ML20063H107

Forwards Table Representing Fuel Inventory & Answers to Fuel self-protection Calculation Questions,In Response to 820818 Agreement

ML20063H107
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	08/26/1982
From:	Cormier W CALIFORNIA, UNIV. OF, LOS ANGELES, CA
To:	Bay J BAY, J.H.
References
NUDOCS 8209010329
Download: ML20063H107 (4)

Text

..

UNIVEllSITY OF CALIFOltNI A, LOS ANCEl,ES UCLA '

lN!,yDfkE}[D

,,_,,,,. ,,,,,, . , ,,s . ...., ~.,,,, . . . . . , , , . s.,,,,...... s.,,,,s<,.

_ g.,

a a. _jg .,m ....... . _ ,m s

Th g g P2*.46 E

TO . F . .

,C C August 26, 198 i

Mr. John H. Bay, Esq.

1. Embarcadero Center -

Twenty-Third Floor San Francisco, California 94111

Dear Mr. Bay:

In response to our agreement reached over the telephone on August 18, 1982 and recorded in your letter j to me of the same date, I have enclosed the following information:

- a table representing the fuel inventory by various category at the UCLA facility since 1970 contained in memo, Ostrander to Cormier; and

- answers to the written questions on the

" Fuel Self-Protection Calculations" which you had hand-delivered to my office on August 23rd; these questions were essentially follow-up questions to our interrogatory responses of August 9th.

I trust that you will find our responses to your discovery requests both complete and timely.

Very truly yours,

'f[jA,;G l U%7,?- Q ,- ~

William H. Cormier UCLA Representative Enclosure cc: Service List 8209010329 820826 PDR ADOCK 05000142 l 565 P

" - - + --4

AND APPLIED SCIENCE MEMORANDUM

! 25 August 1982 T0: W. Cormier~ .

I 2241 fiurphy FROM: H. Ostrander 2567 Boelter Hall SUBJ: NEL Fuel Inventory Since 1970 I have constructed the attached inventory record for your response to Mr. Bay's request of August 18, 1982. Inventorial practices have changed over the several AEC-ERDA-NRC administrations and even within the lifetime of the NRC. The general trend has been to add detail by distributing i

inventory into an increasing number of categories. Descriptive words have 4 been replaced by a three symbol code. There have been several generations of such codes, and no assurance that they are one-for-one translatable.

! For example, one can translate " encapsulated, enriched, unirradiated, uranium-alloy scrap" into the category " uranium" but the inverse transformation is not possible.

! All of this goes .to say that I have made a best effort to provide a complete record, but I have had to make some interpretations based upon continuity of category by continuity of numbers. I cannot attest to the

' absolute accuracy of the record. I think it is a reasonable, but not necessarily unique interpretation of the available records.

j INVENT 0RY OF U-?35 ISOTOPE IN FUEL, kg Irradiated Fuel Fresh Fuel TOTAL DATE In-Core In pits Useful Scrap

=

l 3.50 -

0.02 2.2 l

3-31-70 -

3.50 -

2.53 0.02 6.05 6-30-71 3.56 0.73 3.74 0.94 8.97 12-31-71 3.55 0.73 3.74 0.60 8.62 12-21-74 3.53 3.74 0.60 7.87

! 9-30-80 -

3.53 3.75 -

7.28 9-30-81 3.53 1.39 -

4.92 8-25-82 -

l Except for the small burn-up (~ l gm per year), th! inventories are constant over any interval between adjacent dates. E.g . , from 12-31-74 to 9-30-80, the total inventory was approximately 8.62 kilograms. The i'

dates are inventorial record dates and not the actual dates of the I material transfer.

i UNIVititSITY O F CAI.II<OIINIA-4 Letterhead for interdepartenental use)

FUEL SELF PROTECTION CALCULATION Response to Intervenor's questions,' Bay to Cormier, 8/23/82 A. (1) The equation was synthesized from several source documents and physical 'priticiples.

(a) 1. Effects of Atomic Weapons, S. Glasstone (ed.),

U.S. Government Printing Office,1950, pages 251 and 13.

2. Nuclear Power Systems, Gregg-King, Macilillan Co.,

1964, page 169.

(b) Equation 8.12.2 of Reference 1 for a nominal bomb can be converted to gamma ray energy rate (mev/sec) per kwh using the equivalences of page 13 of Reference 1. The gamma ray energy is assumed to be isotropically emitted by a point source to 2

yield an energy flux I E in mev/sec per cm at distance r (cm) from the point source (the 1/4nr factor). The conversion of gamma ray energy flux to radiation units is given in Reference 2.

(2) The exponent arises from the decay law expressed by equation 8.12.2 of Reference 1. It is a commonly used, simple expression.

Neither of the cited references is particularly unique, they happened to be the ones I used.

(a) See above.

(b) See above.

(3) With power in kilowatts, r in centimeters, and dose rate in r/hr, and all times in hours; the constant is approximately 1.18 x 107 . The calculations were performed with A/4nr2 = 63 The constant follows from the cited references and the appro-priate conversion of units, primarily one hour equals 3600

seconds.

1 (a) See above.

(b) No additional assumptions were made.

(c) It was not measured. See above.

B. The component was strictly periodic in time and amplitude--200 kwh at 168 hour0.00194 days <br />0.0467 hours <br />2.777778e-4 weeks <br />6.3924e-5 months <br /> (one week) intervals.

i l

t

i C. (1) As used in the calculation, the random components of actual operations appear in the calculation as a constant (smoothed) average, P(r) = constant.

(a) See above.

(b) It was." smoothed" by using an average value lower than any annual average value of. the post-1976 era.

D. Yes.

(1) Yes. The equation .is rot valid as t + 0, and does not de-scribe the transition from the operating state to the shutdown state.

The equation is said to be fairly accurate fcr t > 100 seconds

( Afil 5800, 2nd Ed. , USAEC, July 1963, page 634-635).

(2) The calculation has not been done, but the decay law with n = -1.2 could yield no lower values than those calculated for one week.

E. All calculations were performed with a hand-held Hewlett-Packard, HP-25. The computer is programable but non-printing. There are ro printouts. I did not save any program.

(1) Almost all engineering calculations are " computer assisted,"

whether by analog slide rule or IBM machine. The evaluation of the 1 integrals involved under assumptions 2) and 2)b) with P(T) constant,

! is straight forward algebra and I do not recall precisely how I evaluated the algebraic solution. Assumption 2)a) was treated by summing a series of 104 terms. Each incremental contribution was accumulated in the computer memory without recording the partial sums. The contributions arising from assumptions 2, 3a, and 3b were:

T r/hr (weaksl 2 3a 3b Total

, 1 6 97 39 142 2 6 70 31 107 3 6 59 26 91 4 6 52 25 83 (2) fio previous calculations were formalized or retained.

! Neill C. Ostrander 8/25/82 l

l l , _ _ _, . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ .