ML20004C653
| ML20004C653 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Rolla |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1981 |
| From: | Elliott A MISSOURI, UNIV. OF, ROLLA, MO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004C652 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106040397 | |
| Download: ML20004C653 (87) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:g. . - -
.y __ _ . . _.. - _ . _ . .
PROGRESS REPORT OF THE~ , UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI 1ROLLA NUCLEAR REACTOR FACILITY M APRIL 1, 1980 to MARCH 31, 1981 l- [ i i 1 4 Submitted to The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and The University of Missouri'- Rolla i I By Alva E. Elliott, Manager Nuclear Reactor Facility I-University of Missouri - Rolla Rolla, Missouri ' 4
!81060403U
, , - . , _ . . - - , , . - ---- - - , , . - -m-- P =w w---- --
_ - --~w--1-,.f--+---g.,-,.,, F- tw4 -rT7'-v --'*r-ST*---d WN*-*e -- M"'-g.e
/* Table of Contents I. I n t ro d uc ti o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 II. Pe rson nel , a nd Rea c to r S ta ff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 4
.III. S uppo r ti ng Fa c i l i ti e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 6 -
IV. Improvements ................................................ 8 V. Rea c to r Ope ra ti o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 VI. Pu bl i c Re l a ti o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 VII. Educa tional Util i za tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 VIII'. Reac tor Heal th Physics Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 IX. Plans ....................................................... 26 X. Summary ..................................................... 28 XI. Appendices................................................... 30 A. S0P -' 809 Semi Annual Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 B. I ndependent Audi t _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 C. Nuclear Facilities Study Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 l l I j
)
l i l
I. Introduction This progress report is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission 10 CFR 50.71 concerning the operation
'of the University of Missouri - Rolla Nuclear Reactor Facility (License R-79). l This reactor, a swiming pool type modified BSR, was first licensed as a 10 Kw training and research facility with initial criticality on December 9, 1961. In January 1967 an amendment was granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to upgrade the facility, allowing an. increase in power level to 200 Kw.
The Nuclear Reactor Facility is operated as a university facility available to the faculty and students of the various departments of the university for their educational and research programs. Several other universities has made use of this facility during this reporting period. The facility is also made available; for the purpose of training reactor personnel, to the nuclear industry _and electric utilities. The reactor staff has continued to review the operation of the reactor facility in an effort to improve the safety and efficiency of its operation j and to provide conditions conductive to its utilization by students and faculty from this and other universities. The following sections of this report are intended to provide a brief outline of the various aspects of l the operation of this facility including its utilization for education and research. l t
II. PERSONNEL AND REACTOR STAFF A. Reactor Staff Name _ Title Dr. D. Ray Edwards . Reactor Director Alva E. Elliott Reactor Manager
-R.L. Jones Reactor Maintenance Engineer Carl Barton Electronic Technician Karen Lane Secretary Juls William Lab Mechanic Mike Middleton Reactor Operator Charles Ruggeri Student Research Assistant Ray Bono Campus Health Physicist Dan Carter Health Physicist Tech.
B. Licensed Operators Alva E. Elliott Senior Operator R.L. Jones Senior Operator l Carl Barton Reactor Operator Karen Lane Reactor Operator t t-
C. Radiation Safety Comittee l l NordL. Gale (chairman) Life Sciences ' Ray Bono (secretary) (ex officio) Health Physicist Ernst Bolter Geology and Geophysics 0.K. Manuel Chemistry D. Ray. Edwards (ex officio)- Reactor Director Alva E. Elliott (ex officio) Reactor Manager N.T. Tsoulfanidis (ex officio) Radiation Safety Officer Ed Hale Physics Laird Schearer Physics This comittee is required to meet at three month intervals. However in practice, the frequency of the meetings are usually greater. D. Independent Audit Dr. Franklin Pauls, former Reactor Director, acts as the independent auditor of the Reactor Faci't .ty. He reviews all records, procedures, and operating methods of the facility on a semi-annual basis. l Semi-annual audits were completed on September 10, 1980 and May 2, 1980 and are included in the appendix of this report. r {
' III. Supporting Facilities Several supporting facilities are either operated or maintained by the reactor staff for users of the reactor. These greatly contribute to the efficiency of research and educational programs available to the faculty and students of the University of Missouri - Rolla. Analog Computer: This computer is currently available to faculty and students and is used in scheduled classes for both graduate and undergraduate students. Several units of auxiliary equipment are also available to widen the scope of its operation. Slow Neutron Chopper: A slow neutron chopper is available for student use at the reactor facility. This chopper, constructed as a masters research project, is mounted on the face of the thermal column door. Activation Analysis Lab: The activation analysis lab has proven to be the most utilized supporting facility. The labo.atory contains a 4096 channel analyzer, with NaI or GeLi Selectable Detector input. Included in the aux-iliary equipment is a tape punch, multi-scaler programmer, a scope camera, and a teletype terminal. Three scalers are included in the laboratory equipment with the appropriate detectors for counting alpha, beta, and gama radiation. A shielded detector with four ton low background lead shield ho-using two 3X3 sodium iodide crystals,is also available. These detectors are used in conjunction with the multi-channel analyzer. Several other units of equipment are available for the detection and eval.uation of ra-dioactive materials. (,y" ^^ Pneumatic Tube Assembly: A' dual tube pheumatic system is installed in the core of the reactor. This is a dual tube system, one tube being cadmium lined, the other bare. This system is a positive pressure type 'using nitrogen as the propellant.- Dynamic Void: A method of introducing a void on the perifery of the core by
~
use.of nitrogen gas. This allows for a variation in void as a function of core height, total ' volume or volume change. ar 5 i i l 1
IV Improvements l The following' items are considered improvements to the existing facilities during this reporting period.
-(1) The purchase and installation of Two Counter / Single Channel fnalyzers with Na-I detectors has been completed. These items will replace counter / scalers funded in 1962 and will be used primarily by students in the reactor physics courses taught at the facility.
(2) The facility has purchased an Apple-II personal computer system. This . will be used for records budgets, etc. 4 (3) The installation of the New Radiation Area Monitoring System was com-pleted in August 81. This system replaces the origional RAM with
" State of the Art" and has improved the overall operation of the facility considerably.
(4) The intermediate and lower levels of the facility was rewired 1n conduit. 3 A new, High Radiation Area Warning System and Beam Port Control System was installed at this time. We also added a High Level Basement Sump alann system to prevent flooding of the Lower Level. Flooding of this level has occurred in the past due to high rainfall with some damage to non-essential equipment.
4 s
-C V. REACTOR OPERATIONS
, ' Facility Use
- s ,
' Table 1 depicts the current core loading designated'as 67. The number !
67 denotes the Sixty Seventh. core configuration (assembly'and-location), that has been used at the reactor; facility since the original operating 11icense was issued-in 1961. This 67 core has been in use since December
- 1978 and periodically-checked for all parameters listed in-Table 5 (core data). The' core was unloaded for Control' Rod Inspection during-
. the Month of- August; '80. It was partially unloaded (4 or_5 assemblies) .
'approximately 5 times for' training exercises in fuel' handling and 1/M core load's during this reporting period.
I i I i _g_
m jW /r n - e . UMRR CORE AND RACK STORAGE FORM TABLE 1 DATE Dh2 19, _1978 gggg 67T Original Loading kl R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 N7 R8 R9 Rio R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 IP CA ' RACK S'!TNtAGE FACILITY F-13' F-20 HF-1, F-22 'F-2 F-5 F-3 , F-18 F-21 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30 KEY TO PRETIXES A P - Standard Elemente g 3 C - Control Elements c HR-1 F-14 F-1 C-4 HP - Half Tront Element HR - Half Rear Element g, D-8 C-1; F-16 F-9 F F-10 CA - Coce Access Element p F-6 C-2 F-19 C-3 F-12 F-11 IP - Isotope Production Elemos
~
r BR F-17 F-15 F-7 CR 1 2 3 4 ,, 5 6
~
Other 7 8 9 ~ ' BRIDGE SIDE UNRR CORE STATUS . Glem; 'Pos. !Mass Elem. Pos. Mass Elem Pos. Mass HR-1 C3 84.919 F-16 D5 170.270 F-12 E7 168.77/ Bridge Position F-8 03 F-19 E5 170.264 170.229 F-10 D8 170.193
~h!6 F-15 Inches from T.c. 0.0 E3 169.160 F5 168.889 F-11 E8 168.969
^i-{4 C4 170.210 C-4 C6 102.112
' [ C-1 D4 102.112 F-9 06 170.178, C-2 E4 C-3 E6 102.125 101.978 F-17 F4 F-7 F6
' 169.111 170.154 F-1 C5 F-4 D7 170.223 170.206 "h / k 0.905% 076oF Total Mans crams 2870.069 (measured value) .
s.
Core Data
.During this reporting period only one core designation has been used to any extent.
The "W" mode core was used for normal reactor operations since students cannot operate the reactor when the excess reactivity is above 0.7%. The "T" mode is used for extended operation (>3 hrs), beam port or thermal column ex-periments. The excess p was measured cold, clean critical. In day to day creration the excess o is quite often lower due to temperature increase of the pool.
-Core Technical Data 12 Average Thermal Flux 1.6X10 at 200 rw 12 Maximum Thermal Flux 2.8X10 at 200 Kw 11
' Average Epithermal 1.6X10 at 200 Kw I
- Worth of Thermal Column ;0.37% 0 76aF t
Worth.of Beam Port Not detectable Rod Worth. I. 2.64% II. 2.65% III. 3.36% Reg. 0.347% Date 10/22/80 Excess Reactivity 0.905% Shutdown Margin 4.385% Void Coefficient -4.0X10 -7 p/cm3 Date 10/3/80 Limit -2.0X10 -7 p/cm 3 i l Temperature Coefficient -9.66X10 -5 p/oF Date 10/29/80 Limit -4.0X10 -5 p/oF Zenon Free Temp. Coeff. -1.25X10-5 gjop Reactivity Addition Rate (max % p/sec) I. 0.0608p/sec II. 0.0176 p/sec III. 0.0183 p/sec Reg. 0.0226 p/sec l Date 12/30/80
. Rod Drop Time (24")
I. ,390 msec II. 400 msec III. 400 msec Date 12/29/80 Magnet Separation Time I. 35 msec II. 40 msec III. 40 msec Date 12/29/80 l
--Table 2 Facility use o'f core or. core grid plate locations Number of Facility Hours Used B2 - ~ 0.167 B4 - 0.47 B5 -- .0.4 B6 - 1.033 B7 - 0.167 B8 - 0.5 C2 - 0.067-
- C3 - 0.833 C4 - O.667~
- C5 - '1.783 C7 -' O.533 C8 - 1.30 D2 - 0.167 D3 - - 0.25-DS - 1.25 D6 - 2.067 D7 - 1.33 08 - 0.917 D9 - 1.9 ES - 1.33 l E7 - 0.5 l E8 - 0.75 F3 - 5.5C4 l
F5 - 1.0 l 24.95 Total 1
- Table 3
; Facility use other-than the grid space.around the core
! . Facility Hours'
' Neutron Chopper -1.87 Bare' Rabbit 5.56
- -Beam Port' 13.47
. Reactor Console 800.0-
. Thermal Column 3.728 824.62 Total s
i l l Table'4' l I 1575 Hours in Use
.505 Hours available but not in use 188 Hours at Power 824 Hours of Maintenance 12258 KW Hours 7
Hours foi-L Research 793 Hours for Instruction Experimenter Hours II49 Sample Hours 213
' Average Number of Experiments 1.04 Average Number of Samples 0.24 Grams U 235 Burned 0.53392 235 0.63199 Grams U Burned and Converted Hours in Use: is a total of Instruction, research and maintenanca hours.
With maintenance hours being only those hours when the reactor remained l- shutdown during the entire day. i. l l l l l
'3; ^
Tabl e '5.- Unscheduled Shutdowns 4-16-80 Rundown; High Area Radiation(setpoint 10 mrem /hr) ... Rabbit tube. sample became stuck in close approximately to Reactor Bridge and radiation' detector. Building Evacuation Alarm activated and radiation detector. Building Evacuation Alarm activated and all personnel exited facility. Upor, re-entry by Senior-Licensed Operators, the gas pressure to the rabbit tube system was increased
~
and sample dislodged. Reactor was operating at 200 KW prior to rundown with - radiation levels on contact with rabbit tube < 500 mr/hr. Maximum personnel total exposure was less than 20 mram whole body. 7-24-80 Rundown; High Area Radiation (setpoint 10 mrem /hr) ... N-16 rEffuser pump discharge nozzle mis-aligned. Re adjusted nozzle and returned reactor power to 200 Kw. Reactor at 200 Kw prior to rundown with radiation level at area monitor <12 mr/hr. 7-25-80 Dropped Shim Rod; No alarm ... Shim Rod 2 magnet current to-low. Readjusted current in accordance with S0P and returned to power. Reactor operating at approximately 20 watts prior to rod drop. 9-11-80 Rundown; High Area Radiation (setpoint 10 mrem /hr) ... Operator failed to turn on N-16 diffuser pumps for reactor operatia >20 Kw. Reactor was at 200 Kw with reactor bridge area radiation monitor reaching 12 mrem /hr prior i to rundown. 9-15-80 Rundown; High Area Radiation (setpoint 10 mrem /hr) ... Spurious trip of newly l
- .uy 9 - ' - ? - -
~.
.yf '
r
%g ;
O
. s-
~
installed system. Reactor at 200 Kw;with normal radiation reading on all: j
' channels,during rundown.:
~~
- 10-29-80-- !
^ '
Rundown; High Area'R'adiation (setpoint zl0 mrem /hr) Due to extended operation-r.
.of reacthe at 200 Kw the' Intermediate level area rdiation monitorL(next to-
'demineralizer) reached setpoint and caused a rundown. Portable HP ' instruments -
4 indicated radiation _. levels;of <20 mr/hr. - Area radittion monitors were' adjusted
. .to 20 mr/hr at.d reactor was returned to a- power level of 200 Kw. Facility technical specifications allow radiation area monitor setpoints to be < 30 ,
. mrem /hr.
11-5-80 (Rundown;- '120% demand ... student operator . failed to change Linear NI selector u switch while increasing reactor power from 6 watts to 20 watts. Reactor power - approximately 7.2_ watts. 11-5-80 Rundown; ;120% demand ... student operator changed Linear NI selector.. switch
; while decreasing reactor power before system reached indicated range. Reactor.
power level 8 watts. i- 11-14-80 Rundown; 120% demand ... student operator faileo to change Linear NI selector - switch while increasing reactor power from 20 to 600 watts. Reactor power was 24 watts when rundown occured. l 11-17-80 l
. Rundown; 120% demand ... student operator failed to change inear NI selector switch while increasing reactor power from 20 to 600 watts. Reactor power was 24 watts when rundown occurred.
11-18-80 l. [ Rundown; Reg Rod ' insert limit in auto'... student operator placed rod control . l -
in auto with reg. rod on insert limit while prepairing to do rod worth measurements. Reactor was at 20 watts prior to. rundown. 21-80 Scram; manual ... during routine shutdown of reactor shim rod 3 would not insert (or withdraw). Manual scram was innitiated be the e,nerator. . Upon investigation it was determined that the rod drive motor was inoperable (openwinding). Reactor was operating at <20 watts prior to scram (SRI & 2 were being rundown). 12-10-80
-Rundown; 120% full power.... Pool temperature was at 68oF due to maintenance on' shim rod drive motor. The Nuclear Instrumentation system was alligned and calibrated with a pool . temperature of 73oF. This difference in pool temp resulted in a Linear NI reading of 180 Kw and a Log N NI reading of 230 Kw. The power range NI detectors (callibrated at 73oF) were reading l-85 to 90% of full power. Reactor was at approximately 180 Kw and was operated at this power level following the rundown.
01-08-81 Rundown; 120% demand ... student operator did not change selector switch on Linear NI during a power increase from 6 w to 20 w reactor power level 7.2 watts prior to rundown. l I
w; l Table . 6 .) Maintenance 04-09-80 Repair N-16 diffuser pump #2. Electrical connection broke off during operation, probably due to vibration. Replaced terminal and returned to service. 04-14-80 Replaced Shim Rod #2 rod drive brake solonid. ' Open coil resulted in drag (slower speed) on rod drive for both insert and withdrawl. Tested for. correct rod drive speed and returned to service. 05-27-80 Adjusted warm gear clutch on Linear recorder. Recorders were sticking on low end of scale. 06-26-80 to 07-18-80 I Rewired (in conduit) Intermediate and Lower level of reactor building. Instal-led Ultrasonic detectors, new High Radiation warning sytem, Beam Port control, Thermal Column control and Basement Sump high level annunciator system. 07-23-80 Adjusted Linear NI recorder worm gear clutch. Recorder sticking on low end of scale. l 07-29-80 i ! . Replaced Linear NI amplifier in accordance with Semi-Annual surveillance j requirements. Checked for proper allignment as noted on Semi-Annual Checklist. l 08-26-80 Completed Control Rod Physical Inspection as noted on Semi-Annual Checklist. l 09-27-80 Completed installation of new Radiation Area Monitoring System. Checked for proper operation, calibrated with source and placed in service. l
08-80 Replaced Shim Rod #3 rod drive' motor (Model # 05088-FPE25L-107-5) with one of j Similar type '(Model1# CDA 211454). Open' winding in 'origional drive .aotor l prevented either insert 'or withdrawl (no_- torque). Replacement mator has slower withdrawl and insert speed (5.8 inches / min vs. 6.0 inches / min).
'12-22-80_'
Replaced Power Range Uncompensated Ion Chamber detector #1. Aligned system and checked for proper operation. Reactor will be power calibrated during Semi-Annual surveillance and detector will be physically adjusted with respect to core at that time. 23-80 Replaced suction hose for pool skiamer by draining approximately 7000 gallons of pool water. Water was sampled before during and after discharge for radioactivity. (All samples within 10CFR20 limits). Refilled pool and consnenced purification of water. Completed Semi-Aanual surveillance requirements as noted on Semi-Annual Checklist. 2-3-81 Replaced Shim Rod #1 Control Rod Drive Motor Mo'lel #05088-FPE25L with re-wound Shim Rod #3 motor. SR #1 motor shipped out for rewind (open winding) by 0.E.M. 2-10-81 Re-wired and installed new relay control for under water pool lights. I-c 7 - - p
'VI Public Relations The reactor staff has put:forth considerable ef' fort toleducate the public
~in the field of nuclear energy. Over 2450 persons have toured .the facility during this report period. This includes groups representing social, mil-
-itary, civic, industrial governmental and educational fields. .These groups
- 'dre usually given a pre-orientation lecture by members of the reactor staff. These.le'ctures are mygmented by visual aids such as. slides and displays.- , Many high school, junior college and college groups, (from this 'and other universities) have attended the various lectures and open houses. Some groups' from other universities have spent an entire day at the facility be coming acquainted with the reactor and performing simple experiments. Usu-ally these groups are from colleges which have no reactor facilities. A guided tour by the reactor staff includes a brief description of the basic nuclear react;cns, components of a nuclear reactor, a few specific examples of how nuclear energy is used in industrial and educational field and how nuclear anergy helps the environmental situation. The Nuclear Engineering faculty are members of various social civic, pro-fessional, and governmental committees. The faculty and students also are involved in speaking engagements around Missou
- and several other states concerning the reactor facility and in recruitin programs at high schools and colleges.
The reactor staff is cooperating with several police departments in acti-
.vation analysis of samples.
VII. 'Educaticnal . Utilization
' Approximately 39 UMR students,. graduates and undergraduates have participated -
in classes at the facility, etilizing'1616 student - semester hours of al-
- located time. Also students from several colleges, and high schools have used the 'facil'ity The following is. a list of scheduled classes at the facility along with the total hours of Reactor Use for this reporting period.
NE 304 Reactor Lab 54.49 hrs. NE 306 Reactor Operations 122.29 hrs. NE 308 Advanced Reactor Lab- 114.18 hrs. NE 300 Speciai Problems 8.03 hrs. NE 490 Resehrch 0.0 hrs. Reactor Operator training Program 474.13 hrs. (viaextension) 'l The current enrollment in Nuclear Engineering is 74 students. During this reporting period the reactor war used 99.9% for i;.struction and 0.1% for research. l The.use of the Nuclear Reactor by departments other than Nuclear Engineering on this campus has continued to decrease. This condition is a common oc-ct.rance with campus reactors that have been in service for a considerable number of years. This is reflected in the amount of time the reactor was used for Research during this (and previous) reporting periods. It should be noted howner, that the reactor use has remained very high in the area of training. !, Tn k.iclear Reactor Facility was accepted, by the Union Electric Company of i St. Louis, Mo., to provide serveral two week programs in operational training. 1 i -
E This. training' augents. the .first Phase of their Commercial' Nuclear Reactor Operator Training, with actual' hands on experience in Start-up, Shutdown,-
-etc. This training was provided during July, September,-January of 1980 .and March of 1981..
4 4 Reactor Health Physics Activities - for the period -
~
April 1,1980.through March 31, 1981- . l-Health Physics activities 'at the-UMR Reactor Facility' consist of radiation and contamination surveys, monitoring of personnel exposures, airborne activity, pool water activity and waste disposal. Releases of all' by-product material to authorized, licensed recipients are surveyed and recorded. In addition, health physics activities include calibrations of-portable and stationary radiation detection instrants, personnel' training, special su' veys cnd monitoring of non-routine procedures. Routine Surveys Monthly radiation surveys of the facility consist of direct gamma and neutron measurements with the reactor at full power. No unusual exposure rates were . found. Monthly surface contamination surveys consist of 20-30 swipes counted separately for alpha and beta-ganrna activity. In 12 monthly surveys, no significant contamination outside of contained work areas was fou'nd. By-Product Material Release Surveys During the period, 5 shipments of by-product material were surveyed and released from the reactor facility. Total activity released was 85.084 mci. Three of the shipments were Radwaste which accounted for 85.082 mci of the l ? total activity. The other-two shipments were utilized on the UMR Campus. l Routine Monitoring 44 reactor facility personnel and students frequently involved with operations l in the reactor facility are currently assigned. beta-gamma, neutron film j l badges which are read twice each month. There are five beta-gamma, neutron arca and spare badges assigned. 24 campus personnel and students are as-signed beta-gamma film badges and frequently TLD ring badges for materials ) l I
t-and X-ray work on campus. There'are 20 beta-gamma area and spare badges l assigned. 'In addition, 7 direct-reading dosimeters are used for visitors - and high radiation area work. There have been no personnel over exposures during the period.- Airborne activity in the reactor facility is constantly monitored by a fixed-filter, particulate air monitor (CAM) located in the reactor bay.
- Rb-88 and Cs-138 are the particulate daughters of Kr-88 and Xe-138 which are monitored particult.te activity above the natural background of Radon daughter products.
