Text

Annual Progress Rept of Univ of Florida Training Reactor, Sept 1988 - Aug 1989. W/900207 Ltr
	ML20006D549
Person / Time
Site:	05000083
Issue date:	08/31/1989
From:	Vernetson W, Whaley P; FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	ORO-4014-19, NUDOCS 9002140036
	Download: ML20006D549 (336)
	v • d • e

g ,

y t

NUCLEAR ENGINEERIND SCIENCES DEPARTMENT -

NuclearReactotFocility l

- University 6f Florida '

- c .v m ,

u.awme== s ,

. m. mu !

pie een m.u w.i.e.a m m February 7, 1990-J f

f , U.S.' Nuclear. Regulatory Commission f Washington, D.C. 20555 t Attat: Document Control. Desk 1

- Re t Facility License R-56 1

, ' Docket No. 50 l 0 Dear Sir

-C

. In compliance with our Technical Specifications reporting requirements,

' enclosed'is one copy of the 1988-1989 University of Florida Training Reactor Annual; Progress Report.

This document complies with the requirements of the UFTR Technical .,

Specifications, Section 6.6.1.

Please. advise.if further information is needed.

. Sincerely, l I

William G. Vernetson- ,

Director of Nuclear Facilities i

WGV/p_-

Enclosure-cc: P.M. Whaley

-Acting Reactor Manager

+

bY lY i

0

/ n9 f

'\s 9002140036 890831 'N c PDR-- ADOCK 03000083 j~ <

R PDC y ,

Y

Contract #DE-AC05-76ER04014 Report #0RO-4014-19 I

5 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT.

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR l

J September 1,1988 - August 31,1989 By Dr. William G. Vernetson, Director i Mr. Paul M. Whaley, Acting Reactor Manager Z

]

} -

0 1

1 NUCLEAR FACILITIES DIVISION 4

g DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES College of Engineering g

University of Florida Gainesville k ,

g-t- t 6: . .

h- Contract #DE-AC05-76ER04014 --

1 Report #ORO--4014-19 I

I I

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR

. September 1,1988 - August 31,1989 I

I -Submitted By Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities i

November,1989 Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences University of Florida

.. Gainesville, Florida

N .

I TABLEOF CONTENTS Page Number

=

1. INTRODUCTION I1 II. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA PERSONNEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE REACTOR II1

III. . FACILITY OPERATION III1 IV. MODIFICATIONS TO THE OPERATING CHARACTERIS-TICS OR CAPABILITIES OF THE UFTR FACILITY IV-1 V. SIGNIFICANT MAINTENANCE, TESTS AND SURVEIL-LANCES OF UFTR REACTOR SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES V1 l

VI. CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS VI-1 I VII. RADIOACTIVE RELEASES ~AND ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE VII VIII. EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND TRAINING UTILIZATION VIII 1

-l IX. THESES, PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS OF WORK RELATED TO THE USE AND OPERATION OF THE UFTR IX-1

.l APPENDIX A: NOTICE OF VIOLATION FROM NRC NRC INSPECTION REPORT NUMBER

'l 50-83/89-01 WITH UFTR FACILITY LICENSEE RESPONSE

j. ' APPENDIX B: UFTR EMERGENCY PLAN REVISION 3 DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX C: UFTR EMERGENCY PLAN REVISION 4 l- DOCUMENTATION APPENDIX D: POLICY FOR TRANSFER OF RADIOACTIVE l MATERIALS BETWEEN THE UFTR R-56 LI-CENSE AND THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA g 356-1 STATE LICENSE

,I I

m -

k J q

c F'

~

TABLEOF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

P A APPENDIX E: UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

~

ORIGINALS GENERATED FOR 1988-1989 REPORTING YEAR l 1. UFTR SOP-A.8, " PNEUMATIC RAPID SAMPLE TRANSFER (RABBIT) SYSTEM" (REV 0) l 2. UFTR SOP-D.6, " CONTROL OF UFTR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL TRANSFERS" (REV 0) .

l APPENDIX F: UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES-MAJOR REVISIONS GENERATED FOR 1988-1989 REPORTING YEAR:

1 1. UFTR SOP-A.1, " PRE-OPERATIONAL CHECKS" (REV 14)

! 2. UFTR SOP-A 4, " REACTOR SHUTDOWN" (REV 10) l 3. UFTR SOP-A.5, " EXPERIMENTS"(REV 4)

4. UFTR SOP B.1, " RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY" l 5.

(REV 4)

UFTR SOP-D.4, " REMOVING IRRADIATED.

U SAMPLES FROM UFTR EXPERIMENTAL PORTS"

6. RCr #31, " INSTRUCTIONS FOR PERFORMING UFTR ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEYS" w.

APPENDIX G. UFTR REACTOR OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION-AND RECERTIFICATION TRAINING PROGRAM FOR JULY 1989 THROUGH JUNE,1991 APPENDIX H. DOCUMENTATION FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVAL FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL PACKAGES NO.0578, REVISION 1 APPENDIX I: UFTR ENERGY GENERATION / INTEGRATED POWER HISTORY FOR TWENTY YEARS SINCE LICENSING AT 100 KW POWER LEVEL APPENDIX J: DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE AND CORRECTION PAGE FOR THE 1987-1988 ANNUAL REPORT ii i

M

1, I' i I ;

g L IN1RODUCI1ON i l

Overall Utilization 1.1

( The University of Florida Training Reactor's overall utilization for the past reporting

year (September,1988 through August,1989) continued to be at historically high levels of j

quality usage, characteristic of the 1986 1987 reporting year when the 91.5% availability ,

factor was the highest in the last seven years and probably in the 28-year history of the.

L facility. No large individual forced outages in the current year have contributed to lost lI availability; as a result, the overall availability factor has increased from the previous year's

l 79.29% to an availability of 87.6% )

L -

1 L

The UFTR continues to experience a high rate of utilization in a broad spectrum of ' j 1

areas with total utilization continuing near the highest levels recorded in the early 1970's. l This broad based utilization has been supported by a variety of usages ranging from research and educational utilization by users within the University of Florida as well as by other researchers and educators around the State of Florida through the support of the DOE Reactor Sharing Program and several externally supported usages. Significant usage has also

~

'_ been devoted to facility enhancement where a key ingredient for this usage has been a stable management staff. Personnel associated with the UFTR are listed in Section II; facility operations for all usages are delineated in Section III.

The yearly total energy generation of 35.2 Megawatt-hours for the 1988-1989 reporting year represents a nearly 32% increase over the previous reporting year and is the I highest one-year total energy generation in the last four years of UFTR operation and I-1 j

i l I

w r-

_ represents the fourth highest one year value in the 30 year operational history of the UFTR. ,

m For reference purposes, yearly energ/ generation figures for the last 20 years of-UFTR operation since licensed power rating was raised to 100 Kw is presented in tabular as well

! as chart form in Appendix J. The increase in energy generation this year was primarily due I

i to the availability oflicensed operators (one new part time SRO for the entire year and one l: new part-time RO for over 8 months of the year) coupled with several large trace element analysis projects requiring lengthy irradiations as well as several extended irradiation j projects to investigate the effects of gamma and neutron irradiation on various dielectric )

materials.

1 The run time, time when the reactor is running at any power level, is also increased

, over 30% from the previous year. This increase in run time is partially attributed to all the time needed to run at full power plus the considerable time devoted to low power usage for research on plasma kinetics parameters, to implementation of the neutron radiography facility for design work and actual usage as well as to increased usage for various laboratory a exercises and service usages.

Additional large time and resource commitments were made for efforts related to complete the inventory and visual inspection of the SPERT-type LEU fuel pins stored and hoped to be used in the UFTR HEU to LEU conversion. Later in the reporting year a j sufficient number of the fuel pins were radiographed to provide for refueling the UFTR and having a reserve of radiographed pins available as needed for replacement. This project I. involved over 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months of experiment time. Although there were no extended outages this year versus previous years, periodic failures continued to cause lost availability with repeated failures in the Radiation Monitoring System and the two-pen recorder accounting for a large 12

l l l portion of all unavailability; these and other failures also caused lost facility usage and I hence negatively affected energy generation and run time. Indeed, these two systems are

l the two evaluated as most in need of replacement for which funds will be sought in the next reporting year. As indicated above, the total run time for the facility was increased over

'I 30% above the previous year at 740.04 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months for this reporting year indicating considerable low power run time for neutron radiography and the plasma kinetics experiments as well as student operations laboratory usage and UFTR operator training. With the addition of one new Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) at the end of the year and another RO licensed in December,1988, the availability of operating personnel has been much improved over past i

years. Overall, the indication is toward considerable low power usage and continued high -

utilization of the reactor subject to availability of the reactor and licensed operators.

- Analysis of facility utilization shows that the increased usage and energy generation

_ relative to the previous year are attributable to continuing supportive conditions as in the last year. As noted for the last five years, the refurbishment of the Neutron Activation l Analysis Laboratory has impacted favorably on all areas of utilization from research projects using Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) to training and educational uses for students at

all levels. With successful implementation of an improved remote sample-handling " rabbit" )

! 1

! l facility, efforts to advertise availability and encourage usage of the UFTR (especially for research) have proceeded in a favorable light though always less quickly than hoped over i l

the last five years. Implementation of the standard rabbit capsule size with larger carrying l h.=

capacity during the 1986-1987 reporting year has further supported use of the facility. The l

additional implementation of two state of-the art PC-based spectrum analysis systems with complete ORTEC software packages for spectrum analysis and data reduction has been a l

~ ~ . - .

I key factor supporting reactor utilization during the last three reporting years for' education

. and training uses as well as research projects, several of which constitute large ongoing but promising seed projects to support proposals. Indeed, the 1987-1988 reporting year was the first full year for availability of the PC-based ORTEC analyzers with standardized rabbit system capsule size. The NAA Laboratory had also been outfitted with its own independent sample and standards drying facility during the 19871988 reporting year and this year saw the first full implementation of this support facility as every effort is being made to supply accurate and reliable trace element analysis.

!- The result of these various improvements has been an easier, more reliable and faster turnaround of samples submitted to be irradiated for Neutron Activation Analysis with a

,I

resultant increase in interest by potential users. The implementation of these facilities has l

l given the UFTR management the capability to promote it among University of Florida users i

l .

and among researchers at other universities and colleges around the State of Florida. As the i 1

- availability of this high technology facility becomes better advertised through its users, its .

usage continues to increase, limited realistically by the unavailability of full time personnel committed to the analytical laboratory facility. Staffing is clearly a key limiting factor in the L .

total throughput as well as the rate of processing of samples for trace element analysis after :l irradiation in the UFTR.

The primary catalyst for maintaining facility usage continues to be the Department of Energy's (DOE) Reactor Sharing Program. This reporting year was the sixth consecutive l year in which the UFTR was supported as part of DOE's Reactor Sharing Program. It also ,

1 l marked the sixth consecutive increase in level of support. This program is designed to .

