ML20137G614

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Rept 50-264/71-01 on 710602.No Deficiencies or Unresolved Items Found.Major Areas Inspected:Reporting Requirements Per 10CFR50.59 & Div of Compliance Procedures for Documentation,Records,Reactivity Control & Core Physics
ML20137G614
Person / Time
Site: Dow Chemical Company, 05000000
Issue date: 06/22/1971
From: Coryell G, Finn J, Fiorelli G
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136D183 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-256, FOIA-85-258, FOIA-85-259, FOIA-85-261 50-264-71-01, 50-264-71-1, NUDOCS 8508270350
Download: ML20137G614 (3)
v • d • e


Text

.-_

. '5 .

U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COPl'ISSION DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE REGION III INSPECTION REPORT CO Report No.71-001 V

Subject:

Dow Chemical Company Docket No. 050-0264 License No. R-108 Location: Midland, Michigan _

Priority: -

Category: E Date of Inspection: June 2, 1971 Date of Previous Inspection: April 2, 1969 Type of Licensee: Research Reactor Faci.'ty ,

Type of Inspection: Routine,_ announced Principal Inspector:

~

ei X

' Dat4!I Accompanying Inspector: / n (o 22 h /

'Date Other Accompanying Personnel: None Reviewed By: G. actor Inspector b/}k/ 7[

' Da t'e Proprietary Information: None.

D f l50 e5073y MOHN85-256 PDR 

 .7   .

SECTION I Enforcement Action - None. Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters - No enforcement items identified in previous inspection report. Unresolved Items - None. Status of Previously Report Unresolved Items - None reported. Unusual Occurrences - None. Persons Contacted Dr. O. U. Anders, Reactor Supervisor Pr. J. Charm, Radiological Officer Mr. T. Quinn, Reactor Operator Panagement Interview Inspection findings were discussed with Dr. Anders and Pr. Charm. The following topics were covered: A. Reporting requirements under license conditions and in conformance with 10 CFR 50.59 were discussed. Dr. Anders stated that he evaluates maintenance and/or operational occurrences or revisions against reporting criteria and that additional evaluation is provided by the Dow Reactor Operations Committee. B. The licensee was informed of the new documentation and communications procedures being implemented by the Division of Compliance. I i I i 

     ,,i      .

I

SECTION II t
                   , Additional Subjects Inspected. Not Identified in Section I. Where No Deficiencies or Unresolved Items Were Found
1. General The inspection was an examination of the activities conducted at the 100 kw Triga Mark 1 Research Reactor since the previous inspec -

tion of April 2, 1969. The inspection consisted of a review of administration and organizational changes, selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel and observations by the inspectors.

2. Logs and Records
a. Console and shift supervisor logs, April 1969 to June 1971.
b. Daily, weekly, and monthly checklists.
c. Reactor scram reports.
d. Reactor maintenance records.
e. Reactor activation request records,
f. Reactor Operating Committee Minutes.
3. Reactivity Control and Core Physics Review of control rod calibrations, reactivity measurements, and physical inspections.

Fuel element inspection records.

4. Radiation Protection Review of personnel exposure records and radiation detection records for air, liquid, and solids from January 1969 through April 1971.

_3-

r . 

                                                                                                                         ~ - - -
                                                                                 ~
                                                                                                                                    .':.,..,- f. n,,, 1        -

April 21, 1969 dr.1- dM, J. F. O'Emilly, Chief, Reactor Inspection and Enforcement Branch Mvision ot' Compliance, asadquarters DOW CEIMICAL CGtPANY DOCKET NO. 50-264 The attached report of an inspection at the subject facility on April 2, 1969, is forwarded for information. No items of non-compliance were noted during the inspection. The licensee has confirmed by test that the reactor safety system is of fail-safe design, i.e., the loss of electric power results in a reactor scram. Boyce H. Grier Regional Director

Attachment:

CO Rpt No. 264/69-1 by-C. Fiore111 and G. Gower dtd 4-11-69 (orig. Ei 1 cy) cc: E. G. Case DRS R. S. Boyd, DRL (2)

8. Invine, DEL (6)

D. J. Skovholt, DRL (3) L. Earnblith, Jr., CO:BQ Regional Directors, CO 'l RBG files ) y be D . e .. 4e .s e . V.e.e SURNAbet > Gri g 

                                      ~

oatt > ..4.-21-6 9 ..,..m___ . . . ... ... ... - Pbrm ABC 318 (Rev. 9-83) g,,,,,,,,,,m_,g.,,,,3 .,; TSG DCOl ? T 

                                                   ^

r . 