Argon-41, Krypton-88 and Xenon 138 are the gaseous activity routinely detected during operations. Pool water' activity is monitored monthly to insure no gross pool con-tamination nor fuel cladding rupture has occurred. Gross counts and spectra
< of long-lived gamma activity are compared to previous monthly counts.
From April through March sample concentrations averaged 4.6x10-6 pc j f,j , Waste Disposal Release'of gaseous and particulate activity through the building exhausts. is determined by relating the operati.ng times of the_ exhaust fans and reactor power during fan operation to previously measured air activity at
- f. maximum reactor power. During this period 14.43 mil 11 curies were released
'into the air. Released isotopes were identified as Kr-88, Rb-88, Xe-138, Cs-138 and Ar-41.
Solid waste, including used water filters, used resins and contaminated
. paper is stored and/or transferred to the campus waste storage area for
! later shipment to a commercial burial site. Radioactive waste released to the sanitary sewer is primarily from regeneration of the resin exchange column.
- i i During this period 8' releases to the sanitary sewer totaling approximately l l
l l
9,255 gallons of concentrated resin ~ regeneration solution and pool water were discharged with a . total 1 activity of 0.846 mil 11 curies. ' Isotopes i l released were: Hydrogen-3, Sodium-24, Cr-51, Mn-54, Fe-59, Co-58,' Co-60, . l La-140, and Ba-140. All;isotopesf released were below 10 CFR 20. ~ Appendix B Table I, Column 2 limits. Instrument Calibrations-During this period, portable instruments were calibrated 4 times. . Remote area nonitors were checked for calibration 4 times.- l l l l P
3; , . r .; .; -
!IX Plans' h
l The appendix of this1 report contains the ' final report-of the UMR-Chancellor--
. Nuclear Facility ~ Study Committee. 2 Several members of the ' faculty undertook -
c
- this;7 month. study to determine the long range plans of the facility'and ,
~
the~ cost / benefit of continuing to operate;this facility. - The contents.of-
~
;the report.is. favorable to continuing to operate the reactor primarily as -
- an educational (training) facility.
- During the< future reporting period the reactor staff will complete replacement of all origionally installed, control room instrumentation. .The final items T to be purchased consist of two compensated. ion chamber power supplies for
- the Linear and Log-N Intermediate. Range Nuclear Instruments. The Source i
- Rnage, Magnet- Power Supply and Power Range equipment- has been previously purchased and needs only to be installed.
There will be two-ten day Reactor Operator Training programs in August or
- - September of 1981 for. Union Electric Company of St. Louis, Missouri. With
- the completion of these two programs our service to U.E. will be completed-for their initial; operator licensing effort. Continued programs (One-Ten-L day class per year) will be for only replacement operators and new profes-sional employees. There are plsns to obtain another steady customer from
' the utility industry, whose initial licensing effort is underway or just beginning.
l The facility is still involved in a re-licensing effort that began in November of 1979. We have been informed by the NRC that their review of the initial facility documents will be completed and the resulting questions / t
~ answer. series will begin during the future reporting period.
i-lJ 1.- _ - - - - - , -
- ht 'is~ anticipated that the reactor staff will be expanded to include-Three
~
Senior Licensed Operators. Operator Licensing exams for One SRO and TWO Ro's will be given in June of.1981. The current plans call for an increase in licensed operators'without acquiring any new personnel. These individuals scheduled for licensing have been members of the staff for some time and
' will -therefore,. require only a change in Job Title / Duties. This should allow the facility to expand it's operation without (or only minor) increase-in operating cost to the University.
l ( _
1 Summary The University of Missouri - Rolla . Nuclear Reactor was in use approx 1nately 136% of the time class was-in session at-the university (40 wks) or 82% of. the total available time based on a 2080 hour work year. These previous i precentages utilize the old established method for use rate and are'some what misleading. A more reasonable percentage of use would be 50%(1)J and 39 %(2)' respectively. The total maintenance time of the facility was 824 hours (39%) wh'ich provided a total availability (reactor operational) of1280 hours (61%). It should be noted that during this reporting period approximately 350-hours of maintenance time was used for new equipment installation and that the facility was operating with only two licensed Senior Reactor Operators (normal compliment of three). A total of 12.26 megawatt hours of energy was produced using 0.6312 grams of U-235. The ratio of usage was 99.9% for instruction and 0.1% for research. A total of 216 sampler was irradiated during this reporting with most samples being used on a intra-campus basis. The reactor was visited by 2450 people during the past year. At the same
- time there were 36 UMR students enrolled for courses at the Reactor Facility.
The Facility was thus conritted to over 1836 student-hours of classes in-volving about 27 huurs per week during the Fall and Spring Semester. There were no classes at the reactor during the Suniner of 1980 to allow for an extended maintenance period. The facility continues to be utilized by electrical utilities for operator training. Four-ten day and three-five day non-credit university extension (1) Hours of Instruction & Hours of Research 1600 hours (2) Hours of Instruction & Hours of Research 2080 hours '
~n - - -.
programs were completed;with approximately 440 hours of facility time being used for these programs. ' These programs provided $72,474 to the University
- with. net revenue of $25,640 to the facility. These funds are and will be used to purchase new or replace out dated equipment.
b 0
>.~ -+-w s#_4- - ~.- - - ~ -- - ~~,q l
I< o APPENDICES I i i i l f { } I 6 1 La.. _ _ _
Tympm 8 t APPENDICES A m ,_ i
n .. . - . _
)*J Semi Annual Check List Dat'e Commenced nFc 9. 21980 Date Complet'ed DICl:s MAD Total Hours on Hour Meteropff / %
'l.- Vacuum Tube Testiand Clean Chassis Initial
- a. LogN Power Supply [
(1) Cleaned chassis (2) . Tested all vacuum tubes (( #h/2 M Replaced: tube # tube type v t/ 545/ l _ ,m (3) Additional Comments WW ff1(1-
- b. Linear Power Supply g-g7I-[d (1) Cleaned chassas -
(2) Tested a'i vacuum tubes -8M Replaced: tube # tube type l l (3) Additional Comments
-971
- c. Lin:Cr Pulco Amplificr M W s (1) . Cleaned chassis .
N#M (2) Tented all vacuum ~ tubes Replaced: tube 5 tube type Y-4 bd$ 1 V- X &/961
-(3) Additional Comments 40 VW-4-p3-Yo
- d. Scaler Timer MM -
(1) Cleaned chassis- 8/M (2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube # tube type m (3) Additional Comments V jg - 2.'E-76
- c. Safety Amplifier (1) Cleaned chassis g/% .
(2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube i ghe type _ f 0
.c -
(3) ' Additional Commento D~ ,- A3'
'f. ' Area ' Radiation Monitor
-(l) - Cleaned chassis _
'( 2) Tested all vacuum tubes
- Replaced: tube # ' tube type (3) Additional Comments
.$yS5M iS AktdNID
- g. Micro-Micro Ammeter /M (1) Cleaned chassis
^'
(2) [4/d Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube # tube type (3) Additional Comments Miss-tbkes Awp7se sp / 74 t'3 pcuoiAce sixia & Ro - Hid 4 An w h
. $/). /9458 m NflAtl/fo.
- h. Fission Preamp Ng /N'NY' (1) Cleaned chassis and inspected (2)
/_d/[
j Additional Comments W - 9
~3-
/A$Y *
- . i'. - Public AddrCoa System __M
~(1) Cleaned. chassis M/r/3 *
(2) Tested-all vacuum tubes Replaced:. _ tube # tube type f-I tSll56'
.(3) Additional Comments ^
jf- W
- j. Log Count Rate Re:: order (1) Cleaned chassis M//#3 (2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube # tube type si (3) Additional Comments DK jf.pf-EM
- k. Linear Recorder N /// )
(1) Cleaned chassis M//M
/
(2) ~ Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube # tube type (3) Additional Comments sf M f ~ QY
- 1. P^riod Record r g-
[ (1) Cleaned chassis (2) Tested all vacuum tubes MM ~
-s Replaced: tube l, tube type (3) Additional Comments,
- m. Log N Recorder
, y , $ 'I '
/A6# M (1) Cleaned chassio (2)
[2//'1b Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube # tube type (3) Additional Comments W
,g 8 "Y
- n. PAT 60
.(1) Cleaned chassis hd (2)
[6&M Tested all vacuum tuben Replaced: tube I tube type s b
(3) Additicn21'Commento , A ##4 jg 8
- o. Regulated Power Supply Nf_
(1)~ Cleaned' chassis - (2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube f tube type I 4 (3) Additional Comments . k 0 MA ff b$W '
- p. Conductivity Brigge k/
(1) Cleaned chassis M (2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube i tube type gppih/dd hMM Y hesmudYld/A'(ER*f$2- S Slbb (( , g. Safety Amp Preamp /M'N ~ (1) Cleaned chassis (2) Tested all vacuum tubes h/d
///hd Replaced: tube I tube type i
l i L~ (3) Additional Comments 4 .
- 2 RalCY TCat g MI M n a.
b. Console relays tested and replaced as per SOP 815 bb Additional Comments y
- 3. Detector Resistance '
s Safety Il Value (1) Signal to r;round 3Xt/' (2) (3) Positive to ground Additional Comments 1)( io'I N/
, '[ ,
- b. Safety 82 Value Initia (1) Signal to ground 87SlroN (2)
(3) Positive to ground Additional Comments T M 108 ' bb_
/
j s
- c. Log N (1) Signal to ground [,Vte#
(2) Positive to ground IY/oi [ (3) Negative to ground IX)o# ! (4) Additional Comments (V ' /
/
- d. Linear (1) Signal to ground [ Vie -
(2) (3) Positive to ground Negative to ground 7J10T /. TXtoI ' (4, <, Additional Comments 1
- 4. Calibration Checks Note:
Any instrument found to be out of calibration should bc realigned in accordance with itr. technical manual. A. TemperaturJ Record r x 1. Reading i Thermometer Recorder 1 M 4r0 31 ,,_ 2 3Z 90 33 3 3Z 31_ _ 1 140aP IM 2 1400F j Sf 3 1400F l Note: Allreadingsshouldbeip"P
- 2. 135"P Interlock Trip Point Initial 13 I D. Log Count Rate Channel
- 1. Pulse Generator
- Meteg/ Recorder Initial 10 *
},'lf ll 10 Nd 100 1000
_ //b , PO %
/ Joe /d/d 6W//3 10,000 /ddbp n
9 q qL) Qg
. Note: All readings should give .7 to 1.4 ratio of true-to observed readings.
- 2. Additional Commants C. Linear
- 1. Keithley Meter Recorder Initial 6.66X10 ~5 d.jd /de '2s
~ (hff0 2.0X10 $,6 6.66X10 -6 g,9
}D D $o ~
/)cff/3
-6 j7jg g _ j,jjjg 2.0X10 g,g 49 f, ~
,q,,,3
~
6.66X10 g<f /d / o 2.0X10
~ /"%/fd
).b //) d Vii t
/I))fs
~0 6.66X10 2.0X10 ~0
_ /,f[ __ 9P9o hhp 3
,2, 0
_ QVQii /}ffff3 6.66X10 2.0X10~
-9
[M '9 d Md
-10
, /)
f9M /94/8, 6.66X10
-10 j,gj ppg ggjjfg 2.0X10 [9f pg ggg Note: From 10~ to 10 ~0 the overall accuracy should be better
! than 2% of ful1 scale. 1
' 7, .
r
,_ . ? ; Q .~ ?; ? [ ~=e L y 1 - .