1 increase the availability of University reactor facilities such as the UFTR for non-reactor I

. \

I-4 1 i

._ _ m I i I

owning educational (user) institutions ranging from high schools to colleges and universities.

Basically, this grant provides funds against which reactor operating costs may be charged when the facilities t.re utilized by regionally affiliated user institutions for student instruction / training or for student or faculty research that is not supported by outside funding. In all,' fourteen (14) different academic institutions ranging from high schools to universities around the State of Florida made use of this program to utilize the UFTR for research (primarily via neutron activation analysis to determine trace element compositions),

for reactor facility demonstrations, experiments and course work related to various aspects of operation and for training of students m vanous commumty college programs such as 1

nuclear medicine technology and radiation protection technology and for research and l l

training programs for high school students for which several senior level science fair projects I are still in progress. This total does not include several non reactor usages for researchers at other schools for reevaluation of data using the NAA Laboratory PC-based analyzers.

At years end, several unsupported research projects were still awaiting availability of the l

? l UFTR under the Reactor Sharing Program as UFTR usage attributable to this DOE- J sponsored program continues to grow. Despite considerable cost-sharing by the University )

of Florida, all of the reactor sharing funds allocated by the Department of Energy for this I-.

supporting year were fully utilized. Nevertheless, this Program has been subjected to government reductions so the Grant has been renewed at a decrease of about 10.89% in the funding level for the upcoming year, so further expansion of this usage may not be possible.

- In expectation of better future availability of funds, Reactor Sharing Users will be I. accommodated as much as possible during this next reporting year since the UFTR is the only such facility in the State of Florida.

I-5

__-_--__-__.____.__-.-______________-_-____.__.-__.-_-_----___m -m_ _____-__ ________m_______________________m______- _.-_-____._______..___- ___ ___._______-_- ---

Reactor use by University of Florida courses and laboratories continues at the 1

L~ substantial level established in the last several years. Course and Department usages within j

1. \

L f the University range from the Environmental Engineering Sciences Department in its Health Physics courses to the Chemistry Department in a graduate level radiochemistry laboratory course. Of course, the biggest single user department remains the Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department which uses the reactor facility for both graduate and undergraduate

laboratories, research projects and class demonstrations and exercises. An expanded usage in recent years is for senior level design projects. In addition, plasma kinetics research has l expanded considerably as part of the nuclear space power research program in the Nuclear l L l Engineering Sciences Department and the Innovative Nuclear Space Power Institute.

l External users for courses include Central Florida Community College for its radiation ;

protection technology courses as well as Santa Fe and Hillsborough Community Colleges for their nuclear medicine technology courses.

With many continuing usages already scheduled along with the state of-the-art analysis instrumentation and support equipment in the NAA Laboratory, plus renewal of the

!l Reactor Sharing Program support, facility utilization and energy generation for the upcoming year should continue to show growth in quantity as well as diversity. The latter augmentation is particularly possible because the UFTR utilization under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program has spread publicity on the availability of the UFTR so that a number of investigators on the University of Florida campus and elsewhere around the state have again indicated an interest in using the reactor facility and its experimental systems during the upcoming year. Several other state wide users are in the process of preparing proposals hopefully to provide funded usage of the UFTR within the next year. The large usages for I-6

the University of South Florida (St. Petersburg campus), as well as for three groups at

- Florida State University and another at the University of West Florida / Southeast Missouri State University, are primarily to demonstrate capabilities to support proposals seeking external support as an outgrowth of the DOE Resctor Sharing Program support. One of

' these has already indicated a small grant to facilitate sample processing should be available early in this next year. Therefore, expectations of continued growth in quantity as well as diversity of reactor facility usage dependent on a continued upgrading of facility capabilities and staff expertise are quite realistic. One concern is the reduction in Reactor Sharing i

g support for the next year; nevertheless, it is hoped funding levels can be restored and even increased when the next funding cycle arrives.

,I.

I.2 Facility Improvements For facility enhancement, the neutron radiography facility was available during the i:

entire year and has been further optimized during the reporting year. A major effort was i

devoted to installing a semi permanent shield structure and a movable table for positioning objects and the film cassette for applications of neutron radiography. These improvements have not only reduced the radiation levels associated with radiography but have also reduced the time and effort required to implement the radiography facility as one of the UFTR experimental capabilities. The neutron radiography facility continues to provide a strong i base for growth and diversification of usage during this year and should continue to do so during the upcoming year as the facility is further optimized to attract more users, not only for demonstrations and evaluations of radiography system parameters for laboratory and other exercises but also for research and service usage. One external company has already I-7

.p 4

I utilized the facility on a number of occasions and has been pleased with the'~results, especially with radiography performed using a graded thickness boraflex standard to demonstrate and document the sensitivity of the' facility. One other possible user is interested in research on layered materials.

Plans have also been formulated for installation of a prompt gamma analysis facility at the UFTR to complement the NAA Lab capabilities. This is a multiyear enhancement J project; work completed this year includes characterization studies on a suitable beam port I and a preliminary design of the facility performed as a summer research project by a high .

1

' school student. During the upcoming year funds will be solicited to support equipment purchases for this facility with installation and initial implementation possible by late in the -

next reporting year provided the necessary funding is obtained.

Another area of enhancement receiving considerable attention this year was a series of measurements to characterize all experimental facility irradiation parameters from neutron flux and spectrum characteristics and gamma dose levels and spectrum characteris- I l

tics to ratios of neutron and gamma field dose parameters. As indicated above, some of this i

work has supported the design of a prompt gamma analysis facility. It had been hoped that

.a masters' level student would be able to bring this program to fruition during this year, _

though data to date has been sufficient to support continued plasma kinetics research for l the space power reactor program at the University of Florida and for research on radiation effects on dielectric materials for a researcher at Florida State University. Further work is needed to support interests expressed by several users in performing radiation damage l studies on electronic components, including one group at the University of Florida.

Finally, another enhancement of the NAA Laboratory facility has been the l I-8

7 lL acquisition of an electronic' balance to complement the analytical balance on hand to provide two weighing stations for processing samples. In addition, one student project was

( - undertaken to produce a set of slides and descriptive materials on instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) at the University of Florida facility. These slides and the I. descriptive materials address the complete process of trace element analysis at the UFTR using INAA to include sample preparation, use of the rabbit system and vertical ports for irradiations, contamination control, sample decay and counting along with use of the PC-based analyzer systems to perform the spectrum analysis. These improvements have further enhanced the reputation of the facility and our effectiveness in serving users of the facility, especially for informing visiting students and faculty from other educational institutions in facility capabilities as part of the Reactor Sharing Program.

~

For staff enhancement, the facility upper-level management has been well set with a pennanent full time acting reactor manager functioning effectively. Management staffing conditions are generally supportive of the considerable broad-based increases in facility usage for education and training of students as well as research by faculty at the University j' of Florida and other schools. Nevertheless, all other staff personn:1 are part-time employees, which necessitates detailed planning for some usages of the facility. During the year, one

I-part-time SRO finally resigned his license due to poor health (effectively lost in the previous h year); however, one new part-time SRO licensed at the end of the 1987-1988 reporting year plus another part-time RO licensed in December,1988 have combined to greatly facilitate availability of the facility during the entire reporting year. This fact is the key to the 740 hours0.00856 days 0.206 hours 0.00122 weeks 2.8157e-4 months of run time obtained during the year, the highest value in many years. ,

Although such employees provide a good experience base for operations, the lack of I-9

s

$ other licensed staff mernbers during the reporting year has occasionally necessitated

-.. limitations in the growth of some usage programs. It is expected that these limitations may be somewhat more restrictive during the upcoming reporting year with the expected loss to l

graduation of the one new part time RO licensed during the year and the possible loss of I the part time SRO by the end of the new year, depending on his plans for funher education.

l Therefore, plans are underway to hire and begin certification training for several more part-time student reactor operators early in the new year to assure continuity of staffing. The resultant lequirement for special allocations of training time in the classroom and in the control room will somewhat limit facility education and research usages. Nevertheless, the expectation is that all usages will be accommodated, though possibly on a slightly extended schedule from this reporting year.

I 13 Administrative Commitment of Resources The level of administrative work dedicated to regulatory activities is expected to be at a similar or increased level during this next reporting year. Although the facility received only one NRC inspection during the reporting year, it was cited for two 1.evel IV violations following the NRC Health Physics / Radiation Safety Inspection conducted February 17-March 2,1989. One violation was for failure to conduct adequate surveys to evaluate the radiation hazards associated with selected reactor vertical beam port and " rabbit" facility operations and the other was for failure to maintain unrestricted radiation exposure levels, which could result in an individual receiving a dose, to less than two millirems in any one hour. The items in these violations were primarily administrative and technical analysis problems; no actual safety problem or real potential for effect on the health and safety of 1 10

1 3

I the staff or the public was noted. Facility responses to the notice of violations were made j lI in a letter dated May 4,1989 with full compliance assured from discovery of the violations l

i g but with all corrective steps committed to NRC to prevent recurrence completed by May I 31,1989. The notice of violation, along with the licensee response, is contained in I - Appendix A.

l Corrective action included redesign of vertical shield plugs (already in progress at the

time of the NRC inspection) to reduce streaming dose levels above the reactor core during l

power operations and placement of additional shielding around the rabbit system exit port l ns well as development of a revised Radiation Control Technique #31, training on the j i

revised technique and full implementation thereof to assure adequacy of quarterly 1 environmental radiation surveys in both the restricted and the unrestricted areas around the reactor. Although this technique is not comidered a UFTR standard operating procedure, the complete revision of RCT #31, except unrestricted area maps,is contained in Appendix ;

F because of its role in the violations cited by NRC. These activities in response to the !

NRC inspection and facility findings occupied significant facility management and staff time -

during the reporting year.

Additional commitments from the previous health physics inspection of March,1988

! to perform a complete documented evaluation of the Argon-41 measurement methodology j- and to evaluate all UFTR radiation protection and control surveillances relative to instrumentation capabilities and needs also involved considerable additional time commitments, especially in the first half of the year, This work to evaluate Argon-41 measurement methodology was completed with the generation of a Masters Thesis Project

at the end of the reporting year along with a facility evaluation of the results showing the 3

?

)

t l l i

l

, need to correct the UFIR gaseous release summary data reported for August,1988 in the previous annual report. The fadlity evaluation and the changed page for the 1987 1988 i

annual report are contained in Appendix I.

