 11-1 11.1 Radiation Protection 11-1 11.1.1 Radiation Sources 11-1 11.1.1.1 Airborne Radiation Sources 11-1 11.1.1.1.1 Production of Ar.-41 in the Reactor Room 11-1 11.1.1.1.2 Radiological Impact of Ar-41 Outside the 11-2 Operations Boundary 11.1.1.2 Liquid Radioactive Sources 11-3 11.1.1.2.1 Radioactivity in the Primary Coolant 11-3 11.1.1.2.2 N-16 Radiation Dose Rates from Primary 11-4 Coolant 11.1.1.3 Solid Radioactive Sources 11-4 11.1.1.3.1 Shielding Logic 11-6 11.1.2 Radiation Protection Program 11-6 11.1.2.1 Management and Administration 11-7 11.1.2.1.1 Level 1 Personnel 11-7 11.1.2.1.2 Level 2 Personnel 11-7 11.1.2.1.3 Level 3 Personnel 11-9 11.1.2.1.4 Level 4 Personnel 11-10 11.1.2.1.5 Other Facility Staff 11-11 11.1.2.2 Health Physic Procedures and Document Control 11-11 11.1.2.3 Radiation Protection Training 11-11 11.1.2.4 Audits of the Radiation Protection Program 11-13 11.1.2.5 Health Physics Records and Record Keeping 11-13 11.1.3 ALARA Program 11-13 11.1.4 Radiation Monitoring and Surveying 11-14 11.1.4.1 Monitoring for Radiation Levels and 11-14 Contamination 11.1.4.2 Radiation Monitoring Equipment 11-15 11.1.4.3 Instrument Calibration 11-15 11.1.5 Radiation Exposure Control and Dosimetry 11-16 11.1.5.1 Shielding 11-16 11.1.5.2 Containment 11-16 11.1.5.3 Entry Control 11-17 11.1.5.4 Personal Protective Equipment 11-17 11.1.5.5 Representative Annual Radiation Doses 11-17 11.1.5.6 Personnel Dosimetry Devices 11-18 11.1.6 Contamination Control 11-18 11.1.7 Environmental Monitoring 11-19 11.2 Radioactive Waste Management 11-19 11.2.1 Radioactive Waste Management Program 11-20 viii

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA II RESEARCH REACTOR

• TI02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Ge ETtj Table of Contents Section Page 11.2.2 Radioactive Waste Controls 11-20 11.2.2.1 Gaseous Waste 11-20 11.2.2.2 Liquid Waste 11-21 11.2.2.3 Solid Waste 11-21 11.2.2.4 Mixed Waste 11-21 11.2.2.5 Decommissioning Waste 11-21 11.2.3 Release of Radioactive Waste 11-22 12 Conduct of Operations 12-1 12.1 Organization 12-1 12.1.1 Structure 12-1 12.1.1.1 University Administration 12-1 12.1.1.2 NETL Facility Administration 12-1 12.1.2 Responsibility 12-3 12.1.2.1 Executive Vice President and Provost 12-3 12.1.2.2 Vice President for University Operation 12-3 12.1.2.3 Associate Vice President of Campus Safety And 12-3 Security 12.1.2.4 Director of Nuclear Engineering Teaching 12-3 Laboratory 12.1.2.5 Associate Director of Nuclear Engineering 12-3 Teaching Laboratory 12.1.2.6 Reactor Oversight Committee 12-4 12.1.2.7 Radiation Safety Officer 12-4 12.1.2.8 Radiation Safety Committee 12-4 12.1.2.9 Reactor Supervisor 12-4 12.1.2.10 Health Physicist 12-6 12.1.2.11 Laboratory Manager 12-6 12.1.2.12 Reactor Operators 12-6 12.1.2.13 Technical Support 12-6 12.1.2.14 Radiological Controls Technicians 12-6 12.1.2.15 Laboratory Assistants 12-7 12.1.3 Staffing 12-7 12.1.4 Selection and Training of Personnel 12-8 12.1.4.1 Qualifications 12-8 12.1.4.2 Job Descriptions 12-8 12.1.4.2.1 Facility Director 12-8 12.1.4.2.2 Associate Director 12-9 12.1.4.2.3 Reactor Supervisor 12-9 12.1.4.2.4 Health Physicist 12-9 ix

SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, TABLE OF CONTENTS I 02/2012 Table of Contents Section Page 12.1.4.2.5 Laboratory Manager 12-9 12.1.4.2.6 Reactor Operators 12-9 12.1.4.2.7 Technical Support 12-9 12.1.4.2.8 Radiological Controls Technician 12-10 12.1.4.2.9 Laboratory Assistants 12-10 12.1.5 Radiation Safety 12-10 12.2 Review and Audit Activities 12-10 12.2.1 Composition and Qualifications 12-10 12.2.2 Charter and Rules 12-11 12.2.3 Review Function 12-11 12.2.4 Audit Function 12-12 12.3 Procedures 12-12 12.4 Required Actions 12-13 12.4.1 Safety Limit Violation 12-13 12.4.2 Release of Radioactivity 12-14 12.4.3 Other Reportable Occurrences 12-14 12.5 Reports 12-14 12.5.1 Operating Reports 12-15 12.5.2 Other or Special Reports 12-15 12.6 Records 12-16 12.6.1 Lifetime Records 12-16 12.6.2 Five Year Period 12-16 12.6.3,One Training Cycle 12-17 12.7 Emergency Planning 12-17 12.8 Security Planning 12-17 12.9 Quality Assurance 12-17 12.10 Operator Requalification 12-18 12.11 Startup Program 12-19 12.12 Environmental Report 12-19 13.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS 13-1 13.1 Notation and Fuel Properties 13-1 13.2 Accident Initiating Events and Scenarios 13-2 13.3 Maximum Hypothetical Accidents, Single Element Failure in Air 13-5 13.3.1 Assumptions 13-5 13.3.2 Analysis 13-6 A. Radionuclide Inventory Buildup and Decay, Theory 13-7 B. Fission Product Inventory Calculations 13-7 C. Fission Product release 13-10 D. ALl Consequence Analysis 13-11 x

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA II RESEARCH REACTOR NA ,ETt 02/2012

-SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ,

Table of Contents Section Page E. DAC Consequence Analysis 13-14 F. Effluent release Consequence Analysis 13-17 F (1) Atmospheric Dispersion 13-18 F (2) CASE I 13-19 F (3) CASE II 13-20 F (3) Source Term Release Rate 13-22 13.3.3 Results and Conclusions 13-24 13.4 Insertion of Excess Reactivity 13-25 13.4.1 Initial Conditions, Assumptions, and Approximations 13-25 13.4.2 Computational Model for Power Excursions 13-26 13.4.3 Results and Conclusions 13-30 13.5 Loss of Reactor Coolant Accident 13-32 13.5.1 Initial Conditions, Assumptions, and Approximations 13-34 13.5.2 Heat Transfer to Air 13-34 A. Buoyancy Forces 13-35 B. Friction Losses 13-35 C. Losses from Flow Restrictions 13-35 13.5.7 Radiation Levels from the Uncovered Core 13-39 13.5.8 Results and Conclusions 13-43 13.6 Loss of Coolant Flow 13-43 13.6.1 Initialing Events and Scenarios 13-43 13.6.2 Accident Analysis and Determination of Consequences 13743 13.7 Mishandling or Malfunction of Fuel 13-44 13.7.1 Initiating Events and Scenarios 13-44 13.7.2 Analysis 13-44 13.8 Experiment Malfunction 13-44 13.8.1 Accident Initiating Events and Scenarios 13-44 13.8.2. Analysis and Determination of Consequences 13-45 A. Administrative Controls 13-45 B. Reactivity Considerations 13-45 C. Fueled Experiment Fission Product Inventory 13-46 D. Explosives 13-47 13.9 Loss of Normal Electric Power 13-49 13.9.1 Initiating Events and Scenarios 13-49 13.9.2 Accident Analysis and Determination of Consequences 13-49 13.10 External Events 13-49 13.10.1 Accident Initiating Events and Scenarios 13-49 13.10.2 Accident Analysis and Determination of Consequences 13-50 13.11 Experiment Mishandling or Malfunction 13-50 13.11.1 Initiating Events and Scenarios 13-50 xi

SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, TABLE OF CONTENTS 02/2012 Table of Contents Section Page 13.11.2 Accident Analysis and Determination of Consequences 13-50 Appendix 13.1, T-6 DEPLETION ANALYSIS INPUT FILE FOR SCALE CALCULATION 13.1-1 Appendix 13.2, ORIGEN ARP INPUT 13.2-1 Appendix 13.3, MCNP INPUT FOR LOCA DOSES 13.3-1 15.0 FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS 15-1 15.1 Financial Ability to Operate a Nuclear Research Reactor 15-1 15.2 Financial Ability to Decommission the Facility 15-1 15.3 Bibliography 15-1 Appendix 15.1, STATUTES AND EXCERPTS REGARDING UT 15.1-1 Appendix 15.2, FIVE-YEAR OPERATING COST ESTIMATE 15.2-1 Appendix 15.3, Letter of Intent, Ultimate Decommissioning 15.3-1 Appendix 15.4, DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE 15.4-1 APPENDIX 15.5, FUELS ASSISTANCE CONTRACT 15.5-1 xii

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA II RESEARCH REACTOR M.t r I 02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT .. "

LIST OF FIGURES Page, Figure 1.1, UTTRIGA Mark II Nuclear Research Reactor 1-4 Figure 1.2, Core and Support Structure Details 1-5 Figure 1.3, Beam Ports 1-8 Figure 1.4A, Days of Operation per Year 1-12 Figure 1.4B, Burnup per Year 1-12 Figure 2.1, STATE OF TEXAS COUNTIES 2-2 Figure 2.2, TRAVIS COUNTY 2-3 Figure 2.3, CITY OF AUSTIN 2-4 Figure 2.4, JJ PICKLE RESEARCH CAMPUS 2-5 Figure 2.5, LAND USAGE AROUND JJ PICKLE RESEARCH CAMPUS, 2007 2-6 Figure 2.6, 2009 ZIP CODE BOUNDARIES 2-10 Figure 2.7, AUSTIN CLIMATOLOGY DATA 2-11 Figure 2.8, AUSTIN WIND ROSE DATA 2-12 Figure 2.9, TROPICAL STORM PATHS WITHIN 50 NAUTICAL MILES OF AUSTIN, TEXAS (ALL 2-21 RECORDED HURRICANES RATED H1 AND UP)

Figure 2.10, TROPICAL STORM PATHS WITHIN 50 NAUTICAL MILES OF AUSTIN, TEXAS (ALL 2-21 RECORDED STORMS RATED TROP OR SUBTROP)

Figure 2.11, BALCONES FAULT ZONE 2-23 Figure 2.12, TEXAS EARTHQUAKE DATA 2-24 Figure 2.13, TEXAS EARTHQUAKE DATA 2-25 Figure 2.14, LOCAL WATER AQUUIFERS 2-26 Figure 2.15, RESEARCH CAMPUS AREA 1940 2-27 Figure 2.16, PICLKE RESEARCH CAMPUS 1960 2-28 Figure 2.17, BALCONES RESEARCH CENTER 1990 2-29 Figure 4.1: H/Zr Phase Diagram 4-6 Figure 4.2A, Zr-H Transport Cross Section & TRIGA Thermal Neutron Spectra 4-7 Figure 4.2B, Fuel Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity .4-7 Figure 4.3, Thermal Pressurization in Fuel and Hydriding Ratios 4-9 Figure 4.4A, Temperature and Cladding Strength for 0.2% Yield 4-11 Figure 4.4B, Temperature, Cladding Strength, and Stress 4-12 Figure 4.5, Lower Gird Plate Control Rod Positions 4-14 Figure 4.6, Standard Control Rod Configuration 4-15 Figure 4.7, Standard/Stepper Motor Control Rod Drive 4-16 Figure 4.8, Transient Rod Drive 4-18 Figure 4.9a, UT TRIGA Core 4-21 Figure 4.9b, Core Top View 4-21 Figure 4.10a, 6/7-Element Facility Grid 4-22 Figure 4.10b, Upper Grid Plate Cut-out for 6/7-Element Grid 4-22 Figure 4.11a, Reflector Top Assembly 4-23 Figure 4.11b, Reflector Bottom Assembly 4-23 xiii

SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, TABLE OF CONTENTS 02/2012 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 4.12b, Graphite Reflector Through port Detail 4-23 Figure 4.12c, Graphite Reflector, Radial & Piercing-Beam Ports 4-23 Figure 4.13a, Tangential Beam Port Insert 4-23 Figure 4.13b, Radial Beam Port insert 4-23 Figure 4.13c, Inner Shroud Surface 4-24 Figure 4.14, Reflector Component and Assembly Views 4-25 Figure 4.15, Fuel Element Adapter 4-26 Figure 4.16, Core Support Views 4-27 Figure 4.17, Core and Support Structure Views 4-27 Figure 4.18, Safety Plate 4-28 Figure 4.19a, Pool 4-29 Figure 4.19b, Side View 4-29 Figure 4.19c, Top View 4-29 Figure 4.20, Biological Shielding, Base Dimensions 4-31 Figure 4.21, Reactivity Loss with Power 4-34 Figure 4.22, Radial Variation of Power Within a TRIGA Fuel Rod. (Data Points from Monte 4-41 Carlo Calculations [Ahrens 1999a])

Figure 4.23, Critical Heat Flux Ratio (Bernath and Biasi Correlations) 4-44 Figure 4.24, Core Power, 45 kW Hot Element 4-45 Figure 4.25, Power Coefficient of Reactivity 4-46 Figure 4.25: Unit Cell Fuel Element Model 4-50 Figure 4.26a, Unit Cell Temperature Distribution (10.5 kW) 4-55 Figure 4.26b, Unit Cell Temperature Distribution (22.5 kW) 4-56 Figure 4.27, Single Rod Flow Cooling Flow Rate versus Power Level 49°C 6.5 Pool, 4-56 Figure 4.28, Comparison of Calculated and Observed Fuel Temperatures 4-58 Figure 5.1A, Pool Fabrication 5-4 Figure 5.1B, Cross Section 5-4 Figure 5.C, Beam Orientation 5-4 Figure 5.2, Pool Cooling System 5-4 Figure 5.3, Pool Cleanup System 5-11 Figure 5.4, Cooling and Cleanup Instrumentation 5-13 FIGURE 7.1, CONTROL SYSTEM BLOCK DIAGRAM 7-3 Figure 7.2, NEUTRON CHANNEL OPERATING RANGES 7-4 Figure 7.3, Auxiliary Display Panel 7-5 Figure 7.3, LAYOUT OF THE REACTOR CONTROL CONSOLE 7-6 Figure 7.4, CONSOLE CONTROL PANELS 7-8 Figure 7.5, TYPICAL VDEO DISPLAY DATA 7-9 Figure 7.6, ROD CONTROL PANEL 7-9 Figure 7.7, LOGIC DIAGRAM FOR CONTROL SYSTEM 7-13 Figure 9.1, Conceptual Diagram of the Reactor Bay HVAC System 9-2 Figure 9.2A, Main Reactor Bay HVAC System 9-3 Figure 9.2B, Main Reactor Bay HVAC Control System Control 9-4 xiv

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA 11RESEARCH REACTOR

• 02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT ...

• E LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 9.3, Confinement System Ventilation Controls 9-7 Figure 9.4A, Purge Air System 9-8 Figure 9.4B, Purge Air Controls 9-8 Figure 9.5A, Storage Well 9-11 Figure 9.5b, Fuel Storage Closure 9-11 Figure 10.1, Core Grid Plate Design and Dimensions 10-3 Figure 10.2, Reactor Core Diagram 10-4 Figure 10.3, Central Thimble Union Assembly 10-5 Figure 10.4, Three Element Irradiator 10-16 Figure 10.5, Rotary Specimen Rack Diagram 10-28 Figure 10.6, Rotary Specimen Rack Raceway Geometry 10-28 Figure 10.7, Rotary Specimen Rack Rotation Control Box 10-28 Figure 10.8, Beam Port Layout 10-30 Figure 10.9, A1230 Cryomech Cryorefrigerator and Cold Head 10-35 Figure 10.10, Cryomech Cold-Head and Vacuum Box 10-36 Figure 10.11, TCNS Vacuum Jacket and Other Instruments (units in cm) 10-36 Figure 10.12, Silicone Diode and Heater Relative to Cold-Head 10-37 Figure 10.13, Neon and Mesitylene Handling System with Pressure Transducers 10-38 Figure 10.14, Shielding around TCNS Facility 10-40 Figure 10.15, Thermo MP 320 Neutron Generator at NETL 10-41 Figure 10.16, Subcritical Assemblies 10-42 Figure 12.1, University Administration 12-2 Figure 12.2, NETL Facility Administration 12-2 Figure 13.1, Ratio of Radionuclide Inventory to ALl 13-13 Figure 13.2, Ratio of Radionuclide Concentration to 10CFR 20 DAC Values 13-14 Figure 13.3, FUEL Temperature and Pulsed Reactivity 13-35 Figure 13.4A, Pulse Measurements 13-31 Figure 13.4B, Fuel Temperature and Peak Pulse Power 13-31 Figure 13.5A, Cooling Time 13-37 Figure 13.5B, Cooling Time and Power Density 13-38 Figure 13.6, Core Model 13-41 Figure 13.7A, Bay Model Top View 13-41 Figure 13.7B, Bay Model Cross Section 13-41 Figure 13.8A, Building Model 13-42 Figure 13.8B, MCNP Side View 13-42 Figure 13.8C, Top View 13-42 Figure 15.4-1, Radwaste Cost Escalation Factor Analysis 14.4-4 xv

SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, TABLE OF CONTENTS 02/2012 Table Page Table 1.1, SHUTDOWN OR DECOMMISSIONED U.S. TRIGA REACTORS 1-10 Table 1.2, U.S. OPERATING RESEARCH REACTORS USING TRIGA FUEL 1-10 Table 2.1, AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY POPULATION TRENDS 2-8 Table 2.2, TRAVIS COUNTY 2009 AUSTIN POPULATION DENSITY DISTRIBUTION BY ZIP CODE 2-9 Table 2.3, 1982 METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR AUSTIN TEXAS 2-15 Table 2.4, HISTORICAL METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR AUSTIN TEXAS 2-16 Table 2.5, HISTORICAL METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR AUSTIN TEXAS 2-17 Table 2.6, HISTORICAL METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR AUSTIN TEXAS 2-18 Table 2.7, HISTORICAL METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR AUSTIN TEXAS 2-19 Table 2.8, TRAVIS COUNTY TORNADO FREQUENCIES 2-20 Table 2.9 GROUND WATER ACTIVITY 2-26 Table 3.1, SSC Vulnerability 3-2 Table 4.1, TRIGA Fuel Properties 4-3 Table 4.2, Physical Properties of High-Hydrogen U-ZrH 4-4 Table 4.3, U-ZrH Volumetric Specific Heat Capacity (Cp) 4-6 Table 4.4, Summary of Control Rod Design Parameters 4-13 Table 4.5, Control Rod Information 4-15 Table 4.6, Summary of Reactor SCRAMs 4-19 Table 4.7, Summary of Control Rod Interlocks 4-19 Table 4.8, Upper Grid Plate Penetrations 4-21 Table 4.9, Displaced Fuel Spaces 4-22 Table 4.10, Lower Grid Plate Penetrations 4-25 Table 4.11, Reactor Coolant System Design Summary 4-28 Table 4.12, Significant Shielding and Pool Levels 4-32 Table 4.13, Control Rod Worth 4-33 Table 4.14, Reactivity Values 4-33 Table 4.15, GA-4361 Calculation Model 4-35 Table 4.16, Selected TRIGA II Nuclear Properties 4-35 Table 4.17, UT TRIGA Data 4-36 Table 4.18, Critical Heat Flux ratio, Bernath Correlation 4-43 Table 4.19, Core Power, 45 kW Hot Element 4-44 Table 4.20, Reactivity Limits 4-46 Table 4.21, Limiting Core reactivity 4-47 Table 4.22, Thermodynamic Values 4-49 Table 4.23, Hydrostatic Pressure 4-51 Table 4.24, Coolant Temperature for 49°C 6.5 m Pool 4-51 Table 4.25a, Outer Cladding Temperature (°C) for 49°C and 6.5 m Pool 4-52 Table 4.25b, Inner Cladding Temperature ("C) for 49°C and 6.5 m Pool 4-53 Table 4.26a, Heat Flux (Nodes 1-9) 49°C 6.5 Pool, 4-53 Table 4.26b, Heat Flux (Nodes 10-15) 49°C 6.5 Pool 4-54 Table 4.27, Peak Fuel Centerline Line Temperature (K)49°C 6.5 Pool, 4-54 Table 4-28, Coolant Flow for 1100 kW Operation 4-57 Table 4-29, Observed Fuel Temperatures 4-57 Table 4-30, Fuel Temperature Comparison 4-58 Table 5.1, Reactor Coolant System design Summary 5-2 Table 5.2, Heat Exchanger, Heat Transfer and Hydraulic Parameters 5-9 xvi