From 3X10 -9 to 3X10 -13 the overall accuracy should f be better than 4%.
- 2. Additional Comments
. N D. Log N
- 1. Meter Recorder Keithley Initial p te M' 100 10 TL 9A. !*/9 8
/C //,r /k A?0 1 / /, h &
- 0. 3,/ /), / WM
.01 /),bdf 6o6//
.001 hf8 6,66/3 6.Ad0W /2fd
.0001 0, Odd /f 0 d6dof Afkr3 Note: The ratio of true-to-observed readings should be between 0.7 and 1.4.
- 2. Additional Conunents i M
- 5. Verification of Rod Drop Times
- a. Rod i Rod Height Separa' ion Time Rod drop Time (inch) (< 50 msec) (< 600 msec at 24'
_1 1
& R%k3t$ ' Q30
/2. 290 1
/% ,36Q 1
24 V __ 39o 2 < 40 _ 2 so 2 12 2 2']O 2 I% 3$o 24 V '/-Oo 3 3 ( M ' 130 12 j7O 3 18 _ 36o b. 3 24 V NO Date performed DEC 23 198 Preformed by [ s Director or Supervisor uY [
- by 50P 305
-9 l
r -
~ ,- 6., Void Coefficient Determination
- a. Value of void coefficient
~
,D g/O-9 LAK/K/cm
- b. Calculation performed by M _
- c. Date performed /D[T/T'D
- d. Director or Supervisor Nofh
- 7. Temperature Coefficient Det.ormination
~
4
- a. Value of temperature coefficient - $60[10 -/.26Yso~ hv. A K/K/"P
- b. Calculations performed by g ggg g
- c. Date performed /O/26) O
- d. Director or Supervisor // /f
- 8. Rod Speeds Time (Sec) I. II. III. Reg.
o-24" 237,7 140.G 247.5 42.7 (3) Additional Comment n ' Date DEcpg 77 Performed By
- 9. Rod Indicator Calibration Indicator Reading 4 Actual Height I. II. III. Reg.
1" l l l { 6" d 6 ' 6 d 12" JS- 12, lk i 2-18" /T l[ J v+{ues t 0.Ill IT ]f 24" 24- N 2// 5
- 10. Results of Annual Control Rod Inspection NE O A) Il 'in ', ha%
s A. Control Rod Number 1 o F' 11cb Contr_:;l Rod Number 2 1 I ll.c Control Rod Number 3 A I
- d. Date Performed C. Director or Supervisor _
0 fm l
. I f
Date l7/-M 19 % I~have'reviewedtheresultsofthisSemi-AnnualCheckonthindate and discussed any problems and/or errors with the operating ataff. Director or Reactor Manager
$t0?o?&
nrc ea jggg
/Ge M -m Sy ste% C[ul60 ht( sare,/ Arm,/A[}kush)
& 1%Iclu~e nf fwie (cy, p>ln) r~ .aka , fLil W el.Q T \
aa %%ry Boey dso . h kie r~kdu ( L ,o w n ,PJ s 4 l l l l l q pc- 70 Semi Annual Check List 0 Date Commenced- k l_ 2 8 E Date Completed '~'EN # .* Total Hours on Hour Meter _O706 7. 7.
- 1. Vacuum Tube Test and Clean Chassis Initial
- a. Log N Power Supply (1) Cleaned chassis M /3 (2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube # tube type V4 s-b ri V7 56 ri (3) Additional Comments None A
- b. Linear Power Supply (1) Cleaned chassis (7#//3 (2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube 5 tube type v'3 sLsl V4 r6r/
V9 SL TI (3) Additional Comments None r
if- 2% A 1 C. LinCr Pulse Amplifier M ., (1) Cleaned chassis hf/Y (2) Tested all vacuum tuber Replaced tubej tube type
, dr4A-(3) Additional Comments None
- d. Scalor Timer (1) Cleaned chassis /j2p//7 (2) Tasted all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube 6 tube type
, V2 420/b24r 7 pcul VI 77/3 pcu I V4 S163
_peu 3 VL r163 (3) Additional Comments Dc u. I VI + Y ue.e4 (s 14 4
-OC 4 3 Vl ueak
- e. Safety Amplifier 8
(1) Cleaned chassis 8///f (2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube 4 tube type
;l.CHf-A fef?- VO F
(3) Additicnol C mments
,6
- f. Area Radiation Monitor
. (1) Cleaned chassis 8-#//3 -
'(2) Tested all vacuus tubes Replaced tube # tube type-V/ 4D0.6 (3) Additional Comments
- g. Micro-Micro Ammeter (1) Cleaned chassis- /2//d
,, (2) Tested all vacuum tubes
. Replaced: tube # tube type
. a 7^
1 w W (3) Additional Comments
- h. Fission Preamp M (1) Cleaned chassis and inspected [2-//d (2) Additional Comments n
f.pprc o.
- 1. P'ublic Addr000 System (1) Cleaned chassis (2)
N/d Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube # tube type YW (3) Additional Comments
- j. Log Count Rate Recordor (1) Cleaned chassis 8/M -
(2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube # tube type Vi 12A17 o V 2. 12 A f 7 (3) Additional Comments , k. Linear Recorder N/// (1) Cleaned chassis (2) Tested all vacuum tubes [b Replaced: tube # tube type AffA t n (3) Additional Comments (.E . p g-%
.' l. Pcriod Recorder /
(1) -Cleaned chassis bM g (2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube 4 tube type YA+tf (3) Additional Comments
- m. Log N' Recorder
//M (1) Cleaned chassis M (2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube 4 tube type tiL4.9 n
(3) Additional Comments
- n. PAT 60 (1) Cleaned chassis h8 (2) Tested all vacuum tubes
'[gd Replaced: tube 4 tube type O
~ (3) Additien31 Commento , n Regulated Power Supply s o. (1) Cleaned chassis (2) Additional Comments b
- p. Conductivity Bridge (1) Cleaned chassis (2)
Ml Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced:
//g Id4/h 9 8 [ " '
tube # tube b pe
/ /
\ /
, n (;
My ), a -
- q. Safety Amp Preamp
^ (1) Cleaned chassis [ (2) Tested all vacuum tubes Replaced: tube # tube type
\
en v - 7 (3) Additional Comments
- 2. Relay Test a.
Cor.aole relays tested and replaced as per SOP 815
- b. Relays Replaced I k-6 u'-\T) V- 3 o
_ k-4 _ V->/ R- n k-I )?-22 sh:s I-8 Ku fr 2f
(c) Additi n21 C mmento n 3 Detector Resistance
- a. Safety 11 value (147) Signal to ground if r . ,
(149) Positive to ground 2 $dd' / Open Circuit Resistance ,1 f io /
- b. Safety #2 /
(143) Signal to ground ?, Z X /0 # (145) Positive to ground T. C Jt o# Open Circuit Resistance l/no Y
\
)
- c. Log N (125) Signal to ground I, 3 ' d (123) Positive to ground 3,2gto7 I (121) Negative to ground ( G 4 /O M Open Circuit Resistance J)(rol f [I /
- d. Linear
^ . (114) Signal to ground C C vio (112) Positive to ground 7,9 g/OI f (110) Negat'.ve to ground Open Circuit Resistance 7,2xicI M 4. J d o't Mb Fire Alarm System Tested as Per SOP 817
- 5. Calibration Checks ,!
Note: Any instrument "ound to be out of calibration should be realigned in accordance with its technical manuel. A. Temperature Recorder
- 1. Reading t Thermometer Recorder 1
320F J2 2 320F "T 3 _ 3 320F 83 1 1600F ff/ 2 1600F /4'/ 3 1600F M2 Note: All readings should be i fF
- 2. 135CF Interlock , Trip Point I35* '
m /
B. Log' Ccunt Rata Chtnnel
- 1. Pulse Generator
- Meter Recorder Initial_
10 22 }D 100 /20 )2 O 8 1000 /200 /200 10,000 P5'c o f660 - Note: All readings should give .7 to 1.4 ratio of d, j rue-to observed readings.
- 2. Additional Comments C. Linear
- 1. Keithley Meter Recorder (%) Initial fM 6.66X10 -5 [, gg pp[, 7g
-5 2.0X10 /,99 pp p ggg 6.66X10 -6 g, j,7 /7;g pg gjg 2.0X10 -6 2.O6' 6.66X10 -7 [, 44
/ d M hs [
2.CX10
~
N. O 99'[4_ _OVd 6.66X10 -9 [ ,4 7
/d d @o bf73
/#/fo 8/M 2.0X10 -8 j, g jjj po gg 6.66X10 -9 [, 6 7 2.OX10 -9
/44 @e N73
/ , 9'f 8df, 8&//d 6.66X10 -10 g, gg gpp,, ggpjjjg 2.0X10 ~19 /.96" /D0 Vo j /fff Note: From 10 -3 ~0 to 10 the overall accuracy should be better than 2% of full scale.
From 3X10 ~9 to 3X10-13 the overall accuracy should be better than 4%.
- 2. Additional Comments
.s
,- D.. Log N
- 1. Meter Recorder Keithley Initial ,
-5 5X10 100 /03
-6 ' // O M SX10 10 //, O / Y, O 6
~
SX10 1 /. 20 /. 3 6 M 5X10' O.1 ,/2O , /d o
~9 M-5X10 .01
-10
, o / '3
.oo? #-
SX10 .001- .oo// ,Odo7
-11 /<-
5X10 .0001 . oo , / 3f' . ao o / E Note: The ratio of true-to-observed readings should be between 0.7 and 1.4.
- 2. Additional Comments E. Automatic Control System for Regulating Rod Final Settings
- Reset Rate time ,C Proportional Band 7O Setpofnt 37
- Adjust as per SOP 814 F. Radiation Area Monitor ' ~
s
- 1. SOP,806 completed for RAM
.(
- 2. SOP 807 completed for RAM (Neutron)
"V
- 6. Verification of Rod Drop Times \{
Rod # Rod Height Separation Time
- 6" 12" 18" 24" 6" 1 250 ms 27%, 345 - s 2 3 to us I 6%s 2 to a s_ 2 336-s 3
3 %s 2O ns 2 70 %s 1 60 .s 3 Afus 3 [@2/5 _ /6'NJ 7
- Time calculated by (Time at normal current + 10 mamps) - (Time at minimum current + 5 mamps) = separation time.
e
- b. D2to performed -*" t 8 10RG Preformed by
^
- 7. Void Coefficient Determination
- a. Value of void coefficient *$ b O M K/K/cm
- b. Calculation performed by M/ _
- c. Date performed Ney lf [4d79
- 8. Temperature Coefficient Determination
- a. Value of temperature coefficient , M M K/K/oF
- b. Calculations performed by wI/
- c. Date performed 4)m/ Q /[N s .4 -
- 9. Power Calibration as per SOP 816
- a. Additional Comments I
- 10. RodSpeeds(Sec.)
Time I. II. III. Reg. o 240.3 2392 Q39.4 62.1 (3) Additional Comment (
/
Datemic p g soonPerformed By
- 11. Rod Indicator Calibration Indicator Reading Actual lleight I.E II . + III. 4 Reg.Y 1" 1 I l l 6" h _ [ h b 12" d 12 / 2_ /2 4 vcLs tg/g A 18" )T lT )T l $~ ,
24" 2.4 24 24 24
- 12. Results of Annual Control Rod Inspection.
A.1 Control Rod Number 1 2 mr top 1.25 R at bottom Top cleaner than usual. No unusual signs of pitting and cracking.