                                                                                                                                                             \

e c3 .g 

              .                                                                April 15,1969 Boyce H. Stier, Regional Director BOW CEBtICAL CGIFANY, DOCKET No. 50-264 No problems were acted during the inspection of the subject facility.

The radiation enposure experience for calendar year 1965 was minimal. The licenses stated he would inform us of any civil distrubance which could affect the reactor. The fail safe design of the safety circuit upon loss of electric power was confirmed as satisfactory by test. G. Fiore111 Senior Reactor Inspector l l 7.____ i hk 

                                              -  of                  LO
                                                }

omct > CO:III , , , , SURNAME > ...........@... .. - - - - - - - - - - + + . . - - - - + - -- DATE > 4.21 .69 .. . 

                                       . .                             .        - . -                 -  - - -                             - - - - - ~

l Furm AEC.318 (Rev.9-831 u.s sovtamurnf raintins crrics : tme-o-st4 42e i

f~ U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION REGION III DIVISION OF COMPLIANCE Report of Inspection CO Report No. 264/69-1*' Licensee: Dow Chemical Company License No. R-108 Category E Date of Inspection: April 2, 1969 Date of Previous Inspection: September 26, 1968 Inspected By: kS G. Fiorelli Responsible Reactor Inspector April 11, 1969 d G. C. Gower Reactor Inspector April 1.1, 1969 

                             /Bq s tb l?$o l' Reviewed By:   I. H. Grier       Regional Director             April 15, 1969 Proprietary Information:        None SCOPE
               .n A  announced inspection was made of the 100 kw TRIGA Mark I Research Reactor located in Midland, Michigan. Mr. G. C. Gower participated in the inspection effort and assisted in the preparation of this report.

Mr. Gower assumes principal inspection responsibility following this visit.

SUMMARY

Safety Items - None. 

             . Noncompliance Items - None.

Unusual Occurrences - None. Status of Previously Reported Problems - No problems involving followup action were reported in the previous report. Other Significant Items - Visual inspections of the fuel elements revealed one element which was slightly bowed.. Refer Section H. gn kp n o ! 3~)_

Reactor scrams from power loss to the reactor safety circuit system wene confirmed by test. This check was prompted by the reported scram circuit deficiency noted in connection with a Mark III TRIGA reactor.gj Refer Section G-3. Management Interview - Inspection results were discussed with Drs. W. H. Beamer and O. U. Anders. The following items were discussed: Dr. Anders has ordered the fabrication of a fuel element measuring jig which will be used to determine the extent of bowing of the element in position F-10 (located in the core fringe). Replacement of the fuel element will be based on conformance with acceptable tolerances used in the fabrication of new fuel elements. Dr. Beamer informed the inspectors that he considers the probability of demonstrations in close proximity of the Dow Industrial Complex to be very low. He was appreciative of the concern to reactor damage, however, he stated damage to the huge and ' complex chlorination process equipment was considered to be of much more significant safety concern. Plant security as well as other low enforcement agencies are immediately available to the plant. He stated that he would notify the CO:III office of any disturbance or activities which appeared directed at the reactor facility. DETAILS A. Persons Contacted Dr. W. H. Beamer, Laboratory Director Dr. O. U. Anders , Reactor Supervisor Mr. L. G. Silverstein, Radiological Of ficer Mr. J. Charms, Assistant Radiological Officer B. Administration and Organization The operating staff of the reactor has not changed since the last visit. One new member has been added to the Reactor Operations Committee. The new member, Dr. G. L. Jewett, is a research chemist and holds a senior reactor operator's license. The committee has met four times ! since the last visit. The safety committee minutes reviewed disclosed the topics of discussion were of a safety nature. C. Operations The reactor continued to be used solely for small sample irradiations and activation analyses. Operating runs are made at the maximum license power level of 100 kw. 1/ Memo from J. P. O'Reilly dated 2/17/69.

r A total of seven scrams were experienced since the last inspection. All were inadvertent and due to switching errors, instrument noise and maintenance. D. Facility Procedures The reactor operating procedures were reviewed and upgraded during the period. The changes were covered in a Reactor Operations Committee 

                                                     ~

meeting as noted in the meeting minutes. These changes were principally concerned with delegations of responsibility and authority, and defined reactor supervisor alternates in the event Dr. Anders is not available to the facility. E. Primary System A review of operating records disclosed that the reactor pool temper-ature has been maintained below 120 F as required by the technical specifications. The maximum temperature noted in the records was 800F. The inspector was informed by Dr. Beamer that there had been no in-dications of pool leakage. A review of the records and discussions with Dr. Beamer did not dis-close any problems with drain leaks, pipe breaks, or unaccountable water losses. A review of activity measurements of evaporated pool water samples disclosed activities essentially at background levels. G. Reactor Control and Core Physics 1 The maximum available cold clean excess reactivity was noted to be within the 1.5% ak/k limit specified in the technical specifications. Control rod calibrations were conducted in accordance with the semi-annual frequency required by the technical spedifica-tions. The last measurement was conducted on March 4, 1969, using the rising period method. The following measured values were obtained from the operating logs: Rod Worth Safety $2.94 Shim 3.18 Regulating .73 Total $6.85

r

  • t The shutdown margin based on the most reactive of the operable rods withdrawn was determined as follows from logbook entries:

Total Rod Worth $6.85 Most Reactive Rod _3.18 Difference $3.67 Excess Reactivity 2.07 Shutdown Margin $1.60 (1.17. bk/k) This is in compliance with the minimum technical specification limit of 0.35% 4k/k. Control rod scram timing was noted to have been performed within technical specification frequency requirements and all times were noted to be within the one second technicial specification requirement.

2. Functional Tests A review of interlock functional testing, and power level safety circuit functional testing, were all noted to have been performed in accordance with technical specification requirements. No unusual conditions or performances were de-tected.
3. Safety Circuitry A check into the fail safe design of the safety circuit was made by the licensee. This test was prompted by a call frota C0:III and was based on the safety circuit defic,.ency des-cribed in the Region I report covering the experience of the Cornell University TRIGA facility.

The test confirmed by rod drop that loss of power to the safety circuit channels did result in a reactor shutdown. H. Core and Internals The licensce performed a visual examination of each of the fuel ele-ments in accordance with technical specification requirements. Dr. Anders informed the ir.spector that one fuel element was noted to have a very slight blow. (It should be noted that the fuel elements for the Dow TRIGA reactor are irradiated elements used in a G. A. reactor core prior to initial loadt"g r.t Dow.) A jig is currently being fabricated which will allow physical measurements of the element to be confirmed. Dr. Anders stated that it the fuel is bowed in excess of fabrication toler-ances it would be replaced. The fuel element is located in core position F-10. There is no interference with element insertion or removal from the core.

r5 e Dr. Beamer informed the inspector that there have been no in-dications of fuel failures since the original defective element was discovered during the initial startup program.2/ Pool water samples are taken periodically and have not indicated activities significantly above background. P. Radiation Detection Radiation experience with the licensee was reviewed with Dr. Beamer and Mr. Silverstein. To date, they have stated that there have been no problems with contamination control or irradiated sampling handling procedures. The following significant points of discussions and ob-servation are summarized:

1. Personnel Exposures Reports from the Landauer Company show that the exposures received during calendar year 1968 are as follows:

0-50 mrem Less than 10 mrem Total 3 8 11

2. Radiation Levels With the exception of the area immediately above the pool water, which is measured to be approximately 10 mr/hr at full power, other reactor areas exhibit minimal radiation level intensities.
3. Several alarm trips on the continuous air monitor noted in the reactor log were the result of instrument malfunction.

Maintenance records reviewed revealed that this problem was corrected. 4 Calibration and testing of radiation detection instrumentation and alarms was noted to have been completed in accordance with 

                    ' technical specification requirements.

S. Experiments and Tests Principal experimentation continues to be the irradiation of small samples for tracer production. The range of experiment worth has been considerably less than the technical specifications maximum of $2.00. l l One experiment was conducted to determine the cause of small power level changes noted to be associated with an empty fuel channel. Based on a series of checks which included consideration of fuel element movement, fuel expansion / cont raction etc. , it was found that a phenomenon termed " fluidics" by Dr. Anders was occurring. CO Report No. 50-264/68-1. l

According to Dr. Anders, operation with an empty channel sets up a condition of alternating convective thermal driving forces. This causes a cyclic variation in the amount of cooling water flowing up through the channel. The reactivity changes are due to channel coolant temperature changes which result from the convective driving

  • head changes. The interactions produced the observed power level changes independent of C. R. motion.

Rotating the coolant reentry nozzle 600 or shutting the recirculation pumps off eliminates the condition. T. Facility Modifications No facility modifications have been made. V. Reliability Information 1 Control rod scram times - Refer Section G.

2. Power level channel calibration - Refer Section G.
3. Safety circuit interlock and functional testing - Refer Section G.
4. Radiation detection alarm testing - Refer Section P-5.
 .}}
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20137G614&oldid=2869878"