Other administrative activities have also involved large commitments of time and !

l resources during the year. First, approved Tech Spec Amendment 17 had been received )

I on May 3,1988 and the required core vent sampling system had been installed during the previous year. However, the requirement for the sampling system plus the revision permitting certain activities to be conducted when the reactor is shutdcwn, the vent system secured and the stack monitor reading above 10 cps were not finally incorporated into the 1

1 UFTR Standard Operating Procedures until this year when the SOP changes were approved 1

.I in December,1988. Revision 14 for UFTR SOP A.1 " Pre-Operational Checks," Revision 10 for UFTR SOP-A.4 " Reactor Shutdown," and Revision 4 for UFTR SOP B.1 j

" Radiological Emergency," were all generated primarily to implement Amendment 17 to the Technical Specifications. Basically, SOP A.1 and SOP A.4 were revised to incorporate the conditions under which the core vent system is allowed to be secured while the stack count '

rate exceeds 10 cps. Similarly SOP B.1 was revised to incorporate the conditions under which the core vent system is allowed to be secured while the stack count rate exceeds 10 eps and to require that the cell atmosphere shall be sampled and the radionuclide concentration verified to be within limits of release to unrestricted areas prior to initiating venting of the reactor cell. With training completed on these revisions in January,1989, implementation of Tech Spec Amendment 17 was completed. Since these three revisions for SOP A.1, SOP A.4 and SOP B.1 are significant changes approved and implemented during the latest reporting year, the full text of these SOPS, as currently implemented, is 1 12 I-

l l

I contained for reference in Appendix F.

No further requests for changes in the approved Tech Specs are anticipated for the operation of the UFTR with its present high-enriched fuel at a rated power level of 100 kWth. It is expected, however, that another substantive amendment to the Technical ;

Specifications will be required before the UFTR can be converted from utilizing high-1 enriched MTR plate type fuel to utilizing low enriched fuel.

Second, a complete revision to FSAR Chapter 11 (Radioactive Waste Management) has been in progress throughout the 19881989 reporting year and has involved considerable l staff effort. This change is Revision 6 of the SAR and is part of a complete review and updating of the UFTR Safety Analysis Report as a continuing effort to assure an accurate I

.I document for controlling facility operations. This revision is expected to be submitted to l

]

NRC early in the next reporting year and should be incorporated into all official copies of the UFTR Safety Analysis Report early in the year.

' i Third, two revisions to the approved UFTR Emergency Plan were submitted to the '

NRC during this reporting year. Revision 3 was submitted to the NRC in October,1989 to :

i ac unt f r the fact that other hospitals than Shands Teaching Hospital are now designated

!E

!5-to handle Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant radiation accident victims though the Shands facility maintains the capability to handle such cases in the event of a large accident and g remains a regional resource for handling radiation accident cases. Revision 3

, documentation is contained in Appendix B for reference purposes. Revision 4 was submitted February,1989 and consists of two changes. The first change is the latest revision j to the "Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. Plan for Emergency Handling of Radiation Accident Cases" while the second part of the change is the latest revision of the I 13

-- ~ - ----._-_ _---__.--- -__-- - -- _ _ _ ----------__- - -_-_____.____

I l

Emergency Implementing Procedure UFTR SOP B.1, " Radiological Emergency." l Documentation for Revision 4 is contained in Appendix C. Both Revisions of the Emergency Plan were reviewed by UFTR management and the RSRS to assure the Plan continues to meet the needs for responding to emergencies related to the University of Florida Training Reactor with no decrease in effectiveness of the Plan with NRC concurring following submittals.

)1 A major administrative effort continued from the previous year involved the generation and implementation of a policy statement on how radioactive material transfers are conducted and documented at the UFTR facility. This effort was undertaken primarily j i

to assure proper radiological controls and documentation are used in the transfer of ;

I radioactive materials to or from the UFTR R 56 Licensee. The project was a result of procedure review and upgrading in response to the NRC inspection of the Radiation Protection Prcgram conducted in March,1988 recommending that better documented controls of radioactive materials be implemented;in addition, facility management desired to simplify the tracking of materials between the UFTR R-56 license and the University of Florida 3561 state license while meeting all NRC requirements. The policy statement is

]

entitled " Policy for Transfer of Radioactive Materials Between the UFTR R 56 License and the University of Florida 356-1 State License" and is contained in Appendix D of this report.

g This policy statement was implemented in December,1988, essentially at the same time as ,

the applicable implementing procedures, including two new ones and revisions of two I- existing procedures.

To implement this policy, two new procedures were generated to control UFTR

_l l

radioactive material transfers and to control utilization of the rabbit system along with major

I.

l I 14 I

'I I

revisions of several existing procedures. The two new Standard Operating Procedures generated to implement the policy include UFTR SOP-A.8, " Pneumatic Rapid Sample

Transfer (Rabbit) System" and UFTR SOP D.6, " Control of UFTR Radioactive Material 1

Transfers." Since these two procedures are newly generated, approved and implemented )

l during the latest reporting year, the full text of both is contained as currently implemented I l

in Appendix E for reference purposes and to meet Tech Spec requirements for such submissions. Finally, Revision 4 for UFTR SOP A.5, " Experiments," and Revision 4 for 1 UFTR SOP D.4," Removing Irradiated Samples from UFTR Experimental Ports," were also J generated to complete the facility response to the NRC radiation Safety Inspection of March,1988 to assure proper control of UFTR radioactive material transfers, and to control and document review of experiments run in the UFTR, especially relative to the generation 1 and release of radioactive material and associated radiation levels in compliance with the

" Policy for Transfer of Radioactive Materials Between the UFTR R-56 License and the University of Florida 356-1 State License." Since these two revisions for SOP-A.5 and SOP- j I D.4 are significant changes which were approved and implemented during the latest

( reporting year, the full text of these SOPS, as currently implemented, is also contained for reference in Appendix F.

'I Another administrative effort during the year involved submission of a revised I

Biennial Reactor Operation Requalification and Recertification Program Plan; the existing plan as amended in the previous reporting year expired at the end of June,1989. Therefore, l a new program was submitted to cover the July,1989 through June,1991 period with only

\

mmor changes (additions) to better reflect the requirements of 10 CFR 55. The revised i program submitted during this reporting year is contained in Appendix G and incorporates l

I 15 i

7 I

several minor changes to include annual special equipment training on the rabbit system and the overhead crane as well as explicit biennial requirements for a separate lecture and examination on the Security Plan and the Emergency Plan. Otherwise the plan is unchanged. These changes will be reflected in future issues of the Prograrit Plan as it is resubmitted for each successive two-year training cycle.

.g Considerable administrative efforts were also devoted to HEU to LEU Conversion Documents. A new proposal updating the UFTR conversion schedule and work status per 10 CFR 50.64(b)(2) requirements was submitted in March,1989 as DOE funding received l in November,1987 has been continued to support conversion analysis though on a delayed schedule.

I During the current year, considerable effort was also spent in completing and documenting visual inspection and then radiographing pin type SPERT fuel for potential use in the UFTR HEU to LEU conversion. There was also considerable time devoted to l

relicensing of the SPERT fuel facility (SNM 1050 license) for " storage only" to maintam l options on its usage. Subsequent efforts to evaluate the use of SPERT low enriched fuel in the UFTR conversion from HEU fuel were also time consuming as the decision was finally made at year's end to make the conversion using the plate type silicide fuel and not the SPERT fuel to minimize required core structural changes. Considerable management effort was also involved in developing the computational methodology and then beginning the actual core calculations to support the HEU-to-LEU conversion. It is expected that considerable facility management effort will again be devoted to the analysis and then to preparing the license amendment package for the HEU to LEU conversion during the upcoming year. Although the calculational effort was beginning to progress well during the I-16 ,

I I year, the loss of the graduate student performing the DOE supported conversion analysis I: calculations has interrupted the work at year's end.

l A final administrative effort was devoted to considerations for shipping SPERT fuel from the SNM 1050 Facility. Complete documentation for NRC OA Program Approval for I Radioactive Materials Packages No. 0578, Revision No 1 is contained in Appendix H. The l program approval was obtained in the previous year to be used to ship some of the SPERT fuel to an Oak Ridge National laboratory reactor facility. This shipment is still planned; however, it will also be necessary to remove the remainder of the SPERT fuel to another facility eventually.

The level of administrative work dedicated to regulatory and licensing activities is expected to remain at a similar or even higher level during the next reporting year. The efforts to update the UFTR SAR and the Emergency Plan will continue as well as the review and evaluation of SOPS. Of course, considerable facility management effort will be devoted to performing calculations and preparing the license amendment package for HEU-to LEU conversion during the upcoming year. In addition, it is likely that shipment of fuel g from the SNM 1050 SPERT facility, as well as shipment of waste from the UFTR will involve considerable administrative effort, ne net result is that administrative efforts I directed at compliance with NRC requirements will not be reduced but will likely be l significantly increased during the next reporting year, especially since a UFTR decommissioning funding plan must be submitted to NRC to meet 10 CFR 50.33(k)(2)

I requirements by July 26, 1990. This plan will require approval by high level university l, administration before submission.

The considerable test, maintenance and surveillance activities required by the facility 1 17

I I license, Technical Specifications and other controls also contributed significantly to usage and personnel commitments. Details on these surveillance and maintent.nce usages are g presented in Section.V of this report, while any associated modifications or evaluations of potential unreviewed safety questions are tabulated in Section IV. This contribution has decreased from last year because there were no large individual maintenance projects for l corrective action, although there were a number of corrective as well as preventive maintenance outages to address failures in the Radiation Monitoring System as well as the I two pen recorder, both of which are being given high priority for replacement as funds l become available.

I I.4 Facility Summary Overview The reactor and associated facilities continue to maintain a high in state visibility and strong industry relationships. With the DOE Reactor Sharing Program to support UFTR-related research by faculty and students at other academic institutions as well as training for various high school, community college and university programs around the state, the reactor facility is also maintaining high in-state visibility with other educational institutions. This g

situation is particularly true among high school science departments where reactor sharing supported usage increased significantly last year with even larger increases in size and g diversity of usages expected during the upcoming year. The interactions of several small externally supported research programs as a result of the Reactor Sharing Work is further I proof of its effectiveness as is the continued generation of proposals to obtain external l funding based on results of research obtained under Reactor Sharing support.

The description of various projects associated with the UFTR is given in Section I-18

F 3 VIII; the listing of projects has become extensive over the past few years of increased utilization. The same is true of the list of publications and reports associated with the UFTR; the listing given in Section IX of this report is the most extensive list in the last ten I (10) years and generally delineates the diversity and quantity of facility usage, includmg a i

j number of publications in respected journals and transactions, i

With the sustained statewide interest, the facility is being included in several l proposals to provide for funded usage of the UFTR and the NAA Laboratory, Several such a usages occurred during each of the past three reporting years (19861989), The Reactor i i

g Sharing Progre,m began in late 1983 and is directly responsible for the generation of a i number of these proposals. As more of these proposals are submitted and funded, further I increases in UFTR usage can be expected. In any case, on-campus research and service l

usage of the UFTR is also increasing because of the visibility generated via the Reactor Sharing Program. Reduction of Reactor Sharing Program funds for the next year continues ,

as a facility concern as this reduction is hoped to represent only a temporary cutback of l these funds. In general the level of interest in the facility is high though expanded on-campus usage for funded research is a continuing objective.

Finally, it is hoped that more direct industry training will be accomplished in the upcoming year, One small usage has been conducted in each of the past three years but none are scheduled yet for next year; nevertheless, the lack of utility interest in training programs other than operations usage for SRO certification makes it unlikely significant growth will occur in this area. With the rabbit system and the associated NAA and neutron l radiography facilities plus the DOE Reactor Sharing Program and expectations for increased L

l research funding from other agencies, expansion and diversification in facility usage are I 19

1 I

4 i

I realistic expectations and could be significant, despite expected losses in part time licensed i

l operators in the next reporting year.