. A.2 Control Rod Drive Mechanism Brake and Solonid m B.1 Control Rod Number 2 5 mr top 4 R at bottom Top cleaner than usual. No unusual signs of pitting and cracking.
l l B.2 Control Rod Drive Mechanism Brake and Solonid C.1 Control Rod Number 3 5 mr top l 6 R at bottom l ~ Bow 10" from bottom f.0050.'s, Noted during inspection, will continue observance. C.2 Control Rod Drive Mechanism Brake and Solonid l e
,, \ ~ ~
- d. Dato P0rf0rmed M 2 81980 i
- e. Director or Supervisor
- 7 Date Mo/ o . B4 19 P/
I have reviewed the results of this Semi-Annual check on this date and discussed any problems and/or errors with the operating staff. Director or Reactor Manager (bsahhn n, _ i. I I l m
. . - _ _ - . . . ~ . . ... L. .. -
_ - . - ~ - t' . . . . . . . . . _ m I i UN.'.VERSITY OF MISSOURI-lol.l A - NUCI.I'A k kl'AC'!UR p; f ... l STANDARD OPEIMTl NG l'10CVl1Uki; 4 i - S.O.P.: 6117 REv i t;lp, 7- 284 ~1's l'AGl: 1 OF 1 TITLE: Pire Alarm System .. *
! The UMR Nuclear Reactor building, fire alam system consists of two type j of detectors; four heat sensing units and two smoke detectors, plus two manual alam station.
The system has a built in circuit failure warning system with an audible and Visible Alam at the Control hoX. The alarm system is normally powered from building power, with batteries for a backup. When a actual alarm is initiated an internal and an external building fire alarm is sounded and when the building security system is in opera-tion a remote alarm is sounded at the campus police headquarters. PROCED E: . e
. Replace the emergency power supply batteries in the battery box.
Test emergency power by securing power to the alam system (switch 32 in the power panel) and te t system operational. Check the fotar heat detectors by applying a heat blower on them and acknowledging alarm actuation, audibic and visible and their resetting after the heat is removed.
/ '
lpf Check the two smoke detectors by placing a buraing cigarette on a long pole momentarily removing all power to the alam control box. Check the two manual alarm stations and acknowledge alam actuation, audible and visible and reset.
. Check all indication lights operational.
l
$Y .
/ b
~
WHITTEN BY: R.M. Luckett
,_ _ , , . ___ ~ . . . _ . - -
Al>l % .vr_t;.~ itY: D.P. Edward::
I APPENDICES B
- y. -
' u
-u: -
S_ 4 4 3?
. 1 :-.
aNovember -10, 1980
- I;am retiring larter this-year. . Arter the Spring 19al' inspection
.some~..other arrangement will need to be made.
.P.,B."Pauls .
M T
,e r
I D e
.: .L A0 TN . FA ~ 11. . "".* 1 * . 7 D T10 " - - D r. ; o ( :- )
(Phone: 341-4250)' Iso- 6( 7 / f 80 ' 1 re .
- - vavo Iiate(s) of last NRC inspection b .7d./O,/7fC Date( s) of last "inheuse" inspection hk / k R /9fA LoS Book Inspection:
I
' Msant P i '
Log Book 1; umber Tcce Date
!- From er.try: V d y. hh / / 9f'c Through entry: g qg.y g'q g g Follow up items from previous inspection (ite=; follow-up):
o) L.4. A w w:~ m Nm - w a)CM M w b M *" N d*'^- y
- 3) 9m-w. A pr e A _ d , , , , , .r . a
, . 4 <=A h m= - h 4 - . .r, s ,
% 74Q "% Of" % Da L D NRC.
.4 7r
.>o.-- -- 3 a g
-x.tu ,mn 10K! Cc ments A. Technichl specifications ----------- / / , Changes y , if se, li st Arpent.1x A -- Jan. 6, 1967 !
Lt n 7].'Stua-. L m &w. Lp L a y t.e.~. .
- 1. ( 2.1) ven til ati ng f anc ------------ /
Autome. tic closure ---------------- /
- 2. (3.1) l'ool water depth (16 f t. :nin b M# f above core) --------------------- ' d
~
- 3. (3.1) Inlet water temperr.ture I fs '
- s. YAh _.A ewhW.:C,J
!'I '
60CF < t ( 135 F ------=---------- / - RE,
- 4. (3.2) Radiation one meter above
{ pl
- 5. pool < 5 nr/hr(3.2) Ret 1stivity > 0.5-y me. oh: -cm , /
E. Fuel ---------------------------- hv Ty'ne cf elenents: TTR- M M ' Other .749 +( G-sd p (4.1.3) < 1.51 ---------------- v Trecentloadin[~(s): I,' h/ *
- 8
] 7 1.50 3ates: (1) a y s( twi Pexc e(a3.5ls y e ri rfive
-- - -consecutive v'
d - - - - - - - - - - -- ' ,
.(2) /' \
- 7. Control rod: (9.5) condition --- I-v Date inspectec: Es - ' - 8"' M (4.2.3) Reactivity, s!.utdown M 6, / f po margin at least 84 --------------- v (4.2.4) Drop time ( 600 msec ---- p/ (9.3) Dates: - (1)(j mt /j (4.3.2) Limit lights; shim range (2) ' 4 .
lighte; hts ---- - V c,
- 8. 1;eutron ma sourcenet (min.
contact 10 gig n /sec) - , / -
? *.g. 417
-3g kQe w 1m+A u&(NLcA 1
'inge 2
'OEI Ce m.ents
- 9. Saf ety' systems (annunciator) ---- A (5.4) Start-up channel - ,-------- yv .
-(5.4) Linear channel -------------* -ll (5.4) Log N ,Peroid channel ------v !
-(5.4) Safety channel #1 -----------/ -
(5.4) Safety channel #2
- 10. (5.5) l'agnet release ; time ---------{s 4 50 r.see -
11.. (5.7) Radiation -levels < 0.1 =r/hr- v Loca tion - gending p m hr_ (cQ Pool surface above core ------------ A # # 4{3t(.i_g ,, Kear demineralizer - 3 s ,c3 1 B eam ro ce ------ ---- r 4 , m- 3
. V
/T
- 12. (5.8) Portable survey instruments - V.
List: ;
- Neutron .
l ! Alph~a 3amma f l Beta . t Other, .,
- 13. Experimental fac ities I
- 3ive. example as to how used.
Ilung samples --------------------- (6.1.1) Core access element -------v; (6.1.1) Isotope prod. element -----/ I ( 6.1.2 ) Rabbi t tub e ------------- L/ . (6.-l.2) Thermal column -------- - b {j
- ( 6 .1. 2 ) B e am por t ----- ----- --,---- /
l(6.2.2) Documentation of exps. ----v (6.2.3) Sin le independent exp-erinent: 0
-(6.2.4) bi Of e<mo able v.ex 7 7, - - - - - - - - - - - - - j
./
.? .( O.4.1 --- periment:!
----------/
O.69"$11 movnble exp. ----- g (6".'I.5) Experiments having moving j parts: O 4,0.05% ---------------v (6.2.6)IPo ition of any/all exp. iy!
- 14. General Ocerating Limitations 8 I (7.1) Sta'rtup: Sr.Oper. plus one I #
(in the control room) (7.1) Operation: S.O. plus one --/ (in building) (7.4) No fuel position vacancies in core; loading (wall chart) -----/
, Irge 3 6 0h I Co ments
- 15. Fuel storage & Transfer .
wall chart ---------------------- 1 / (8.3) F6el handling tools
- locked ---/ * * ** -
3 (8.4) Fuel transfer--three men (Sr. Oper.; Lic. Oper. ; plus one. - /
- 16. (10.1) New loading: approach to
[ b7 W " Q) & critical exp. (reason & date)
~
QQ, J 4 (10.2) Core configuration change: l A one Erid position. (Reason & date) ' (10.3) Loading change of more thani one grid position-unload ' 50% ----- /
- 17. Instruments functioning (Table I)-- V (On week 1) check list - 0) ,
Scram: l'a n u al - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - / - startup P eriod < 5 s ec . --------- L / - c. s,- 150% full pow er --------- !- / - Bridge mo t ion ---------- - - 3 *s taf' tup W Rundown: Log N - power Period(linear') non-on-----v ---- / )lustartup 120% j b P erio d .< 15 s e e ----------- v - o
. Reg Rod (insert limit-auto' bp t,,Iq 9 0 rundown) ------------------/ -o 120% full power (log N) --- / 30 9 O' Low CIC vol tage --------- L startup Highradiation---------'y]startup /-
' Rod prohibit: Period < 30 sec. -- .o
/.ny record er off -------- p-f-.o /-
Low count ra te - -------- -y- o Reg Rod prohibit (rods ' , below shim range) ------ * '-/ - , Inlet ter..p . y. 1350F ---- --v Servo-prohibit on reg. rod -------- /go ~
- 18. Check Lists and records Lo g bo o k c hec k ed -- --- --- - -- - --- -- -/
(9.1) Daily facility check list -- -/ (9.3) Instrument channels & nrea
'r.onitors-calibra ted at 90 day Dates: (1) %
(2) 8 [. ~ i n t e r v a l s - - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -/ ( 3 ) p *7,4 ", [ - Uli.3R startup check list ---------- -/ Hourly recordc-note variations --- -/ f Shut-down check li st - ----------- -v
*ile ekl y ch eck l i s t --- ----------- -v y;gp3cq u mz19g -. ----------------- /
Six nonth systems check ---------- -/ Dates: (1) Q M - b af,/fgG (2)" L F
'! L M. ,t?tt
4 FL;e 4 s0K I Co=ents
- b. hecords l'. Iog books ly Current book number-4/.
> Other- Stored 2 ; Record er chcrt s ---------------- / Stored:
v Log N (permanent) where and for how lons ( ' 3. cause Evacuation alarms: 'nu=ber and Located: l / A. W %
--~~-~~------------------- / 1. %, ' W *1 "
'! *2 dA2.2 b b
- 4. Evacuation procedures, drill s - j / -
- 5. Us e of by-pa ss . key s -----------V 1.
- 6. Eey security ------------------ V, G eneral s ecuri ty --------------- VI Night: use . of building ---------- V -
- 7. SOP 'S - Note any revisions ----- /
I
- 8. Film badge, dosimeter ----------
' 9. Night watchman record --- ------. v/
O. Reactor Say _ .
- 1. General condition of pool ------ /
- 2. General condition of storage --- /
/
3.
- 4. Use of cable Kitrogen diffuser trench -----------j
--------- ---- /
S. !!iscellaneous ( Li s t ) - ---- ----/ D . : Co n trol Ro om -- - - -- - --------- - -- ---- / List of current operators --------- / Senior operators: d b 8. E,0b w -- $ 3.sa _ b fL v - p if,147f Operitors: M N.Omb- H ,5P. E. Office-(film badge rack, etc.) --- - /
? . Coun ting Ro om - ------- ----- -------- /
- 3. Rooms & Storage upstnirs --- ------ /
,L-TL e 5 4;.
------------la;
~
'^ c' =ents E. Stairwell.h. pump: area / 1.- Domineraliz er sy st em ----------- /
- 2. Out sid e air filters ---------- i /
- 1. Stairs ~ and beam room --------------j f
- 1. 7hermal column - ---------------v
- 2. acam tube ------------------ --
p 3.Fuelstorage-----------------jv/
- 4. - hi,uid h solid weste storage ---/
J. Hen 1th Physics. .
- 1. bample removal /
- 2. S01'S (list) ------------------,v
+
- 3. Excursion or incident monitor T ' ' ' -
- a. Film badge placement ------- / *
- b. Other -------- 4-------- /
- 4. Film badge, donimeter records - / !
