<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../../styles/reactor.xsl" ?>
<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "../../dtds/teixlite.dtd"[
<!ENTITY % DONRleak061055 SYSTEM "DONRleak061055.ent" >
%DONRleak061055;
]>

<TEI.2 id="DONRleak061055">


<teiHeader>

<fileDesc>

<titleStmt>
<title type="245">June 10, 1955 memorandum from Clifford K. Beck to Dr. Herman Roth</title>
<title type="gmd">Machine readable transcription</title>
<author>Beck, Clifford K.</author>
<respStmt>
<resp>Creation of machine-readable version:</resp>
<name>James M. Jackson Sanborn</name>
<resp>Creation of digital images:</resp>
<name>James M. Jackson Sanborn</name>
<resp>Conversion to TEI.2-conformant markup:</resp>
<name>James M. Jackson Sanborn</name>
</respStmt>
</titleStmt>

<extent>ca. 15 kilobytes</extent>

<publicationStmt>
<publisher>NCSU Libraries</publisher>
<pubPlace>Raleigh, NC</pubPlace>
<idno type="ETC">DONRleak061055</idno>
<availability>
<p>Publicly accessible</p>
<p n="public">URL: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/archives/etext</p>
<p>copyright 2000, by North Carolina State University</p>
</availability>
<date>August 28, 2000</date>
</publicationStmt>

<seriesStmt>
<p></p>
</seriesStmt>

<notesStmt>
<note>Images of the document pages have been included.</note>
</notesStmt>

<sourceDesc>
<biblFull>
<titleStmt>
<title>June 10, 1955 memorandum from Clifford K. Beck to Dr. Herman Roth</title>
<author>Clifford K. Beck</author>
<respStmt>
<resp></resp>
<name></name>
</respStmt>
</titleStmt>
<editionStmt>
<p></p>
</editionStmt>
<extent>7 pp.</extent>
<publicationStmt>
<publisher></publisher>
<pubPlace></pubPlace>
<date></date>
<idno>Manuscript copy consulted UA 105.1</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<seriesStmt>
<p>Nuclear Reactor</p>
</seriesStmt>
<notesStmt>
<note></note>
</notesStmt>
</biblFull>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>

<encodingDesc>
<projectDesc>
<p>Prepared for the North Carolina State University Science and Technology Electronic Text Center</p>
</projectDesc>
<editorialDecl>
<p>The lineation of the manuscript has been maintained and all end-of-line hyphens have been preserved.</p>
<p>Keywords in the header are a local Science and Technology Electronic Text Center scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.</p>
</editorialDecl>
<refsDecl>
<p> </p>
</refsDecl>
<classDecl>
<taxonomy>
<bibl>
<title>Library of Congress Subject Headings</title>
</bibl>
</taxonomy>
</classDecl>
</encodingDesc>

<profileDesc>
<creation>
<date>June 10, 1955</date>
</creation>
<langUsage>
<language id="en">English</language>
</langUsage>
<textClass>
<keywords>
<term></term>
</keywords>
<keywords>
<term>LCSH</term>
</keywords>
<keywords>
<term id="visual-work">manuscript</term>
<term id="format">24-bit color: 400 dpi</term>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>


</teiHeader>


<text id="DONRleak061055T">


<front>
<div1 type="summary" n="1">
<head rend="center">June 10, 1955 memorandum from Clifford K. Beck to Dr. Herman Roth</head>
<p></p>
</div1>
</front>

<body><pb n=""/>
<p><seg><xref id="DONRleak061055a.jpg" rend="new">
<figure entity="DONRleak061055a"></figure></xref></seg></p>
<div1 type="memorandum" n="1">
<head></head>

<opener>T0:	<name type="person">Dr. Herman Roth</name>, <name type="corporate"><abbr expan="United States Atomic Energy Commission">U.S.A.E.C.</abbr></name> <lb/>
FROM:	<name type="person">Clifford K. Beck</name> <lb/>
DATE:	<dateline><date value="1955-06-10">June 10, 1955</date></dateline>
</opener>
<p>RE: Evidences of a leak in the Gas System of the <name type="place">Raleigh Research <lb/>
	Reactor</name>; Plans for Repair.</p>

<p> This memorandum describes in further detail the matters discussed in recent <lb/>
telephone conversations relative to a leak which developed in the gas system of  <lb/>
the <name type="place">Raleigh Research Reactor</name> and procedures which have been followed, subsequent  <lb/>
to its discovery, in preparation for repairs. </p>