The expectations for the 19891990 year are positive. Significant opportunities for l expanded education and research usages are apparent. The significant possibilities for continued growth in existing and new program areas are a challenge that is being addressed i vigorously. With sufficient support, there is no limit to growth in facility usage.

I

. s i

l i

I l

l t

I 20

g II. UNIVERSITYOF FLORIDAPERSONNEL ASSOCIATEDWITH THE REACTOR j

g ' A. Personnel Emnloved by the UFTR E i W.G. Vernetson - Associate Engineer and Director of Nuclear

as Facilities (September 1,1988 - August 31,1989)

'g.

i P.M. Whaley - Senior Reactor Operator and Acting Reactor t

Manager (September 1,1988 - August 31,1989) l G.W. Fogle - Reactor Operator (1/4 time) (September,1988 - !

August,1989) i R. Piciullo - Senior Reactor Operator (1/2 time) (September, :

1988 August,1989)

M. Wachtel Student Reactor Operator Trainee (1/2 time) l (September,1988 - December,1988) l 1

Reactor Operator (1/2 time)(December,1988 - )

August,1989) l 1

H. Gogun 3 Senior Reactor Operator / Technician (part time) l (September,1988 - June,1989)

J. McClain -

Reactor Operator Trainee / Technician (1/2 time) i (November,1988 February 1989) i M. Jara

- Student Radiation Control / Facility Technician (1/4 1 time) (March,1989 - August,1989)

- I. P. Stevens - Secretary Specialist (3/4 time) (September,1988 - )

February,1989)

I- L Hendricks - Secretary Specialist (3/4 time) (February,1989 -

March,1989) ,

l P. Merrow Secretary Specialist (3/4 time) (March,1989 -

August,1989)

B. Radiation Control Office J 2

A letter indicating Mr. Gogun's license was no longer needed was submitted to NRC l

via letter dated September 6,1988. Mr. Gogun's notification of license expiration i n. date September 29, 1988 was received on October 3,1988 though he continued

!E, occasional maintenance activities primarily as a consultant for most of the reporting

l. year until June,1989.

l 11-1

L

]

l !

D.L Munroe 8 - Radiation Control Officer (September,1988 -

August,1989) k

m H.G. Norton - Radiation Control Technician (September,1988 -

August,1989) l 1

LP. Nichols' Radiation Control Technician (September,1988 - l August,1989) i L

i ; C.A. l. con - Nuclear Technician (September,1988 - May,1989) l

-1 R.N. Hagen Nuclear Technician (December,1988 - January, i 1989) i R.K. Hansen - Nuclear Technician (September,1988) ]

W.G. Wabbersen Nuclear Technician (August,1988 August,1989)

.g - Basic routine health physics is performed by UFTR staff; however, assistance from the l I Radiation Control Office is required for operations where a significant dose (I.evel I i RWP) is expected or possible and where certain experiments are inserted or removed from the reactor ports. These personnel are also required for certain operations where high contamination levels may be expected. They also periodically review routine UFTR l radiation control records and operations and assist in performance of certain radiation ;

safety and control related surveillances. As a result, many radiation control office personnel are listed and though employed 1/3,1/2 or full time, only a small fraction of their work effort supports UFTR activities.

C. Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS)

MJ. Ohanian - RSRS Chairman, Associate Dean for Research, ;

College of Engineering and Professor, Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department Il , W.G. Vernetson -

Member - Reactor Manager and Director of Nuclear Facilities J.S. Tulenko -

Member (NES Departmsat Chairman)

W.E. Bolch -

Member at-large D.L Munroe -

Member (Radiation Control Officer) 8

_ . The specified alternates for the Radiation Control Officer position are Mr. William

_. Coughlin who works out of the Shands Teaching Hospital on campus and H. Norton listed below Mr. Munroe as a Radiation Control Technician.

II2

-. . _ - = - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_

r :- , a I

D. .13ne Resnonsibility for UFTR Administration M.M. Criser, Jr. -

President, University of Florida (September 1,1988 -

March 31,1989)

R.A. Bryan -

Interim President, University of Florida (April 1, 1989 - August 31,1989)

W.M. Phillips -

Dean, College of Engineering (September 1,1988 -

August 31,1989)

J.S. Tulenko -

Chairman, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sdences W.G. Vernetson8 -

Director of Nuclear Facilities

( -

P.M. Whaley -

Acting Reactor Manager E. Line Resoonsibility for the Radiation Control Office M.M. Criser, Jr. -

President, University of Florida (September 1,1988 -

g. March 31,1989)

R.A. Bryan -

Interim President, University of Florida (April 1, l g 1989 - August 31,1989) )

W.E. Elmore -

Vice President, Administrative Affairs (September 1, 1989 - May,1989)-

G. Schaeffer -

Interim Vice President, Administrative Affairs (May l 23,1989 August 31,1989)

W.S. Properzio -

Director, Environmental Health and Safety D.L Munroe -

Radiation Control Officer l l I

' Dr. W.G. Vernetson continues to serve as Director of Nuclear Facilities and Reactor Manager with Mr. P.M. Whaley serving as full time Acting Reactor Manager.

f II 3

1 III. FACIllTY OPERATION The UFTR continues to experience a high rate of utilization especially when compared to the 19851986 reporting year when large outages for corrective maintenance limited reactor operation. Total utilization continues at or near the highest levels recorded in the early 1970's in most areas. This continuation of a high rate of UFTR facility usage has been supported by a variety of usages ranging from research and educational utilization by users within the University of Florida to research, educational and training utilization by users around the State of Florida through the support of the Department of Energy Reactor Sharing Program. Again this year, several externally supported usages have also continued to impact reactor utilization and support the continued diversification of facility I activities and capabilities, especially through the hiring of part-time laboratory assistants for support work in the analytical laboratory. ;

As noted over the last five years, the refurbishment of the Neutron Activation Analysis Laboratory has impacted favorably on all areas of utilization from research projects using NAA to training and educational uses for students at all levels especially for student design related projects. With successful implementation of an improved remote sample-handling " rabbit" facility, efforts to advertise availability and encourage usage of the UFTR (especially for research) have proceeded in a favorable light through always less quickly than hoped over the last five years. Implementation of the standard rabbit capsule size with ,

larger carrying capacity during the 1986-1987 reporting year has further supported use of the facility. The additional implementation of two state of-the art PC-based spectrum analysis systems with complete ORTEC software packages for spectrum analysis and data reduction has been a key support factor for reactor utilization during the last three reporting years for education and training uses as well as research projects, several of which III1

y l !

l I

constitute ongoing but promising seed projects to support proposals for external support.

l The 1987-1988 reporting year was the first full year for availability of the PC-based analyzers using ORTEC software with standardized rabbit system capsule size. The NAA I Laboratory was also outfitted with its own independent sample and standards drying facility i

i

)

1 during the 1987-1988 reporting year with full implementation accomplished during the )

current reporting year. The result of these various improvements has been an easier and j I faster turnaround of samples submitted to be irradiated for Neutron Activation Analysis.-

i In addition, the shielding around the pneumatic insertion (rabbit) system used to facilitate short irradiations for neutron activation analysis has been upgraded during the current year.

The experimental neutron radiography facility has also been upgraded during 1988- 1 1989. With installation of a semi permanent shielding cavity as well as design and I implementation of a movable table to position objects to be radiographed along with movable shielding blocks, the UFTR neutron radiography facility has reached a level of j mature application with much reduced installation time and more reliable results. Not only has it been used for several demonstrations and exercises for university classes, as well as ,

- for visitors from other educational institutions (Reactor Sharing) and for one senior project to document implementation but, perhaps more significantly, it has been used extensively for one externally funded user with good consistent results. Further improvements in the radiography facility during the upcoming year are planned to reduce installation time further and to improve the beam quality in an attempt to reduce the exposure times needed for various types of radiography.

With the continued and increased support of the DOE Reactor Sharing Program, there has been continued significant usage by a wide variety of users from a broad spectrum of schools for educational as well as research purposes; again, several proposals for separate 4

III-2

l I research funding are in progress. There has also been continued slow growth in reactor i

usage for both educational and research programs sponsored by the University of Florida but spurred by Reactor Sharing users, with the research area showing several relatively large ,

projects with proposals awaiting funding. The plasma kinetics research has been an active i area in the past and should see renewed activity in the upcoming year. There is also a proposal for instrumentation development which may be funded. Finally, there were also l

several commercial research irradiations and related projects this year; with the I h computational analysis capabilities for NAA, it is hoped more such irradiations will be forthcoming again during this next year to further complement UFTR research and I educational utilization activities whether supported by the University of Florida, Reactor

)

l' Sharing or externally funded sources.

The level of administrative work dedicated to regulatory activities is expected to ho I at a similar or increased level during this next reporting year. Although the facility received l only one NRC inspection during the reporting year, it was cited for two Level IV violations following the NRC Health Physics / Radiation Safety Inspection conducted February 27-I March 2,1989. One violation was for failure to conduct adequate surveys to evaluate the l radiation hazards associated with selected reactor vertical beam port and " rabbit" facility operations and the other was for failure to maintain unrestricted radiation exposure levels, ,

which could result in an individual receiving a dose, to less than two millirems in any one ,

g hour. The items in these violations were primarily administrative and technical analysis problems; no actual safety problem or real potential for effect on the health and safety of the staff or the public was noted. Facility responses to the notice of violations were made g in a letter dated May 4,1989 with full compliance assured from discovery of the violations but with all corrective steps committed to NRC to prevent recurrence completed by May 111-3

w T

I l j

i l 31,1989. Corrective action included redesign of vertical shield plugs (already in progress ;

I at time of NRC inspection) to reduce streaming dose levels above the reactor core during i

l power operations and placement of additional shielding around the rabbit system exit port

]

as well as development of a revised Radiation Control Technique #31, training on the revised technique and full implementation thereof to assure adequacy of quarterly !

1

' environmental radiation surveys in both the restricted and the unrestricted areas around the reactor. These activities in response to the NRC inspection and facility findings occupied i 1

significant facility management and staff time during the reporting year. Additional ;

commitments from the previous health physics inspection of March,1988 to perform a complete documented evaluation of the Argon 41 measurement methodology and to i evaluate all UITR radiation protection and control surveillances relative to instrumentation j i

capabilities and needs also involved considerable additional time commitments, especially in the first half of the year, j

l. During the current year, considerable effort was also spent in completing visual inspection and radiographing pin type SPERT fuel for potential use in UFTR HEU to LEU I conversion. Subsequent efforts to evaluate the use of SPERT low enriched fuel in the l

)

'l UITR conversion for HEU fuel were also time consuming. There was also considerable time devoted to relicensing of the SPERT fuel facility (SNM 1050 license) for " storage only" -

to maintain options on its usage; there was also considerable management effort involved in developing the computational methodology and then beginning the actual core calculations to support the HEU to LEU conversion. It is expected that considerable !

facility management effort will again be devoted to the analysis and then to preparing the license amendment package for the HEU to-LEU conversion during the upcoming year i Although the calculational effort was beginning to progress well, the loss of the graduate III-4

ow student performing the DOE supported conversion analysis calculations has interrupted the 7 work at year's end, t

The net result is that administration efforts directed at compliance with NRC requirements will not be reduced but likely will be increased during the next year, especially since a UFTR decommissioning funding plan must be submitted to NRC to meet 10 CFR 50.33(k)(2) requirements by July 26,1990. This plan will require approval by high level university administration before submission.