- a. Staff ----------------------- / j
- b. Students /
c.3uests---------------------,/
- d. Hight watchman ------------ I /
- 5. Possible detection of fuel element rupture ,/ ,
G .n.Radia ti on surv ey -- ----------- 7 /' -Da t es-Feriodic nwipe tests --------*
- b. Tool water -----------~~---- ~<
dd* c . In si d e a i r --- ---- ------ - - ~v
- W 4 4*.L.L >~
_ g3 h d . Ou t si d e a ir -- ----------- - ~
- e. Heutron level (sub-critien1 - v '
- f. 1/isc. items (list) -- --*---- .
g
- 7. Err.crgency box (ihysics 31dg. ) -- /
~~
EnTraf connents:
- 1. I did not detect any items of 3 rent concern. I'm always plea sed to sco the excellent general housekeeping.
- 2. A building-evacuation drill is needed for this semester.
- 3. I understand the avalability of " hot" water in the emergency shower room is under advisement. At present there is a temoernture diffarence.
At least the " hot water" is some sNarner, but only slightly. The hot water to the sink is turned off. I think this ought to be turned back on. 4..I'had a lengthy discussion with the health physicist as to the relationship between him and the ronctor facility. During the spring inspection I intend to go into detail, record s etc. Signed A o d4 bi . hb Cet.ies to: Dr. N. L. Gale, Chairman. Radiation Safety Corsittee Dr. D. H. Edwards, Director of Nuclear Recctor Er. A. E. Elliott, Mannser of Nuclear Reector .
.=
1
- s. U?G Recctor
., e Health Physicists Survey-Instruments
~
~
Calibrated & In-use Date: ; October 18,.1977
' Instrument /Model ' Manufacturer Serial Nur.ber Cutie h'ic St.rvey Meter /CP-3 ' Technical' Associates 602
' 477 Cuti e Pie' Survey Meter /CP-3A - Technical Associates
- 478 Cutie Pie Survey Meter /CP-3A Technscal Associates 479 Cutie Pie Survey Meter /CP-3A Technical' Associates-3194 G.M. Survey Meter /E 120 Eberline 2247 Radiation Monitor /RM-14 Eberline 897 High "ge n Survey Meter /RadectorIII Victorcen
- 1405~ '
qt Let rh t - - - E Avha. PIc -l.4 -- - 1202 G?4 .ior ' ey 4eter/Thfac 3850 Victoreen A. 243 ] Neutron NJrvey Meter /488A Victoreen 1; aman 163 Neu tron . Dosinne ter/D- 300C LP p w q ws,___g p, (_ ,, p '_ - __. t777 1
' 951 po IL '
, %w vnaw --- E Mw l t c -u1 -
so 9 4 e 4 4 8 f k,. g s ', - ',,
.% ei,
e q
- Operctor'RequclificEtion Durini License Feriod
.,w.
As Examinationi. Review Sheet. ( Annual exam -- usually in summer)s'
~
M.:ae lfTip~ era tor. License number Exam cat;es j'. Comments 5-year and'-date record
~ *
- 1. . ,
cin S A OP s' .13 4. .
% g t9 to
~#/3/?c. -
M, y 2. gp 2 75 4 , ' t'ivo nh r,o y _u j , e[gY. qm g" hV IElT77 b- op 434 g TrR,W' % IG,1 f& fo .b '3l(98b 4. 3-B. Performanc7 Evaluation ( Semi-annual) Name of Onerator Evaluation Date- Comments 1. 2.
- h. 4W ,
Ilf% 9 c)
%.@JJ !!fifSb l
3. 4..
-C. On the J,ob Training: Progress Report (Annun Sunmary)
(Notebook kept by the operator.). .' Mcme of Operator Annual Su:rrary Date Com..'nts
- 1. .
.m===
2.
.3. 1 r
>4+gniipe-$ 4-
, ige .
SpcciallNuc16cr roteric3c.(SN?/) Position Name.
^ R e ac tor' Di r e c tor. ' --- ~ ~ ~-'------- 0$0 m
Reactor $ m_ _ q '. ------------
.. 1 ISNM Custodian -----------------
1._(See p. 2)- Procedures reviewed- annual]y.b: the Reactor Supervisor: Date Name
~
2, SNI. R ecord s : ~ Where kept'l b E (1) ' Position ' and/or change of rosition of- non-irra:!iated fuel: W-
~(b)Positionand/or~changeofpositionofir,radia'tedfuel:MW (3) SNr. receipts: M (4) SN/ shipments: Yt.cu l(5) Soci-annual Materic1 Status Report: 'l9 ,9g /
. 1..ost'recent previcus report: Date g 4 g.
Current report: / p A tr ad ,um Date Of%ll t'D (O{s f7q 3 l 2c. l %' e (6) Annual Phycien1 Inventory (S!!!". status log): 3l%If?o ^ ))L/ Ylo l'o' ~ 9 fd b Date Previous report: f - Current report: 3 f3i f9 d
' ( ? ) SN)I lo s s , thert or sabotage reported: M Date To whom reported (Director Region III NRC)
(8) (See p._5) Viointions of Written Procedures: NM (9). SHl.' Internal Control Areas: Dry storage area (basement): /
' Reactor: %% -
Containment building: 7M
APPENDICES C
- f. *
)
REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE UMR CHANCELLOR BY T!!E NUCLEAR FACILITIES STUD's COMMITTEE 29 APRIL 1981 e
17 a 1.w. g
-1'
- .h
- s, CONTENTS Nuclear Facilities Study Committee.................ii Abstract... ...................................... 111
-Introduction...................................... 1
' Nuclear-Facilities................................. 3~
UMR Nuclear Reactor.............................. 3 Thermal-Ilydraulics Laboratory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Radiation Damage and Effects Research Center.... 10 Pusion Research Center.......................... 12~ Summary of Recommendations........................ 15. Appendices
'A. Minutes of. Committee Meetings B. The Reactor-Director's Report C. The Nuclear Engineering Faculty's Statement Regarding the Reactor D. Nuclear Engineering Chairmen Questionnaire and Summary of Their Responses E. UMR Nuclear Engineering Alumni Questionnaire and Summary of Their Responses F. Equipment Needed for a Radiation Damage and Effects Research Center
r- . V ,
^+ . ..
- W '
11' y;-
~
.): .,
w NUCLEAR FACILITIES STUDY' COMMITTEE:
- Chairman, Nicholas Tsoulfanidis,-Nuc. Eng.
9 Bassem F. Armaly,: Mech. Eng. Albert E.'Bolon,-Nuc. Eng. Kenneth H. Carpenter, Elec..Eng. Thomas J. Dolan, Nuc.;Eng. Edward B. Itale, Phys.
^
-Arvind Kumar,-Nuc. Eng.
Leonard L. Levenson, Phys. 1 l
111 ABSTRACT The Nuclear Facilities Study Committee has been charged with the task of recommending to the Chancellor of the University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR) the facilities that will be required to satisfy the nuclear needs of the University for the no.<t 20. years. The committee has considered four. types of facilities: 1) Nuclear Reactor, 2) Thermal-liydraulics Laboratory, 3) Radiation Damage and Effects Research Center, and 4) Fusion Research Center. The committee believes that to maintain a strong Nuclear Engineering program UMR must continue to have an operating Nuclear Reactor. Therefore, the refueling of the reactor is an item of highest priority. A Thermal-Ilydraulics Laboratory should be established for instructional purposes within the Nuclear Engineering program. The development of research in the area of thermal-hydraulica can be accomplished only by hiring additional faculty who have experience in this field. Both fission and fusion reactors require extensive and continuous study of materials properties and of the change of these properties under adverse physicochemical end radia-tion environments associated with these types of r, tors. UMR, which already has considerable research capability in this area,should expand its research efforts by buying addi-tional equipment needed for the study of irradiated materials. The present fusion research effort at UMR should be ex-panded to increase the laboratory experience of students and the research opportunities for interested faculty. UMR should play a leadership role in developing fusion technology.
1 INTRODUCTION The Nuclear Facilities Study Committee was appointed by Chancellor Marchello in the fall of 1980 and was charged
'with the renponsibility of recommending to him the nuclear facilitics that will'be required.to satisfy the nuclear
- 3. instructional and research needs of the University for the next-20 years. The committee was assigned an account fund -
und was encouraged-to invite persons from industry,. academia, and national' laboratories-to UMR for discussions. The' committee held several meetings, some of which in-
-; volved-only.the committee' members, and others included guests.
l'he minutes of these meetings are included as Appendix A.
~
Addit 1onal information that has helped the committee formulato'its recommandations was obtained in two ways. First,
' questionnaires were-prepared and mailed to the chairmen of
. several Nuclear ' Engineering departments and to alumni- of -UMR's Nuclear Engineering program. Factual information and opinions concerning nuclear engineering education for now and the future were requested. A copy of the questionnaire and the tabulated responses are-included as Appendices D and E. The.
responses woro very'wol1~ thought out and very useful for the committee's work. Second, several-persons knowledgeable in the nuclear field were invited to discuss with the committee-the nubject of nuclear experimental facilities. The persons who met with the committee were:
. Mr. Paul Appleby, Superintendent of Training, Union Electric Company e Dr. Iloward Arnold, General Manager of Advanced Reactors Division, Westinghouse Power Company e Dr. David Bartine, Head of Reactor Analysis and Shielding Section, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
. Dr. D. Ray Edwards, Director of the UMR Reactor
. Mr. Alva Elliott, Manager of the UMR Reactor e Dr. D. Eppelsheimer, Professor Emeritus of Metallurgical and Nuclear Engineering, UMR e Dr. Nord Gale, licad of Life Sciences, UMR e Mr. Hon Jones, Senior Reactor Operator, UMR Reactor e Dr. George Russell, Chancellor, UMKC.
2
.s From the-affiliations and titles of these persons,1 it~
can be necn that the committee attempted to obtain opinions,
/ ideas, .and information from people ~ whose backgrounds encom-
*0 pass a variety of-fields related to nuclear' education, re-
' search,.and. technology.. .
LIn following the Chancellor's guidelines, the committee has formulated its: recommendations ~in answer to the following
~
questiont- "What will- be the facilities that UMR should
, develop and acquire to satisfy the needs for nticlear educa-tion and research for the next two decades?"
The committee han. interpreted its task to be.not "how-
' .tx) obtain the..."'but rather "what is needed for..." There-fore,-the committee's recommendations are based on the firm.
- tellef that UMR is a prominent technological institution which should remain in the forefront of educational and re-search activities that' support energy technologies. Recom-nondationn-are made for-four areas.. These are:f 1) Nuclear kcactor, 2) Thermal-ltydraulics, .3) Materials and Radiation Damage, and.4) Fusion.
s v C
3 NUCLEAR FACILITIES UM9 Nuclear Reactor General Comments
'The UMR reactor went'into operation in December 1961.
