skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Remote Underwater Characterization System - Innovative Technology Summary Report

Technical Report ·
DOI:https://doi.org/10.2172/911501· OSTI ID:911501

Characterization and inspection of water-cooled and moderated nuclear reactors and fuel storage pools requires equipment capable of operating underwater. Similarly, the deactivation and decommissioning of older nuclear facilities often requires the facility owner to accurately characterize underwater structures and equipment which may have been sitting idle for years. The underwater characterization equipment is often required to operate at depths exceeding 20 ft (6.1 m) and in relatively confined or congested spaces. The typical baseline approach has been the use of radiation detectors and underwater cameras mounted on long poles, or stationary cameras with pan and tilt features mounted on the sides of the underwater facility. There is a perceived need for an inexpensive, more mobile method of performing close-up inspection and radiation measurements in confined spaces underwater. The Remote Underwater Characterization System (RUCS) is a small, remotely operated submersible vehicle intended to serve multiple purposes in underwater nuclear operations. It is based on the commercially-available “Scallop” vehicle1, but has been modified by Department of Energy’s Robotics Technology Development Program to add auto-depth control, and vehicle orientation and depth monitoring at the operator control panel. The RUCS is designed to provide visual and gamma radiation characterization, even in confined or limited access areas. It was demonstrated in August 1998 at Idaho National Engineering and environmental Laboratory (INEEL) as part of the INEEL Large Scale Demonstration and Deployment Project. During the demonstration it was compared in a “head-tohead” fashion with the baseline characterization technology. This paper summarizes the results of the demonstration and lessons learned; comparing and contrasting both technologies in the areas of cost, visual characterization, radiological characterization, and overall operations.

Research Organization:
Idaho National Lab. (INL), Idaho Falls, ID (United States)
Sponsoring Organization:
USDOE
DOE Contract Number:
DE-AC07-99ID-13727
OSTI ID:
911501
Report Number(s):
INEEL/EXT-98-01279; TRN: US0704596
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English