Shown in Table III l is a summary breakdown of reactor utilization for this reporting period. The list delineates UFTR utilization divided into fifty two (52) different educational, research, training, tests, surveillances and facility enhancement operations and general tour / demonstration activities. The total reactor run time was over 740 hours0.00856 days 0.206 hours 0.00122 weeks 2.8157e-4 months while various experiments and other projects used over 1927 hours0.0223 days 0.535 hours 0.00319 weeks 7.332235e-4 months of facility time, not counting a large block of time devoted to routine daily and weekly checkouts. In addition, there h were many concurrent usages during the year to optimize utilization of available personnel.

The run time represents a significant increase of over 30% from last year primarily due to effectively increased licensed operating staff and high facility availability since there were l no extended forced outages during the 1988 1989 reporting year. The relatively large increase in run time is primarily because of large time commitments for several lengthy I irradiations of dielectric materials for researchers which were able to be run concurrently l with other experiments. The same was true for several relatively large NAA projects for trace element analysis. Similarly, the experiment time also represents a significant, though smaller, increase of over 5.4% without accounting for over 500 hours0.00579 days 0.139 hours 8.267196e-4 weeks 1.9025e-4 months of concurrent l experiment time in a variety of areas. The increase in experiment time is primarily

. attributed to activities for training one new operator (Licensed) and a second who resigned III5

l his position as a trainee as well as time for setting up to run the plasma kinetics and l

I

- neutron radiography experiments. This increase in experiment time is also attributed to continued improvement in record keeping of project times using the facility or its staff but not the reactor such as nearly 200 hours0.00231 days 0.0556 hours 3.306878e-4 weeks 7.61e-5 months for project work with the LEU SPERT fuel to perform visual inspections and then radiography to check integrity of pins. Although there !

were no large dominant maintenance projects during this year, the total time spent on maintenance activities is significant, with corrective and preventive maintenance on the radiation monitoring system and the two pen recorder dominating corrective maintenance l

activities and forced outage times due to multiple maintenance efforts. l The large increase in run time along with a significant increase in experiment time l are directly attributable to the high reactor availability (87.64%) for the year and to continued high interest in usage of the UFTR for education, training, research and service I activities. With additional part time personnellicensed, one licensed (SRO) at the previous l years's end and another RO licensed in mid year, run time was able to exceed the highest ,

level recorded in recent years during the 1983-1984 reporting year. The outlook is l reasonably good for continued maintenance of run time in the next year; however, with one t

g part-time operator (RO) planning to graduate and leave at mid year and another part time operator (SRO) planning to graduate and probably leave at year's end, it will be necessary to hire, train and license additional personnel during the next year to maintain facility '

g usage. This effort was initiated in November,1988 of the current reporting year but the individual did not maintain interest and resigned his position as a trainee, working basically L

as a technician for several months before leaving the facility for full time employment clsewhere.

l III-6

r ,

1

_ In summary, these figures in Table III-1 indicate continued high and diverse

{

utilization of the UFTR facility over the last six years with research and educational usage ;

g maintained in all areas and significantly increased !n some areas in contrast to the previous !

reporting year where several relatively large outages reduced availability below 80% The 4 j

design and implementation of various new facilities continues to play a key role hele to !

enhance and promote educational, training and research utilization at all levels. In I

addition, the newly implemented neutron radiography facility has been available for the 1 entire year and has been upgraded to facilitate usage as it is now nearing optimization to i

provide a strong base for continued growth and diversification of usage during the upcoming year as the facility is further optimized to attract more users, several of whom have again

{

expressed interest in its use for research projects. Of course, the Reactor Sharing Program is planned to continue to play a key overall support role in encouraging facility usage in all categories as this support has again been renewed but with a decreased budget level from

.l last year. This cutback is unfortunate considering that the past two years have seen the most diverse usage in the last fifteen years, primarily due to the synergistic effect of the

l-reactor sharing program. As in the current year, the facility expects to utilize the UFTR l facilities for reactor sharing supported activities for well over twice the usage time covered by program funding; the remainder is essentially an inducement to support future growth in facilities utilization among those who can be made cognizant of its unique capabilities.

l Unfortunately these latter usages are frequently delayed due to unavailability of sufficient support personnel or facilities.

Table III-2 summarizes the different categories of reactor utilization: (1) college g and university teaching, (2) research projects, (3) UFTR operator training, requalification and recertification, (4) utility operator training, (5) experimental facilities enhancement plus Ill-7

I UFTR testing, maintenance, surveillance activities,(6) HEU to LEU fuel conversion related I efforts, and (7) various tours and reactor operations demonstrations which is a final category to account for all other planned usages. The absence of significant utility operator training is a point that continues to be noteworthy versus ten (10) years ago; efforts continue to schedule some utility usages during the upcoming year but, other than an occasional SRO requiring a few hours of usage type training for a utility management position, there is little interest by utilities in training programs Although one utility asked for a proposal for a large training program during the year, this is not a likely area for large scale increases in facility usage, especially with the installation of multi-million dollar simulators at most reactor sites.

College course utilization involved 17 different courses, some many times to account for over 263 hours0.00304 days 0.0731 hours 4.348545e-4 weeks 1.000715e-4 months of actual run time, an increase of nearly 33% over the previous year, which had already shown a significant increase from the 1986 1987 reporting year. The research utilization consisted of some 19 projects using nearly 391 hours0.00453 days 0.109 hours 6.464947e-4 weeks 1.487755e-4 months of actual reactor run time exclusive of internal research into reactor characteristics. This number of usage hours is also increased by over 48% from the previous year, primarily because of staff availability to meet diverse operational needs while also addressing other activities including the SPERT LEU fuel non-destructive examination, inspection and relicensing efforts, as well as UFTR facility maintenance efforts. Both of these categories include considerable f concurrent usage to optimize personnel utilization still further. As noted, there are decreases in several areas from the last reporting year, especially in the UFTR operator I_ training area since the only new operator licensed received most of his training in the

( previous year and in the maintenance, testing and surveillance activities, primarily because 0

III8

there were no individual maintenance projects requiring large commitments of resources and extensive outage commitments.

Of course, the training and operational programs supported under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program, the large amount ofinternally supported usage for education and research plus several service activities all contribute to maintain the total facility utilization at high levels especially since growth in University of Florida course usage has reached a plateau.

With many educational and several large research projects (including several sponsored by reactor sharing and several deriving from the University of Florida Nuclear Engineering g- Sciences Department) already scheduled for the upcoming year, this next year promises to produce facility utilization at a similar or even higher level than that experienced during the last two reporting years, again dependent on maintaining availability of licensed personnel as well as personnel trained to work in the NAA Laboratory to support reactor operations.

A single utility operator training program could also produce a substantial increase in usage time by itself. With several significant maintenance projects completed and performed during past years and plans to replace several key systems dominating maintenance activities during the current year, this expected high usage in the upcoming year is realistic especially in the areas of educational usage for college courses and for research and service activities, I both on and off campus.

Table III 3 contains a breakdown delineating the 14 schools and their 135 usages of I

l the UFIR facilities which were sponsored under the Department of Energy Reactor Sharing Program Grant DE FG07-83ER75103. These Reactor Sharing usages account for nearly 33 hours3.819444e-4 days 0.00917 hours 5.456349e-5 weeks 1.25565e-5 months of run time in Categories 1 and 7 in Table III 2 with another 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months of 4

concurrent run time and nearly 250 hours0.00289 days 0.0694 hours 4.133598e-4 weeks 9.5125e-5 months of run time in Category 2 with another 231 hours0.00267 days 0.0642 hours 3.819444e-4 weeks 8.78955e-5 months of concurrent run time related to research. Reactor Sharing usages have resulted in j

III9

, . - _ - _ _ _ _ _ a

1 I l l

I maintaining and fostering improved visibility for the UFTR around the State of Florida ud ;

l also among researchers and other users at the University of Florida, many of whom are just j beginning to recognize the unique capabilities of the UFTR facilities. The total experiment I time for reactor sharing usage, not counting concurrent usages, was over 488 hours0.00565 days 0.136 hours 8.068783e-4 weeks 1.85684e-4 months , by far i i

the highest ever which makes the reduction in Reactor Sharing funds for the next year all {

l the more disappointing. Several new inquiries for involvement in the Reactor Sharing program have been received again this year; several new users have also been l

i accommodated. In all, the 135 usages represent a significant increase (nearly 24%) from last year as does the diversity and length of individual usages with the total of 30

]

I. participating faculty at a relatively stable level. The 138 students involved also represent 1 l a signif! cant 15% increase with the diversity of groups involved again demonstrating the broad based role of the Reactor Sharing Program as a key factor in UFTR utilization.

Much of the increased diversity is due to the effort to involve high school science g students in research and education programs at the UFTR which received renewed emphasis during the year. Obviously this DOE Program reinains a key driving force behind the continued utilization and growth of interest in the UFTR facility. This publicity is certainly a key factor in explaining the continued growth in the number of visitors (737) who toured the facility again inis year; with nearly a 30% increase in visitors this year, the facility is continuing to increase the number of persons who are familiar with the facility and its capabilities. Therefore, the UPTR facility continues to build and support a base l for long-term permanent growth and support of facility utilization with the Reactor Sharing Program serving as the catalyst for this growth. The implementation of the various facility improvements such as the PC-based analyzers and software in the NAA Laboratory and the radiography facility are simply spinoffs from the various expressed needs of those visiting 11110

]

l l i

the facility in conjunction with staff interests. In diversification of capabilities and can only I serve to increase opportunities for new usage. The ability and willingness to tailor y

l cxperimental usages and demonstrations also plays a significant role in fostering interest 3

among high school and college groups. Similarly, as the neutron radiography facility has I become functional, though some optimization and final des!gn efforts continue, plans are g being formulated to investigate the feasibility of implementing a prompt gamma analysis

. fr.cility at the UFTR with continuing design and analysis begun at the end of the reporting year. Interest has been expressed in such a facility and it would clearly complement the -

normal NAA capabilities, i

Detailed in Table III-4 are the monthly and total energy generation figures, as well l as the hours at full power per month and totals for this past year. The UFTR generated 35.298 Mw hrs during this twelve month reporting period, up significantly (32%) from last year and representing the fourth largest value in UFTR operating history and the highest -

in the last four years. A table and bar graph for the 20 year period for which the UFTR has been licensed to operate at 100 kw is contained in Appendix I demonstrating clearly

-I the significance of the energy gcneration in this reporting year relative to previous years,

-l especially prior to the DOE Reactor Sharing Grant initiated in the 1983 1984 reporting year. Since there were several research usages such as the Plasma Kinetics and Neutron Radiography projects as well as extensive operations laboratories where the usage was l lengthy but at relatively low or fluctuating power levels, the power generation could have been considerably higher. Indeed, even with an 87.64% availability factor for the year, the I reallimitation on usage has been a combination of personnel unavailability, lack of funded

'f support for desired usages especially for some of the reactor sharing projects and time lost I. i I m.u

p

I lI for maintenance as well as scheduled surveillances for which time commitments continue to increase.