<p>On <date value="1955-05-06">Friday, May 6</date> the reactor was operated in a series of experiments at  <lb/>
various power levels up to 7000 watts. At intervals over the preceding weeks  <lb/>
there had been some tendency of the fuel to precipitate when the reactor was  <lb/>
operated at high power and moderate temperatures (i.e. below 50-60 C), and the  <lb/>
H<hi rend="sub">2</hi>- O<hi rend="sub">2</hi> recombining action at the catalyst bed in the gas-recombiner system had  <lb/>
been a little erratic. (Electric heaters had been ordered for installation on  <lb/>
the catalyst chambers to remedy this difficulty, but they had not arrived). In  <lb/>
operations on this particular day, however, the reactor had performed  quite satis- <lb/>
factorily in every respect.</p>

<p>The reactivity was normal, the recombining action at the catalyst seemed  <lb/>
perfect, and every aspect of the reactor system seemed normal. The reactor was  <lb/>
closed down and placed in standby condition at the end of the day, with the core  <lb/>
pressure at thirteen inches of water below atmospheric ( normal is from 5 to 15  <lb/>
inches of water below atmospheric).</p>


<pb n="2"/><p><seg><xref id="DONRleak061055b.jpg" rend="new">
<figure entity="DONRleak061055b"></figure></xref></seg></p>

<p>On <date value="1955-05-09">Monday, May 9</date>, it was noted that the pressure in the core was at atmos- <lb/>
pheric. This would not have been expected, but was no cause for concern.  <lb/>
Removal of a small volume of gas from the core volume into the gas-disposal  <lb/>
holding tank quickly reduced the pressure again to the normal value. The res- <lb/>
ponse in this procedure appeared normal.</p>

<p>Reactor operation was not scheduled for Monday, and observation was made of  <lb/>
the pressure behavior of the core system. During the day, the pressure increased  <lb/>
and Tuesday morning it was clear, from the pressure which had again risen to  <lb/>
atmospheric, that air was leaking into the system. Careful monitoring of radio- <lb/>
activity levels indicated that the leak was in that portion of the system inside  <lb/>
the Safety Envelope. (A large inert atmosphere chamber enclosing the core,  <lb/>
control rods, etc, and a portion of the gas-circulating system). One original  <lb/>
purpose of the Envelope was to serve just the function encountered here:  <lb/>
containing radioactive gases in case a leak should occur in the core system.</p>

<p>No evidence could be found of liquid fuel leakage from the core.</p>

<p>Radioactive gas was found in rather large concentration in the Safety Envelope  <lb/>
volume. Pressures were equal or lower in the core, hence the gas in the envelope  <lb/>
was by diffusion. The amount present indicated that the leak was rather large.</p>

<p> 
Having ascertained that the leaking radioactive gas was contained in the  <lb/>
Safety Envelope, and that no hazard of loss or leak of fuel was involved, two  <lb/>
decisions were made as to procedures over the next following days:</p>
<list>
<item><p>1.		Efforts would be made, by measurement and calculation, to ascertain  <lb/>
the amount and identity of radioactive gas in the system which would have to  <lb/>
be disposed of-before repairs could be undertaken, and</p>
</item>
<item><p>2. Efforts to repair would be deferred for a week or so. This course was  <lb/>
chosen (a) in order to allow decay of the short lived activities, and  <lb/>
(b) in order for repair work to be scheduled after the climax of school </p>

<pb n="3"/>
<p><seg><xref id="DONRleak061055c.jpg" rend="new">
<figure entity="DONRleak061055c"></figure></xref></seg></p>

<p>activities then in progress; graduate examination, building dedication,  <lb/>
commencement and terminal activities of the school year.</p>
</item></list>
<p>	In the interim period, <name type="person">Dr. Wray</name> calculated that a maximum of about 0.77  <lb/>
curies of I<hi rend="sup">131</hi> and 0.33 curies of Xe<hi rend="sup">133</hi> might possibly be in the system in  <lb/>
gaseous form as a result of recent prior operations of the reactor. Careful  <lb/>
measurements by <name type="person">Dr. Waltner</name> established with certainty that the major component  <lb/>
of the gas was Xe<hi rend="sup">133</hi>, with only a trace of I<hi rend="sup">131</hi> present. The remainder presum- <lb/>
ably being contained in the fuel solution (as would be expected).</p>