Since that' time, it has not only been used for education, research, -and tra ining, but has been and remains a prime attraction for visitors who come to UMR for such events-as; University. Day, Parents Day, and Merit Badge Day. The reactor was built as a campus facility, and the committee believes it should continue to. serve as such. At the present time, the reactor's_ primary function is to serve'as an educational laboratory for undergraduate and graduate students in nuclear engineering courses. It is used by faculty from departments other than nuclear engineering primarily to irradiate samples for activation analyses or radjation damage studies. The reactor is the major experimental facility for-UMR's nuclear engineering program. As the comments of the Director of the Reactor (App.D), the nuclear engineering faculty (App.C), other nuclear reactor departmental chair-men (App.D), and nuclear engineering alumni (App.E) show, the reactor is considered to be an important asset for nuclear engineering education. No university can conduct a strong nuclear engineering program, either graduate or undergraduate, without a nuclear reactor. If UMR did not have a reactor, it would be very unlikely that it would build one now. Since the reactor exists and is operating, shutting it down would constitute a decided loss for UMR. It is difficult to estimate the replacement cost of the reactor. In 1961, when the facility was constructed and licensed, it cost about $140,000. The cost of the fuel is not included in this amount, because the Federal Govern-ment provided the fuel. The Government still provides fuel for research reactors at no cost to the academic institutions. The construction cost of the reactor today would be about $420,000, which is the original cost adjusted to 1980 dol-lars in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. The task of licensing a new reactor is presently of such magnitude that it is unlikely that any academic institution in the U.S. would undertake such an endeavor. The reactor is still operating with its initial fuel, which had a warranted life of nine years. Because this i fuel has been in the reactor for 20 years, it would not be surprising if one or more of the fuel elements developed a leak which would increase the radioactivity of the pool 'ia to r . , In such a case, if new fuel is not obtained, the reactor might have to be shut down.
f 4 The-annual operating cost'of the reactor'is about.
- $126,000,'the major pertion of which is used for-the salaries
- and-wages of the present. staff of 5.5~FTE's:
- 0. 5. FTE Director l.0 :FTE~ Manager (Sr. Operator) _
1.0 FTE Reactor -Maintenance Engr. - (Sr. Op'erator) 1,0 FTE Electronics Technician, 1.0 FTE Secretary-Receptionist 1.0 FTE Custodian and Lab Mechanic Recommendatio'ns The committee believes that the reactor will continue to be one of the major 'f acilities if not the major experi-mental facility for the nuclear engineering program at UMR. Most of the nuclear engineering baccalaureate graduates =will. continue to be employed by utilities operating nuclear power plants. For this reason, the experience the students gain hy performing experiments with the reactor is and will be
-invaluable as has been proven to.be in the past.
The use of the reactor for research is at the presant time extremely low. This is due to a variety of fac* such as lack of adequate staff and lirited operation at max-
~
imum-power because of insufficient cooling. These factors have contiibuted to the lack of interest on the part of the UMR faculty.- The committee recommends, in order of funding priority, the following:
,R,cactor Refueling: The present fuel, which is of the MTR (Materials Testing Reactor) type is not routinely manufac-tured because of limited current use. _Nearly all the research reactors in the world use TRIGA (Testing Reactor Isotopes -
?cneral Atomic) type fuel.
The new fuel should be of the TRIGA type, not only be-cause this fuel is better and more easily obtained than the MTR type fuel it is (more importantly) enriched to less than 20% in 2 5 U. This lower enrichment means that it is much easier to satisfy the ever. increasing Federal security requirement;. Most of the cost of refueling the reactor would be for transporting the used fuel to'the Savannah River Laboratory *. Tnis cost is estimated to be between $25,000 and $50,000 (1980 dollars) . The cost of the new fuel would be borne by the Federal Covernment, but the expense of shipping and installing it, which would be in the range of $2,000;to
$5,000 would have to be borne by UMR.
- UMR has already obtained four control TRIGA elements and one instrumented element, which are stored at the reactor an well as.the necessary console instrument for steady-state,
- . , enn . . ,
_ m
5
. Staffing: -The committec recommends that the Director of-the fuelear Reactor should not' hold-another major administrative post. He'should be given the responsibility and the_ resources:
to increase:the; number of on and:off-campus users to achieve asximum utilization of the1 reactor. Before the: rest-of-the staffing recommendations are put-
. forward, it:is necessary-to explain the special. nuclear
. react'or requirements posed by Federal, regulations imple-mented through the Nuclear Regulatory _ Commission -(NRC) .
A nuclear rcactor, according to NRC regulations, should have a director and operators who are-licensed by the'NRC.- There -are two ' types of operators. 'One is a Reactor Operator
'(RO) and the other L is a- Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) . . A perso'n who wants1to'become either'a RO orLa_SRO has to study
~
and'obtain-certain experience in operating a reactor before-no can take'the.NRC administered. test. To'become a RO, a person has to have worked in a reactor facility for at least six months. To become a SRO, the requirement is at least one. year as.a licensed RO. Operator's licenses are issued for a specific facility, not for all reactors. To keep a valid license a SRO or-a RO has to take a requalification examination once a year and has.to show to the NRC that he has completed at least'one startup and one-reactivity change, e.g., change of power or shut'down, every calendar quarter. The requalification' exam is not necessarily administered by the NRC. For the' operation of the reactor, the NRC requires the rollowing: (a) A SRO should be in the' control room.during startup and also during any change in power. (b) A RO is not allowed to start up the reactor without a SRO being in the control roen.. (c) A SRO is not allowed to start up the reactor unless another person is in the-control room with him (not necassarily an operator, a secre-tary, for example, could be the other person). (d) After the reactor reaches the desired power level, the SRO may leave the control room, but he must
, stay in the building.
. 6 In-addition to operating the reactor, the members of the
-staff-perform the following; tacks:
(a) Routine-maintenance. (b) Calibration of instruments at regular.intervais-as required by'the NRC. (c) Preparati'on of:reriodic-reports required by;the
'NRC.
(d) Preparation of reports requested by the NRC from . time to time. (e) _ ~ Services-provided for courses involving the reactor (mainly NE 304, NE 306, and 'NE 308) . (f) Services provided to any faculty member who wants to use the reactor. The NRC regulations relative to reactor operators.mean that an operating nuclear reactor should have at least two operators, at least one of whom shculd be a senior operator. With only two operators, however, meaningful operation of a facility is questionable because leaves, sickness, and ab-conces, for a variety of reasons pose operational problems. For full utilization of the UMR reactor, the committee re-commends three SRob*, one of-whom might be the director, and two RO's. In order to have a sufficient number of RO's, the present reactor management has encouraged the electronics technician and the secretary to study and take the RO examination. The committee recommends that the campus administration support this policy by rewarding the staf f members who obtain a RO license. The positions of the secretary-receptionist, electronics technician, and custodian are not required.by the NRC. Ex-perience has shown, however, that these positions are neces-sary for proper operation of the facility. Coo _ ling Capability for Continuous Operation at Maximum Power: When the reactor operates at its maximum power of 200 kW, the water temperature in the pool increases at the rate of about
' ' ~* Until 1979 the reactor had three SRO's. In 1979, one SRO resigned, and in 1980 one' FTE was abolished from the reactor ataff.
m
= -
- 7.
q;. - 13*F/h. .Af'ter'an'eight-hour ~ operation, this temperature
- reachen-about.100*F, depending, of courso, on the ambient
- tempera tu re. .Atxabout.140*F, the resins of the deminerali-zer, through1whichLthe water continuously circulates, begin to molt. The resins lose their ion-exchange effectiveness at even lower: temperatures. .It ~1s standard practice-to keep the temperature as low as possible,.~because high temperatures decrease the life of the resins. ~ If the molting temperature in reached,'the r7sinn ha've to-be replaced.
Because-the_temperatute of the pool decreases by only about 3"P overnight, it is impossible to operate the_ reactor at full power the next day. For this reason, the staff tries t.o limit Jong runs to Fridays so that the. pool may have ade- , quate time'to cool during the weekend. It'is obvious that continuous operation at"200~kW, needed for any experiments requiring large neutron. fluence,
, is not possible. For this reason, the committee recommends that a cooling capability for continuous operation at maxi-mum power should be added. The cost of providing this cool-
-ing capability-at 200 kW is estimated to be about $30,000
($20,000 for equipment and $10,000 - for installation) . . Increase of Power to 1 MW: No extra fuel is needed to increase the. power-from 200 kW to 1 MW. It is necessary, however, to purchase one new meter (reco: der) which costs between $17,000 and $20,000. If the power is increased to 1 MW and adequate cooling is provided, many new experiments and new research projects could be performed. Experiments could be designed to show the connection between core physics and coolant parameters, auch as coolant flow rate, coolant temperature, and coolant temperature coefficient of reactivity. At the present time, the flu; is of the order of 10 6/cm 12 2 .3,
.md the reac.or can only operate at a maximum power for about c!qht hours before an extended cooling down period is required.
Thus, the maximum continuous fluence'to which a sample can be espored is about 3x10 16 n/cm2 . Unlimited operation at 1 MW will n au) a flux of about 5x10 12 n/cm2 .s available for as long a time
.c needed to reach the desired fluence.
Neessory t .ipment: Accessory equipment, which would improve the research cdpaET11 tics of the facility, includes a fume hood o glove box for sample preparation, a Thermo-Luminescent Dosi-m>ter (TLD) reader, and an improved pneumatic tube sample in-ortion system. The total cost estimated would be $15,000. Table 1 summarizes these recommendations.
8 TABLE 1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR Tile UMR REACTOR
~
Funding Priority Operation Cost (10 $) 3 1 Refueling 50
'2 Senior Reactor Operator 20 -(annual cost) 3- Research Technician 20 (annual cost)-
4 Cooling Capability 30 5 Increase of Power to 1 MW 20 6 Accessory Equipment 15 Thermal-llydraulics Laboratory Cencral Comments licat transfer and fluid mechanics are two technical areas that are of major importance to all fields of engineering. At (1M R , the research and instruction in these areas are performed-n.ainly by the faculty of the departments of Chemical and lechanical Engineering. The nuclear related thermal-hydraulics problems have not received the needed attention or the interest they deserve during a time of nuclear energy development. At present,-the nuclear engineering program at UMR has no experimental facilities for either instruction or research in those areas, although most of the problems of commercial nuclear power plants come from the thermal-hydraulics part of the plant and not from the nuclear part (reactor core). Because about 80% of the nuclear engineering graduates are hired by utilities tha't operate LWR plants, it is essential for nuclear engineering students to be exposed, through laboratory courses, to measuring instruments, equipment, and systems that are associated with the heat transfer and fluid mechanics areas. For example, the measurements of temperature and heat flux in boiling and forced convection systems, measurements of velocity and flow rates, measurements of pump, compressor and turbine performances are only a few of the experiments that should be a part of the nuclear engineering curriculum. At present, such experiments are not available to the nuclear engineering students at UMR.
< a
-9 gecommendations To: cover the area of-thermal-hydraulics,' it is recom-mended that-UMR establish an-instructional laboratory to satisfy.the needs of nucicar engineering students. The Iaboratory will need approximate]y 1000 ft 2 of. spa'ce and an initial investment of : about $80,000 for equipment, instru-monts, and supplies.- A list of. suggested equipment is
' given in~ Table 2 in the order of importance. The-pieces of equipment listed-in Table 2 are self-contained experimental moduler which are available in the marketplace and easily atsembled.
To initiate nuclear-related, thermal-hydraulic research, at J 1 east two new faculty members should be hired: one with interest in convective and boiling heat transfer and the other with interest in fluid mechanics and.two-phase flow. These faculty members should have demonstrated through pub-lished research strong' interests in nuclear-related thermal-hydraulics problems. It would also be very desirable for these faculty members to have interests in both the experi-
.nental and- the analytical phases of these . topics. Suitable i Icboratory space of about 500 ft 2 / person and an initial in-vestnent of $100,000 per person for establishing and develop-ing experinental research facilities appropriate to their work should also be provided. It should be expected that the two new faculty members would acquire annual external funding at least equal to their salaries.