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA 1IRESEARCH REACTOR 0 nETL N 02/2012 SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Table 9.1, Typical Confinement Vent & Purge Parameters 9-4 Table 9.2, Reactor Ventilation System Modes 9-5 Table 10.1: Composition of Al 6061 10-6 Table 10.2: Activation Products in Central Thimble 6061 Aluminum Alloy after 60 Year 10-7 Irradiation Table 10.3 Characteristic Dimension of UT-TRIGA PTS 10-10 Table 10.4: Activation of Pneumatic Transit System Cadmium Liner 10-11 Table 10.5: Flux Measurements in Pneumatic Transit System at 100 kW 10-12 Table 10.6: Activity of Three Element Irradiator Cd Liner 10-18 Table 10.7: Rotary Specimen Rack Gears 10-27 Table 10.8: Items to be Addressed in Safety Analysis for Experiments 10-44 Table 11.1, Representative Solid Radioactive Sources 11-5 Table 11.2, Representative Radiation Detection Instrumentation 11-15 Table 11.3, Representative Occupational Exposures 11-17 Table 13.1. Neutronic Properties of TRIGA Mkll ZrH1.6 Fuel Elements. 13-1 Table 13.2, Dimensions of TRIGA Mkll ZrH1.6 Fuel Elementsl 13-1 Table 13.3, Thermal and Mechanical Properties of TRIGA Mkll ZrH1.6 Fuel Elements and 13-2 Type 304 Stainless Steel Cladding Table 13.4, UT TRIGA Core-Conditions Basis for Calculations 13-2 Table 13.5, Relevant IOCFR20 Appendix B Values 13-5 Table 13.6, SCALE T-6 Sequence Continuous Burnup Parameters 13-8 Table 13.7A, 1 MTU Gaseous Fission Product Inventory for 3.5 kW Case (Ci) 13-8 Table 13.7B, 1 MTU Particulate Fission Product Inventory (Ci) 13-9 Table 13.8A. Gaseous Fission product Release from Single Element (l1Ci) 13-10 Table 13.8B. Particulate Fission Product Release from Single Element 13-11 Table 13.9A, Fraction of Gaseous Fission Product Inventory to 10CFR20 ALl 13-12 Table 13.9B, Fraction of Particulate Fission Product Inventory to 10CFR20 ALl 13-12 Table 13.10A, Fraction of Instantaneous Gaseous Fission Product Inventory to 10CFR20 13-14 DAC[1]

Table 13.10B, Fraction of Instantaneous Particulate Fission Product Inventory to IOCFR20 13-15 DAC [1]

Table 13.11, DAC Ratios for All Cases 1S-16 Table 13.12, Reactor Bay Atmosphere Following MHA Compared to Effluent Limit 13-17 Table 13.13: BRIGGS URBAN DISPERSION PARAMETERS 13-18 Table 13.14, Calculated ?/Q Values 13-21 Table 13.15, Reactor Bay Atmosphere Following MHA Compared to Effluent Limit 13-21 Table 13.16, Calculated Plume Meander Factor (M) for < 6 m s-i Winds 13-21 Table 13.17, Minimum Dispersion Parameters by Stability Class 13-22 Table 13.18, Minimum ?/Q by Stability Class 13-22 Table 13.19, Effluent Limit Ratio to Release Concentrations 13-23 Table 13.20, Low Power Pulsed Reactivity Response 13-28 Table 13.21, Initial Power 880 kW Pulsed Reactivity Response 13-30 Table 13.22, Gamma Source Term 13-39 Table 13.23, Height/Thickness Dimensions of Unit Cell 13-40 Table 13.24, Unit Cell Areas 13-40 Table 13.25, Material Characterization 13-40 Table 13.26, Post LOCA Doses 13-42 xvii

SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, TABLE OF CONTENTS ....... 02/2012 Table 13.27, Calculations Supporting Limits on Fueled Experiments 13-46 Table 13.28, Material Strengths 13-48 Table 13.29, Container Diameter to Thickness Ratio 13-49 Table 15.1, Summary of NUREG/CR-1576 Values 15.4-1 Table 15.2, Summary of NUREG/CR-1576 Fractional Values 15.4-2 Table 15.3, Escalation Costs 15.4-4 Table 15.4, Calculation Summary 15.4-5 xviii