<p>About <date value="1955-05-22">May 22</date> a schedule of bleed-off of radioactive gas from the core and  <lb/>
Safety Envelope to the atmosphere through the building stack, was established.  <lb/>
The gas was diluted in the stack with 20,000 cfm of air. The activity of the  <lb/>
gas was continually measured, and at no time did rate of release permit maxinuum  <lb/>
permissible tolerance levels to be reached in the stock discharge, even if a11  <lb/>
the activity were I<hi rend="sup">131</hi>. It was known of course, that most of the activity was  <lb/>
Xe<hi rend="sup">133</hi>, which has a much higher tolerance level.</p>

<p>	By <date value="1955-06-04">June 4</date>, the radioactive gases in the core and those which had leaked into  <lb/>
the Safety Envelope had been bled off to the atmosphere, to such a point that the  <lb/>
gases then being drawn from inside the core were only slightly above background.  <lb/>
The best measurements indicate that a total of less than l/2 curie, mostly Xenon,  <lb/>
had been released. Preparations were made to open the reactor assembly on <date value="1955-06-06">Monday,  <lb/>
June 6</date> to seek the damaged position and make repair.</p>

<p>	It was surmised that the leak might be located either in a plastic gasket in  <lb/>
the piping system, which would be relatively easy to repair, or in a welded joint  <lb/>
in the lid of the reactor core or in the piping system.</p>

<p>At this point ( <date value="1955-06-03">June 3</date>) another phenomenon entered the picture. A slight  <lb/>
increase was noted in the activity of the cooling water in the cooling system of</p>

<pb n="4"/><p><seg><xref id="DONRleak061055d.jpg" rend="new">
<figure entity="DONRleak061055d"></figure></xref></seg></p>

<p>the reactor core. A sample withdrawn from the system revealed a very low alpha  <lb/>
count, in addition to the low but slightly increased beta and gamma activity  <lb/>
normally present. It was suspected that this night possibly be evidence of a  <lb/>
uranium solution fuel leak into the cooling water ( in the coils inside the  <lb/>
reactor core). The amount of activity present was not sufficient to give clear  <lb/>
indication whether this was the case or not. A variety of other measurements  <lb/>
were therefore made:</p>
<list>
<item><p>(a)	The level of liquid in the core was measured. It was normal.</p></item>

<item><p>(b)	Fifty-five pounds of pressure were placed on the water inside the  <lb/>
cooling coil system, which was then valved off, and evidence of a  <lb/>
leak was sought by observation of the pressure. No change in pressure  <lb/>
occurred over several hours.</p></item>

<item><p>(c)	The reactor was brought up to critical, at a very low power level.  <lb/>
Criticality was achieved at normal control rod position, indicating  <lb/>
that no detectable ( by this method ) amount of fuel had been removed  <lb/>
from the core. </p></item>
</list>
<p>It was concluded, therefore, that if any fuel leak were present it was an  <lb/>
exceedingly small one.</p>

<p>Two days later a sample of water drawn from the cooling coils indicated  <lb/>
considerably higher beta, gamma activity, which was positively identified with  <lb/>
fission products, and alpha activity was found which showed clearly that traces  <lb/>
of uranium were also present. Thus it become clear that a small, but definite  <lb/>
leak in the cooling coils inside the reactor had developed. The cooling coils  <lb/>
were drained of water which was collected and held for further analysis. Pressure  <lb/>
and vacuum alternately were later applied to the cooling coils ( after removal of  <lb/>
the fuel from the core) and, by observation of pressure changes of air in the</p>

<pb n="5"/><p><seg><xref id="DONRleak061055e.jpg" rend="new">
<figure entity="DONRleak061055e"></figure></xref></seg></p>

<p>sealed off cooling coils, attempts were made to measure the extent of the leak.  <lb/>
It was most certainly very small. In the pressure testy fifty pounds was held  <lb/>
for twenty-four hours with only a small drop. In the vacuum test, 25 cm Hg  <lb/>
rose only a few millimeters in four hours due to air in leakage.</p>

<p>	At the same time ( <date value="1955-06-06">June 6</date>) these phenomena which indicated a small leak in  <lb/>
the cooling coils wore observed, it was noted also that the liquid level of fuel  <lb/>
in the core had dropped slightly; about three or four mm below normal. ( As noted  <lb/>
above, on <date value="1955-06-04">June 4</date> the level was normal). ( Four mm drop indicated a change in  <lb/>
volume of 250 cc.). When this was observed, an electrical resistance measurement  <lb/>
on an insulated probe in the button of the reactor envelope, just outside the  <lb/>
core cylinder was made and the presence of moisture outside the fuel cylinder  <lb/>
(but inside the safety envelope) was indicated. This clearly indicated that  <lb/>
fuel solution to the extent of some 250 cc had leaked out of the core, presumably  <lb/>
into the Safety Envelope where the presence of liquid was found for the first time.</p>