TABLE 2 EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR THE INSTRUCTIONAL TilEl< MAL-IIYDRAULICS LABORATORY Funding Priority Equipment Cost (10 8S) L " Nucleate and Film Boiling System 10' Free and Forced Convection System 6 Thermal Conduction System 11
, Miscellaneous _ 3, 30 2 Multipump, Multifluid System 35 3 Cooling Tower System 17 TOTAL 82 s
s 10 _Ra[liation Damage and Effects Research Center a General ~ Comments-The committee's basic premise is that nuclear fission: 1 sower plants will continue to be used.and that nuclear fusion. power , plants will continue to be developed. -Both types of power plants muat use materials that are subjected . Lo-diverse and hostile environments. The " hostile" environ -
-mont may be physicochemical (pressure-temperature-contami-nantc) and/or induced by irradiation. In either case, per-formance of materials under such adverse conditions over jong periods of time (-30 years) would be of great concern -
to materials scientists and nuclear engineers well into the
-next century.
Radiation damage of materia.1.s is a critical problem faced by both fission and fusion reactor technologists. It-is imperative, therefore, to sock an in-depth' knowledge of the physical, chemical, and mechanical properties of materi-als as a function of radiation exposure. Unfortunately, the radiation damage conditions expected in a particular power plant usually cannot be duplicated in time. periods that are practical. There are no neutron sources with which test materials can be subjected to a fluence of 10 2:n/cm 2 with neutron energy greater than 0.1 MeV ir. a period of less than several months. That is the fluence which the stain-less steel cladding in a liquid-metal-cooled fast breeder reactor would be required to withstand. Means of simulating the equivalent radiation damage within time periods of days or weeks are required. The practical aspects of producing ods to simulate damage taking
~
radiation damage in short pi place over long periods (-years) are very challenging. Re-search in this area is considered to be of great importance to both fission and fusion power reactor technologies. 2 In addition to the study of existing materials, there is going to be, in the years ahead, a tremendous need for the development of materials to be used in adverse environments. Exanples are: first wall materials for fusion reactors and low-swelling cladding and structural materials for fast breeder reactors. UMR already has conducted a considerable amount of re-search in the area of materials studies. The recommended facilities would complement the existing ones by including the field of radiation damage.
11 - T<ecommenda tions
~
'A' list of equipment conside,ed necessary'for a radia-
~ tion damage facility is given in Table 3.- The prices of-come of the listed equipment ~ reflect only partial' cost.
Details-for-all the prices of the proposed equipment are-
. qiven in Ap >cndix F. The total space required for-these facilities :.s ' estimated to be 2500 f t .
TABLE 3 EQUIPMENT NEEDED FOR THE RADIATION DAMAGE AND EFFECTS RESEARCH CENTER Punding Cost Priority Equipment (108 $) Remarks
-!Ilgh Resolution Scanning Electron Has been Microsecpe with X-Ray Attachment acquired 200 kev Light Ion Accelerator In operation 1 200 kev I.ight Ion Accelerator 60 Cost reflects with Ultra-liigh Vacuum Hot Stage only needed parts & final Accessory capital Items 100 assembly.
2 A 200 kev Transmission Electron 10 This is not t Microscope (TEM) cost of a new TEM (see App. 3 2 MeV Van de Graaf Accelerator (RBS) 150 See App.F. 4 Iligh Resolution Auger Electron 350 Microprobe TOTAL 670 Five faculty members could conduct full-time research with these facilities. If this number of persons who would be committed to this research area could not be found at'. UMR, it. might be necessary to hire new faculty. At UMR, persons who are interusced in the area of radiation damage and effects are: A. E. Bolon, Nuc. Eng. E. B. Itale, Phys. A. Kumar, Nuc. Eng. H. P. Leighly, Jr., Met. Eng. L. L. Levenson, Phys.
e [ . 12 In addition'to faculty members, a facility such as the olie proposed _here, would require the staff and operating expensen shown in Table 4. TABLE 4 ST.*sFFING AND OPERATING EXPENSES FOR THE RADIATION DAMAGE AND EFFECTS CENTER Cost (10 $) Per Year 31 Technicians 60
.1/2 Secretary 5 E&E 15
-Computer 5 Utilities:(electricity) 10 Other (contingency) 25 TOTAL 120 Fusion Research Center
- eneral Comments Nuclear fusion is one of the three ultimate energy sources for the future (along with solar and breeder reactors). If UMR w'ishes to take a leadership role in developing fusion tech-nology, a first-class Fusion Research Center should be estab-lished on the campus.
Magnetic plasma confinement would be the central theme of the research. The future direction is difficult to predict for such a new area of endeavor, but the Center should be de-signed to be sufficiently flexible to follow technological advances as they occur. The equipment in the Fusion Research Conter should be'sufficiently complete so that innovative re-search concepts could be pursued, and the facilities should be appropriate. for interdisciplinary research, i.e., nuclear engineering, electrical engineering, physics, and mechanical engineering.
- 13.
Recommenda tions-A lit,t of equipment, which is considered to be desirable
- for . the proposed Pusion Research Center is given in Table 5.
Funding priorit ies are not indicated, because. deletion of any
- na jor item would make meaningful research impossible. -
l Staffing:roquirements are essentially the.same as shown in rable 4 for the' Radiation Damage and Effects Research Center. The total cost,- which obviously contains'a great deal of-ancertaiuty, is approximately.one million-dollars. The-space requirementa are projected to_be about 5000 square feet. A team of persons experienced and. interested in this research area should he assembled and given the task of devel-oping more detailed plans and proposals. . Persons on the US9 eampus'who have experience or interest in fusion are: A. E. Bolon, Nuc. Eng. T .' J . Dolan, Nuc. Eng. J. L.'Boone, Elec. Eng. R. !! . McFarland, Phys. K. !! . Carpenter, Elec. Eng. II . F. Nelson, Mech. Eng. A. W. Culp, Mech. Eng. K. J. Nygaard, Phys. The instructional program in fusion should be. strength-ened. A 300-level laboratory course, which would be co-listed under several departments, is needed to provide stu-dents with experience in the instrumentation and techniques of fusion experiments. Equipment would be required for this laboratory in addition.to the equipment dedicated to research, but research should have a higher priority than establishing the laboratory course. 'The existing fusion courses should be co-listed by other departments where appropriate in order to raise the level of awareness and participation of students in many disciplines.
v
- 14 TABLE 5
+
F.QUIPMENT NEEDED l'OR THE FUSION RESEARCII CENTER
- . . - - . = - . _
Cost (10 g)
..._._.2._.__.__..
'c.i.<, i c t C o i l . 3 y a t e m c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 300-50'0 12pirconducting,yoils or Water-Cooled Copper Coils
'ipaid heliu.m closed- 2 MW cicctric power.
loop syste'n 100-200 . : installation 50-100 c> fin, dow,srs, 2 MW: heat exchanger
.mpporta 200 -=- installation 20-50
}e + r nupplies 20-40 high-current power supplies (2 MW
@ 40 $/kW) 80 copper coils (5000 kg C 20 $/kg) 100 tocuum System.............................................. 150
- 3ry chamber (5300 kg 4 11 3/kn) 70.
;; r :, val res, gauges 80
. P l a rima IIca t ing r.qu i pmen t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200-300
,.m. kW 0 0.5.- 1.S $/w) --
a ria:;ma Diagnostic Equipment................................ 400 r- . ow.we instrumentatien 1 ' tot atory . c.qu ipment 100
- <opttorized dat a acquisitic.n ai41ysia, s. control systems 60
- t. rose:pic equipment 100 ar*.i :1u analya:er equipment 60 TOTAL 1050-1350
115
SUMMARY
OF HECOMMENDATIONS. In order that- the Univornity of Missouri-Rolla'may. mintain a position of excellence 'in all areas-of engineering i.tring ~ the next . two decades, the. campus facilities for teach-iny, rencarch, and service in the nuclear energy fields thouLd be-strengthened. Four types.of facilities should be onsidered.
- 1. Nudlear Hoactor
- 2. . 'rhermal-!!ydraulics Laboratory 3 Ndiation Damage - and Ef fccts Research Center
- 4. tusion He parch Center The ' Nuclear. Facilities'Sturly Committee has discussed the iatitre of *he priorities that should be used in establishing auclear experimental facilities at-UMR. It has agreed that for 'the ourpose of this st.udy a distinction should be made N tvuton inntructiona] laboratories and research facilities..
The itist inction is necessary, because the need for modern ahorator. couipnent is acute anel very important for the oJ;eation of the students. To maintain the vitality of the nuclear engineering ot o : ram, it is necessary to continue to have an operating iu. tent reactor. Thin has led the~ committee to recommend
' hat nfuoling the UNR reactor be the item with the highest
- t inrity and that adequat.e staf fing be the priority next in a.cco.ssion. A third SRO should be hired. If a vigorous e rfert is undertaken to neck external funding for research involvinn the reactor, the facility could be upgraded so that ut could operate continuously at na::imum power either at the
;resont 200 kW 1evel or increased to 1 MW. A research tech-ician should he hired, and certain accessory equipment pro-r i W1.
he director of the facility should devote his efforts
+ the dovelopment of the research capability and the pur-
~ u i. t of external financial support.
Et i: anticipated that the area of thermal-hydraulics
' is ..rell-as the two areas discussed next) will be of great
; portanw in the years ahead for light water reactors ( LWR 's ),
.iecilors, and fusion reactors. About 80% of the nuclear
! 2incerir.g graduates are hired by utilities that operate u.9 plents where most of the malfunctions come from the t her:aal-hv !raulics part of the plant. For these reasons,
- ho ruclenr engineering program would be benefited by having
. TFurtral-Mydraulics Laboratory available for instruction.
% deverlopment of research in the area of thermal-hydraulics a:: 6,e accomplished only by hiring additional experienced
~ ' m u l '. v . who would initiate research and succeed in obtaining u.u nal f andi t:q.
161 The suggestions that. follow regarding~the estab1'ishment
- ~of a. Radiation Damage--and' Effects Research Center and a Fusion Rese9rch Center are'of a much larger scale of commit'--
.nent'thanfthe.twolarcas mentioned above.- For this reason,-
these recommendations should:be considered.to be. preliminary
~
planning studies.
. Materials. studies.for nuclear systems (both' fission and fusion) . constitute research_ areaso tha t seem likely to grow.
The Materials Res<3 arch Center, Metallurgical Engineering,
-Ceramic Engineering and~ Physics are capable of performing-
- rcsoarch on-many areau of materials studies,-but lack unme facilities for doing radiation damage and effects studies.
Acquisition of such facilities-in~_ desirable, especially-because UMR already has expertise-in this. area. 'Sinco many items of1 equipment needed could.be~used for research other than for irradiated materials, it seems. logical-to make the new facilities-a part of the MRC. Fusion,'the. ultimate energy source, is a developing technology. UMR has.no significant facilities for fusion.
;research at present but UMR could play. a leadership role in this area. To achieve this, a Fusion Research conter should be established which should concentrate on plasma confinement probicms and plasma-diagnostics development. A senior-grad-unte interdisciplinary laboratory should also-be established. ! Since.it may not be possibic for-UMR to achieve national -recognition in all the above areas, it would be wise to pursue such_ recognition in at least one of them while staying competent in all.
With regard to management.of the nuclear facilities, the committee recommends that the nuclear facilities discussed in'this report be designated as campus-wide research centers with tbe exception of the thermal-hydraulics instructional laboratory which should be associated with~the nuclear engi-neering program. The' director of a nuclear facility should not hold.another major administrative post, in order to devote his efforts to the full utilization of that facility. .c it}}