'l Described in Table III 5 is a monthly breakdown of usage and availability data. As noted in Section I of this report, there were no large individual forced outages for

'I maintenance durir.g the 1988-1989 reporting year in contrast to the previous year so the ;

l overall availability is up considerably to 87.64% from 79.2% but with only 1 month at 100%.

For the year the availability is still below the historical high level of 91.5% recorded in the

l 1987-1988 reporting year. Nevertheless, a significant part of the 12.33% unavailability (over l 37%) is attributed to personnel vacations and leave as well as the administrative shutdowns undertaken for scheduled maintenance, primarily for the painting of the reactor cell, not malfunctions. Similarly, Table III 6 contains a detailed breakdown of days unavailable each month with a brief description of the primary contributors. The overall availability of 87.64% is well above the average of about 80% over the last five yearst nevertheless, improvement is expected in the upcoming year as several outages were utilized to perform corrective and preventive maintenance projects on the two pen recorder and the radiation I monitoring system as the two primary contributors to forced unavailability during the reporting year. As shown in the data in Table III-6, key causes of failures have generally been isolated and corrected to limit recurrences of related failures. Such a maintenance philosophy is expected to assure continued high availability, hopefully 90% in the next yeart nevertheless, it is planned to seek funds during the next year to replace the two pen recorder and the radiation monitoring system as they represent the two primary contributors of unavailability.

Described in Table Ill 7A is an explanation and date for four unscheduled trips for the reporting period. As explained in the table, the trip on 17 March 1989 was attributed 111 12

I I

to dust and/or corrosion bu:lt up on the temperature recorder slidewire for which regularly I scheduled preventive maintenance to clean the slidewire has been implemented. Similarly, j the overpower trip on 26 July 1989 was due to student error with evaluation indicating it was not promptly reportable but for which corrective action has been implemented via a '

change in the laboratory experiment directions. Finally, the trips on 16 June 1989 and 6 July 1989 were due to momentary loss of electrical power to the facility noted and i

documented through flickering of the building lights. In all cases evaluations indicated j l there was no compromise to reactor safety nor was :here any danger of personnel receiving excessive radiation doses. Similarly in all cases, all reactor safety systems responded properly. Only the trip on 17 March 1989 was considered promptly repartable.

Table III 7B contains no entries for scheduled trips. In this case, the lack of scheduled trips is primarily due to the lack of utility training programs where such trips are I part of the training exercises. It is expected that some trips will be included in the Reactor ,

.l' Operators Laboratory course for the upcoming year as well as for some of the operations demonstrations for other advanced classes in nuclear engineering to demonstrate proper evaluation of trip events.

l Several incidents (some reportable) described as unusual occurrences (and per UFTR Tech Specs sometimes potentially abnormal occurrences) occurred 'during this -

reporting year. Table III-8 contains a descriptive log of nine (9) unusual occurrences with g relatively brief descriptive evaluations of each. Several of these occurrences, as the more significant entries, were either promptly reportable or otherwise directed to be promptly

.g a reported to include those in entries 2,3,4,7 and 9. Entry 1 addresses the large scale roof leak which occurred due to clogged roof drains while Entry 2 addresses the later discovery of water in the irradiated fuel storage locations due to the roofleakage; this latter discovery III 13

I I

was reported to NRC following the recommendation of the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS). Entry 3 addresses a violation of a checkout requirement contained I

g in a UFTR procedure and was reported promptly to NRC since it involved a procedural violation. Entry 4 addresses an event involving loss of the temperature recorder which ,

forced an unscheduled shutdown and was considered a promptly reportable occurrence.

Entry 5 addresses the burn out of a clutch current bulb discovered prior to startup and was !

not considered promptly reportable. Entry 6 addresses the loss of recorder function only l on all radiation monitors necessitating an unscheduled shutdown and was also evaluated as not promptly reportable. Entry 7 addresses a potential violation of UFTR technical l specifications discovered during the annual audit by the RSRS and involved a failure to i report a change in Leve) 1 administration of the facility within 30 days when Engineering 1 College Dean Winfred Phillips assumed his position effective August 1,1988. Discovery of this failure was promptly reported to NRC as a potential abnormal occurrence per l UFTR tech specs but with negligible consequences since Dean Phillips is kept well aware ;

of the facility status. Next, Entry 8 addresses an unscheduled shutdown initiated due to ,

I erratic indications noted on the Safety 1 Control Blade Position Ind!:ator and was evaluated ,

as not promptly reportable.

>l Finally, Entry 9 addresses the discovery of a streaming collimated beam of radiation I about 1 inch across coming from the rabbit system shield on the west side of the reactor at full power with the result that a small area near the reactor cell west personnel door was not labelled as a radiation area which it should have been for about 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months per week over the previous 2 years prior to discovery. Since this occurrence was discovered as follow up :

to the NRC Radiation Safety Inspection conducted February 27 March 2,1989, the event was promptly reported as a potential abnormal occurrence per UFTR technical 111 14

h' F

' specifications but again with negligible consequences. The occurrence was then cited in

~NRC Inspection Reoort No. 50 83/89-01 (See Appendix A) and corrective as well as preventive actions were addressed in the facility response to the violation (See Appendix A) with all conunitments completed by May 31,1989 to assure this or a similar situation will not recur.

Although unusual occurrence entries 4,7, and 9 are most significant and were

. proi.1ptly reported along with Entries 2 and 3, the rest are reported via this report. In some i cases these may not need to be reported at all except as required by recommendation of the UFTR Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee and good practice to document and assure proper facility management control of operations. None of these events is considered to h - have adversely affected reactor safety or the health and safety of the public.

No uncontrolled releases of radioactivity have occurred from the facility and I. co:, trolled releases remain well within established limits. The personnel radiation exposures k for 1988-1989 have been maintained near the usual low yearly level since there was no

extensive dose commitment for maintenance in the core or other high dose rate areas as I- for the control blade drive system project of the 1985-1986 reporting year. There was also l no waste or special nuclear material shipped this year. Although waste was expected to be shipped 'in the past reporting year to prepare the faci.ity for the Hi!U.to LEU fuel conversion activities to commence within the next two years, this has been delayed and is

( now expected to occur during the next reporting year. With the corrective action

' implemented following the NRC Health Physics Radiation Safety Inspection in February, I: 1987, the upcoming waste shipment is assured to be properly controlled and documented.

j It is also expected that some of the LEU SPERT fuel will be shipped in the upcoming year under the SNM-1050 license but directed and controlled by UFTR personnel assisted by III-15

I l

'l personnel from the Radiation Control Office. A Quality Assurance Program Approval !

Number 0578, Revision 1, is available for this shipment to assure meeting all shipping requirements (See Appendix H).

]

Environmental radioactivity surveillances continue to show no detectable off-site dose j attributable to the UFTR facility as also noted in Section VII. One change in the l calculated gaseous releases for the month of August,1988 in the previous report year is

g corrected in this report to account better for the gas standard and counting geometry.

utilized since August,1988 in response to the NRC Health Physics / Radiation Safety ;

Inspection conducted in March,1988. The correction is contained in Appendix J and.

, l' L ' consists simply of the corrected page for the 19871988 Annual Report showing the proper l gaseous release for the month of August,1988 along with the rest of the previous reporting l

- year. The current methodology used to measure gaseous releases is much improved and the results obtained have been consistent during the semi annual measurements. Effluent levels for both the gaseous and liquid releases remain well within required limits. Overall, ;

the facility continues to operate within ALARA guidelines with minimal exposure of staff and visitors.

I 9

III-16

r, ,

q r

TABLE III 1

SUMMARY

OF FANIITY UTri17ATION '

_(September 1988 - August 1989)_

s- , NOTE: The projects marked with one asterisk (*) indicate irradiations 1 or neutron activations. The projects marked with two asterisks i

gl-

g .("). indicate training / educational use. The projects marked i with three asterisks ("*) indicate demonstrations of reactor i

operations. " Experiment Time" as total time that the facility i dedicates to a particular use; it includes "Run Time". "Run !

s Time" is inclusive time commencing with reactor startup and - j ending with shutdown and securing of the reactor.

!g; (g

l 1

RUN EXERIMENT "

TIME TIME PROJECT AND USER TYPE OF ACTIVITY (hours) (hours)'

i l

' "ENU-51761.e-Dr. W.G. Independent Reactor Operations 217.20 385.66 I

!h l

i

-Vernetson, P.M. Whaley and Reactor Staff Laboratory Course for Undergraduate and Graduate Nuclear Engineering Sciences (15.69) (31.00)-

1 Students d "CFCC Radiation Three Reactor Operations-Based 21.31 242.84 l

Protection Technology Radiological Control and Protection (6.94) - (18.38)

Program- - Mrs. R. Training Programs of Cooperative Work ,

. Rawls/Mr. S. MacKenzie Exercises !

- Reactor Sharing f- SPERT -Low Enriched Radiation / Contamination Surveys, Property 0.00 163.66 l FuelConversion Related Surveys, Facility Checks, Fire Alarm (42.33)

h

Efforts- - Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, P.M. Whaley System Maintenance, LEU SPERT Fuel Security System Checks, NRC Radiation and Reactor Staff Safety Inspection, and LEU Fuel Inventory .i

! and Visual. Inspection Efforts as well as '

X-Ray Non-destructive Evaluation l

E; ,

1 III-17

I TABLE III 1 (CONTINTED)

[

SUMMARY

OF FAPHJTY UTH17ATION (September 1988 - August 1989)

RUN EXERIMENT I PROJECT AND USER TYPE OF ACTIVITY TIME (hours)

TIME (hours)

NAA Research For NAA Evaluation and Determination of 94.01 119.00 I. Biogeochemica1 Assessment of Pollard, Irradiation Schemes for Identification and (31.83) (37.46)

Quantification of Various Elemental Metal I AL Oil Field - Dr. Gary Cwick, University of West Florida /S.E. - Missouri Constituents in Samples Taken From The Pollard Alabama Oil Field Contributing to Abnormal Metal Concentrations State University and Dr.