<p>	Thus, to summarize, <lb/></p>
<list><item>1.	On May 10 it was established that a leak had developed in that portion <lb/>
	of the reactor core system contained inside the Safety Envelope. The <lb/>
	leak seemed to involve gas only, and no evidence could be found that <lb/>
	the rector fuel was involved. Over the next few weeks the radioactive <lb/>
	gas inventory of core and Safety Envelope was purged slowly into the <lb/>
	atmosphere, with appropriate dilution.</item>

<item><p>2.	On June 6, after purge of the radioactive gas inventory had been com- <lb/>
	pleted, evidence was obtained that a small leak had developed in the <lb/>
	water-filled cooling coils of the reactor.</p>
</item>
<item><p>3.	Also on June 6 evidence was obtained that the reactor fuel solution had  <lb/>
leaked into the Safety Envelope enclosing the core.</p>
</item></list>
<pb n="6"/><p><seg><xref id="DONRleak061055f.jpg" rend="new">
<figure entity="DONRleak061055f"></figure></xref></seg></p>

<p> 
	It was decided at once that the reactor fuel should be removed from the core  <lb/>
and stored in the Emergency Storage Cylinder, of "always safe" geometry which  <lb/>
had been included in the reactor assembly for just such contingency as had now  <lb/>
developed:</p>

<p>	<name type="person">Dr. Roth</name>, of the <name type="corporate"><abbr expan="Atomic Energy Commission">A.E.C</abbr></name>. at <name type="place">Oak Ridge</name>, who had been apprised of these develop-  <lb/>
ments concurred in the wisdon of this move:</p>

<p>	The fuel was moved from the reactor core to the Emergency Storage Cylinder  <lb/>
on <date value="1955-06-07">June 7</date>. </p>

<p>
It is the intention now to complete the disassembly of the reactor components,  <lb/>
already begun, and to determine if possible the cause of the leaks ( apparently  <lb/>
there are at least two) which have developed in the core assembly.</p>

<p> Several observations may be worth recording at this point.</p>
<list>
<item><p>1.	The cause of leaks in the reactor core is not clear, and can be <lb/>
	determined only by further examination of the core. Conceivably a <lb/>
	weld near the bottom of the core may have failed or corrosion through <lb/>
	the metal container may have occurred. If the latter, the previously <lb/>
	observed tendency of the fuel to precipitate should not have been as <lb/>
	likely to have occurred.</p></item>

<item><p>2.	The sequential development of the leak is surprising and somewhat con- <lb/>
	fusing. At first it was only a gas leak, with no evidence to be found <lb/>
	of liquid leak. Thirty days later there was slight evidence of a leak <lb/>
	in the cooling coils. Confirmation of this two days later was accom- <lb/>
	panied by clear evidence, sought in vain two days before, that some <lb/>
	200 cc of fuel has leaked from the core into the Safety Envelope.</p></item>

<item><p>3.	The Safety Envelope was incorporated into the design of the reactor  <lb/>
	"to contain radioactive gases and the reactor fuel solution in case  <lb/>
	a leak should occur." It worked precisely as intended.</p></item></list>

<pb n="7"/><p><seg><xref id="DONRleak061055g.jpg" rend="new">
<figure entity="DONRleak061055g"></figure></xref></seg></p>

<list>
<item><p>4.	The wisdom was demonstrated of providing in the reactor assembly an  <lb/>
emergency storage vessel into which the highly radioactive fuel  <lb/>
solution could be moved, in case of a leak in the core, by remote  <lb/>
control manipulation of pneumatic pressure lines.</p></item>

<item><p>5.	A small but detectable amount of fuel solution escaped through a leak <lb/>
	in a cooling coil into the reactor cooling waters; Further measurenent, <lb/>
	is being made to ascertain the total amount involved but apparently, as <lb/>
	judged by the circumstances involved and the activities thus far measured, <lb/>
	it is quite a small amount which escaped into the cooling water by a <lb/>
	small leak in a cooling tube.</p></item>

</list>



</div1>
</body>
</text>
</TEI.2>