I: Michael- Bishop, University of Wisconsm, Clair -Reactor I Eau Sharing 0.45 1.08

' Activation of Beta Irradiation of an Iodine Sample To I Activity Source - Dr. L

~Muga, UF Chemistry Produce a Short Half-Life Beta Source For Experimental Usage in Radiochemistry Department

NAA Research on Evaluation of Effects of Oil Related 18.80 25.45 Seagrass Community Drilling Fluids on Various Seagrass (0.22) (1.62)

I-_ Samples - Dr. C. D'Asaro Community Models Containing Shellfish,

-- University of West Grasses and Other Organic and Inorganic Florida- Dr. D. Webber - Components l ' EPA and Reactor Sharing P1asma Kineties Pulsed Ionization Chamber Plasma Kinetics 16.18 36.91 l ParameterDeterminations

- Partial Seed Project -

Diagnostic System Operational Tests to Include Foil Flux Measure- ments and (1.83)

Dr. W. H. Ellis, Dr. I. Temperature Dependent Plasma Kinetics Maya, Innovative Nuclear Analysis of He and UF,-He Plasmas Space Power Institute Within Small Externally Heated Detectors

( ENU-4905 - NAA Re-search on FoilStandards-Special Project on Verification and Identification of Unknown / Unlabeled Foil Standards Available In the Analytical 8.42 12.00 j;

Dr. W.G. Vernetson/M.

_Jara Laboratory Research on Properties Use of Neutron Radiography, Transmission 64.74 99.62 I of Materials - Dr. S.

Turner, Nusertech and Scattering Experiments and Other Analytical Techniques to Examine and (5.17) (5.92)

Characterize Used and Unused Boraflex Absorber Liner Samples and Coupons i I. From Utility Spent Fuel Pools l III-18

TABLE III-1 (CONTINUED)

.l

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY U'I1LIZATION s

(September 1988 - August 1989)

RUN EXERIMENT

l' PROJECT AND USER TYPE OF ACTIVITY TIME (hours)

TIME (hours)

I FAS 6129 - Lithic Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.00 0.83

. - Technology - Dr. B. Purdy Reactor Operations and Facility Capabilities For Students of Lithic

(.

Technology

' Neutron Radiography Continued Neutron and. Gamma Flux 20.57 81.11

( FacilityDevelopment and Measurements in the Thermal Column (1.33) (2.20)

L Implementation Studies - Facility With Rearrangement of Thermal l Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. Column Graphite and Other Special

! H. Van Rinsvelt, Dr. A.M. Materials Plus Beam Quality Analysis and Jacobs, P.M. Whaley, H. Optimization to Evaluate Neutron Hicks and Reactor Staff Radiography Potential Based on a I- Continuing Series of Test Neutron Radiographs for Facility Implementation with Improved Semipermanent Shielding Installation.

Utility Reactor Performance of a Set of Meaningful 13.80 19.83 Operations Usage - Dr. Reactor Operations Exercises Involving W.G. Vernetson and Significant Reactivity Manipulations Plus Reactor Staff a Minimum of 10 Startups and 10 Shutdowns for Florida Power Corporation Crystal River 3 SRO Candidate

NAA Research on NAA to Evaluate Rare Earth Elements in 15.23 20.17 Estuarine Samples - Dr. Tampa Bay Estuary Sediments Using (1.25)

G. Smith /Dr. R. Byrne -

Special Sample Holder to Irradiate Five l

University of South Samples in UFTR CVP with Results

' Florida, St. Petersburg - Augmented by Short Re-irradiations of i

g Reactor Sharing Samples Previously Irradiated in the Lg Sample Holder

Materia 1s/N A A Irradiation of Geologic Quartz Samples to 78.31 95.66 Research - D r. A.L Determine Uranium, Thorium and (4.20) (8.91) i Odom, Geology Sept., Samarium Trace Element Content for l' Florida State University - Input into Research on Effects of Natural

( Reactor Sharing Radiation on Geologic Quartz and Geologic Dating Based on Radioactive Decay

. III-19 1 -

TABLE III 1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY

OF FACIIlTY UTILIZATION (September 1988 -_ August 1989)

RUN EWRIMENI'

- (. PROJECT AND USER TYPE OF ACTIVITY TIME (hours)

TIME (hours)

I

Materials Research on Determination of Elemental Chlorine, 11.34 17.41 l SilicaCrystalGeneration Titanium and/or Fluorine Content in Silica (1.83)

Processes-Dr. C. Balaban Crystal Samples (Si0,) Generated Using- i and Mr. G. LaTorre - Various Innovative Processes Currently ;

Advanced Materials Under Development l Research Center l

NRC and Other Regular Biennial NRC Health Physics 0.82 43.25 I Inspections- W.G. '

Inspection, ANI Nuclear Safety Inspection, (0.82) (29.75) l Vernetson Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee Annual Audit Plus University Property ,

Inventory l l

" Licensed Operator NRC Requalification and Recertification 6.11 114.96 Requalification and Training Requireme nts Including Le ctures, (0.33) (17.91) l Recertification Program Practical Training, Examinations, Startups, I Training Including Staff Shutdowns and Reactivity Manipulations P1anning/ Review as Necessary to Maintain Operator l Meetings - Dr. W.G. Qualification and Assure Operator !

I~ Vernetson/ReactorStaff/ Recertification Rad Con Staff

UFTR Reactor Individual Reactor Operator License 10.76 22.39 Operator Candidate Training for UFTR Reactor Operator (9.29) (13.22)

Training - Dr. W. G. Candidates M. Wachtel (now RO) and J.

Vernetson/ Reactor Staff McClain (resigned) -

" Union County High Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 6.98 17.50 School Science Program - Reactor and Rabbit System Operation (1.75)

- M rs. Renae Allen -

with Neutron Activation Analysis of Reactor Sharing Various Union County Soil Samples For Trace Element Evaluation of Uranium and Thorium Content For Science Fair Project

" Florida Regional Three Lectures, Six Tours and 1.20 5.92 Junior Science, Engi- Demonstrations of Facility Operations and (1.20) (1.25) neering and Humanities Capabilities for High School Students, Symposium -Dr. W. G. Teachers and Other Professional Vernetson/Dr. G.R. Participants Dalton / Reactor Staff III-20

I TABLE III 1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY

OF FArtiITY LTDI17ATION

(September 1988 - August 1989)

RUN EXERIMENT TIME TIME PROJECT AND USER TYPE OF ACTIVITY (hours) (hours)

"ENV-4201/52% - Dr. Lectures, Tours and Demonstrations of 0.00 1.33 i C.E. Roessler Reactor Operations and Radiation

.g. Protection Related Features of the UFTR g Facility "ENU 6935 - Nuclear Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.00- 1.00 I- Seminar - Prof. J.S. Reactor Operations and Facility Tulenko Capabilities k "ENU-4505L - Dr. W. Senior Level Nuclear Engineering 14.72 37.59 H. Ellis, Dr. G, R. Dalton Laboratory- Exercises and Experiments (0.23) (4.84) and Dr. W.G, Vernetson - Including Foil Irradiations, Flux Mapping,

I University of Florida Hot Channel Factors, Reactor Calorimetry, Blade Reactivity Worth Calibration.

Diffusion Length in Graphite, 1/M I Approach to Critical and Neutron Activation Analysis

l- Non-destructiye Non-Destructive Examination of Reed 0.00 2.74 ,

Examination Activities - Switches Using X Rays For Private W. G.~ Vernetson, P. M. Electronics Company Whaley "ENU-4103 - Dr. A.M. Lecture, Tour and Discussion of Facility 0.00 1.08 Jacobs Operations for a Junior Level Introduction f~ to Nuclear Engineering Course

( Comparing / Contrasting UFTR Systems With Corresponding Power Reactor Systems "ENV-6211L - Dr. W. Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of

(~ E. Bolch/Dr. W.G. Facility Capabilities with NAA Exercise 0.95 2.75 Vernetson Demonstrating Trace Element Analysis 4

l *

Central Florida Techniques Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.78 4.50 g Community College UFTR Operations with Radiation Surveys

. . Radiation Protection and NAA Training Exercises Technology Program -S. Demonstrating Trace Element Analysis

,I MacKenzie - Reactor Technique Using the Rabbit System and

- Sharing PC Based Analyzers a III-21

= TABLE Ill 1 (CONTINUED) l

SUMMARY

OF FACHlTY UTIIlZATION (September 1988 - August 1989) .

RUN EXERIMENI' f- PROJECT AND USER TYPE OF ACTIVITY TIME (hours)

TIME (hours) l *

Hi1Is b o r ou gh

- Community College Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of Facility Operations with Radiation Surveys 0.90- 3.25 Nuclear Medicine and and Exercise in Use of Rabbit System for Radiation

(. Therapy Technology Program -Dr.

Trace Element Analysis pf Hair Samples Us!ng NAA Techniques M. Lombardi - Reactor -

f Sharing

" St. Augustine High Lecture, Tour and Demonstrations of 0.72 4.83 I School Physics Class -Mr.

- S. Buell, Mr. R. Gorson -

Reactor Sharing -

Reactor Facility Operations and Use of Rabbit System ForTrace Element Analysis "ENU-3002 - Dr. G.S. Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.50 2.84 Roessler/Dr. W.G. Reactor C grations and Facilities I Vernetson Capabilities Plus Demonstration of Use of Rabbit System for Trace Element Analysis of Hair Samples Using Neutron Activation Analysis

' " Florida Southern Lecture, _ Tour and Demonstration of 1.82 6.33 College Society of Physics UFTR Operations with Radiation Surveys I- Students, Physics Dept. - and Use of Rabbit System for NAA for Dr. W. G. Vernetson/ Dr. Trace Element Analysis of Several Samples Robert Mitchell-Reactor I' Sharing "Hilliard High School Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of I Science Dept. - Mr. Ed MacMillan - Reactor Reactor Operations with Radiation Surveys and NAA Laboratory Facility Operations 1.07 4.50 Sharing Using the Rabbit System for Trace Element Analysis of Hair and Other Samples "ENU-5005 Dr. G. R. Demonstration Startup, Operation and 0.93 1.17 Dalton Shutdown of UFTR Emphasizing Response (0.93) (1.17)

Characteristics such as Prompt Jump, I Steady Period, Critical Position, Delayed Neutron Effects and Prompt Drop Effects III-22

~

e .

TABLE III-1 (CONTINUED) _

1b

SUMMARY

OF FAN JTY_U'IIIJZATION

( (September 1988 - August 1989)

RUN EXERIMENT TIME TIME -

(' PROJECT AND USER TYPE OF ACTIVITY (hours) .

(hours)

NAA Research on NAA to Evaluate the Elemental Rare 6.78 8.50

l' Phosphate Ore - Dr. P. Earth Content of Phosphate Orcs Above (3.38) (4.42)

Gielisse, Mechanical the Trace Element level for Possible Engineering (FAMU and Mining Applications

_I FSU) and Dr. R. Clark, Chemistry Dept., Florida

_g- State University - Seed Project - Reactor Sharing iBB 'NAA Research on

- Biological Samples - Dr.

NAA to Evaluate the Feasibility of Determining the Environmental Level of 9.07 9.67 j- (8.07) (8.50)

W.H. Ellis, Dr. W. G. Trace Elements Especially Mercury in I Vernetson, University of Florida -Seed Project Various Biological Samples with Emphasis on Fish Recovered from Florida Lakes

Physics of- Materials Investigation of Fast Neutron and Gamma 221.05 244.93

I" Properties Research-Dr. Ray Fluence-Induced Lattice Disturbances (157B7) (170.29) 1 Hans - Plendl, Physics and Optical Properties in Dielectric 3< . Dept., Florida State (Primarily Topaz) Materials: Work to

_E University and Dr. Peter Date Includes Design of Cadmium-Covered Gielisse -

~ Mechanical Material Holder and Shield Tank Gamma g Engineering- Dept., Irradiation of Large Volume Samples

-3 FAMU/FSU - Reactor Followed by Optical Examination of Some Sharing Samples with Comparative Neutron

-3 Irradiation of Other Samples and For the

=.

[ Shield Tank Gamma Irradiation of Several Specially Prepared Dielectric Samples.

"CHS-5110L - Dr. K. Radiochemistry Laboratory Project for 6.42 7.08 Williams NAA of Trace Elements in Powdered Milk (3.22) (3.59) to Support Project Development in

_I Radiochemistry Laboratory Course

!g- *

. ENV-6936 -

Health Evaluation of the Methodology Used to 30.47 36.84

g- Physics Radioactivity Measure Argon-41 Stack Effluent Releases (8.53) (10.45)

Release Research - Dr. at the UFTR to Include Implementation W. G. Vemetson, Nuclear of a Gas Standard to Match Sample l Engineering Sciences Dept. and Dr. W. E.

Geometry in Response to NRC To Inspection Findings and Implement Bolch, Environmental Currently Accepted Method of Argon-41 Engineering Sciences Release Measurements l- Dept., Univ. of Florida III 23

- TABLE III-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1988 - August 1989)

RUN EXERIMENI' TIME TIME g- PROJECT AND USER . TYPE OF ACTIVITY (hours) (hours)

"ENU-6516L - Dr. W. Graduate Level Nuclear Engineering 16.92 32.33 G. Vernetson, Mr. P. Laboratory Exercises and Experiments (2.62)

-li Whaley - University of Including FoilIrradiations,1/M Approach-(5.S0)

Florida To-Critical, Neutron / Gamma Flux Mapping, Neutron Activation Analysis, I1 -Inverse Reactor Kinetics Measurements, Control Blade Reactivity Worth B- Measurements, Hot Channel Factors and B Demonstration / Evaluation of Neutron Radiography lmplementation

"* Florida Foundation Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 1.45 12.25 of Future Scientists - Dr. Reactor Facility Operations and j W. G. Vernetson -Reactor it.perimental Capabilities Plus Project B Sharing Selection for Two FFFS High Schoo!

Students (Mark Wood of Boca Raton I Community High School and Adrian Carli of Hilliard High School)

' Florida Atlantic Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 1.37 6.50 University Society of Reactor Operations with Use of the Rabbit

. Physics Students - Dr. W. System for NAA of Samples For Trace

G. Vernetson, Ms. Julie Element Analysis and Use of the Neutron

-I Owen - Reactor Sharing Radiography Port to Take Radiographs a-

Florida Foundation of Summer 1989 Student Research Program: 8.53 13.75 3 Future Scientists - NAA NAA for Trace Element Analysis of (3.98) (4.08)

Research on Citrus Various Processed Citrus Products (Orange

- y. Products - Dr. W. G. Juice) to Evaluate Possibility of Developing Vernetson/M. Wood NAA Methodology to Verify Claimed Sources of Citrus Products Florida Foundation of Summer 1989 Student Research Program: 2.98 8.50 Future Scieraists - Beam Port Neutron Spectrum (0.23) (1.50)

Reactor Characteristics Characterization For Evaluation and Measurements and Sensitivity Analysis As a Preliminary To Experimental Facility Design and Implementation of a Prompt Design - . Dr. W. G. Gamma Analysis Facility l Vernetson/ A.Culi I.

III-24

9 L- TABLE 1111 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY

OF FACIllTY UTILIZATION (September 1988 - August 1989)

RUN- EXERIMENI' j- - TIME TIME PROJECT AND USER TYPE OF ACTIVITY (hours) (hours) j "* Miscellaneous Tours and Demonstrations -

Miscellaneous Tours Involving Facility Demonstrations for Various Visitors 7.04 50.58 (5.55) (24.75)

Dr. W. G. Vernetson Including Groups of Students Representing j Various Special Interests, Alumni, Potential B- New Staff Members, NES Seminar Speakers, ROTC Instructors and Students, UPD Officers, ~NRC Visitors, Visits by I: Potential or Actual Facility Users and Various Other Interested Individuals and Small G roups Including Football Weekend Visitors

NAA Research for NAA Evaluation and Determination of 12.40 17.42 GeochemicalEvaluation Irradiation Schemes for Identification of (5.72) (6.33) of Sedimentary Mineral Trace and Rare Earth Elements for Dr. Adel I Deposits Evaluation of the Geochemistry of Dabous, Florida State Sedimentary Mineral Deposits University "Special Training For Training on Radiation Worker Instructions 2.44 39.92 UFTR Facility Support (10 CFR Part 19) for Support Staff (2.44) (21.67) _

Staff. -

Dr. W.G. Including Radiation Control Personnel and I~ Vernetson Non Licensed Facility Staff, Training as Rad Con Technician for Staff Member, Training on Emergency Response and Security for UPD Personnel, Training on Emergency Response for Alachua County Emergency Manager and Services I. Personnel as well as Briefing for NES Chairman on Physical Security Status f "ENU-6936 - Facility Use of UFTR for Neutron Noise Data 3.48 10.85 Characterization Research Acquisition an.d Autocorrelation Analysis (1.35)

- Dr. E. E. Carroll, J. for Determination of various UFTR

( Riverola, University of Florida Kinetic Parameters such as p/t I

I. :

i III-25

w n TABLE III-1 (CONTINUED)

SUMMARY

OF FAm1TY UUI17 ARON 1

(September 1988 - August 1989)

RUN EXPERIMENT TIME TIME

.-, PROJECT AND USER TYPE OF ACTIVITY (hours) (hours)

"ENU-4612L/5616L Demonstration of UFTR Nuclear 3.46 8.75

I Nuclear Instrumentation -

Systems Laboratory -Dr.

Instrumentation Detector Responses for (0.20) (2.00) ;

Startup, Operation and Shutdown W.H. Ellis, University of Operation Plus Sample Preparation and Florida' Use of Rabbit System for Trace Element Analysis of Various Samples Using Gamma Spectrometers

, +

"ENV-4932/6932 - Lecture, Tour and -Demonstration of 2.33 7.42 g Special Problems in Reactor and _ NAA Laboratory Facility (1.15) (2.83)

'g Radiation Protection - Operations Emphasizing Radiation !

Dr. W. S. Properzio, Protection Aspects Plus Lecture and !

University of Florida Demonstration of Facility Emergency Response Scenarios Plus Exercise to .

Measure and Evaluate Facility Gaseous ;

(Argon - 41) Effluents I Emergency System Scheduled Surveillances of Facility Fire 0.00 9.26 l

i c Surveillances W. G. Protection Equipment, Quarterly Checks Vernetson, Reactor Staff, of Fire Alarm System and Periodic i Physical Plant Division Responses to Security and Fire Alarm ;

Personnel Actuations ,

Required Surveillance - Scheduled UFTR Facility Component and 67.13 154.99 ;

W. G. Vernetson/ System Tests, Surveillances, Calibrations (23.67) (44.60)-

Reactor Staff

-( and Related Measurements and Verification Activities Required by 1

Technical Specifications, Procedures, NRC Commitments or Good Practices Maintenance Activities - Preventive and Corrective Maintenance 7.85 350.39 ;

Reactor Staff and/or Replacement of UFTR Facility (2.27) (75.87)

~

Components Excluding Minor Maintenance Items and Those Listed Individually to Include System Testing as Necessary TOTAL 763.39 2328,97 (197.00) (500.63)

TOTAL ACTUAL 740.04 1927.48 111-2 6

i I

1. : Values in parentheses represent multiple or concurrent facility utilization (Run' or Experiment time); that is the reactor was already being utilized in a primary run or activity for a project so a reactor training or

. demonstration utilization could be conducted concurrently with a scheduled NAA irradiation, course experiment, or other reactor run. Thus, the actual reactor run time for the 19881989 reporting year is 740.04 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months , an.

.I:: increase of over 30% over the previcus year (568.35 hours4.050926e-4 days 0.00972 hours 5.787037e-5 weeks 1.33175e-5 months ). Similarly, the actual expenment time for the 1988-1989 reporting year is significantly increased at 1927.48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months , an increase of about 36% indicating increased-utilization of staff time this year for reactor usage and other projects ta+^: better record keeping of project '

_ times using the facility but not the reactor. Indeed, over 120 hours0.00139 days 0.0333 hours 1.984127e-4 weeks 4.566e-5 months of experiment time was devoted to non-l ' reactor services such as work with or related to the LEU SPERT fuel. The run time and experiment time before -

i '

the reduction for concurrent usages shows many simultaneous multiple usages assured optimal application of staff :

time despite the unavailability of one long time SRO who resigned his license in September,1988. However, one -

relatively new part-time SRO remained at the facility for the entire year and one part-time RO was licensed in

.I'.- ;:

mid year to provide a great deal of operational flexibility. Of course, the experiment time continues to include -

considerable reactor usage for corrective maintenance and surveillance activities which remain relatively high again this year; however, the numbers this year also indicate high levels of quality facility usage directed to

, research, education, training and service, especially as driven by the Reactor Sharing Program usages.

2. Exp. Time is run time (total key on time minus checkout time) plus set up time for experiments or other reactor i or facility usage including checkouts, tests and maintenance involving the reactor facility.

1 b

t 1

l f-

! l 1

1

)

i

1 1 ;

i L

l l

i l III-27 4

.t

y --

l t

T A B 2 III 2 UITR U'IllJZATION

SUMMARY

Utilization Categories Run Time - Exneriment Time .;

t- (hours) (hours)

1. College Courses and Laboratories (17) 294.84(30.98) 641.41(69.31)

2. L Research Activities (19) 621.47(230.53) 867.11(269.69) p 3. UFTR Operator Training and Re-

. qualification for Recertification Plus Support Staff Training (3) 19.31(12.05) 177.27(52.8)

4. Utility Operator Training (1) 13.80 19.83

5. UFTR Maintenance, Testing and Sur-i veillance Activities, Plus Various L Extend Inspection Activities (4) 75.80(26.76) 556.39(194.82)

LI;'

L 6. HEU-to-LEU Fuel Conversion Related Efforts (1) 0.00 163.66(42.33)

\

L 7. Reactor Tours and Demonstrations Including High School Classes (7) 14.67(6.75) 90.91(26.00)-

l I' TOTAL 1,047.12(307.08) 2,328.97(500.63) l-l NOTE 1: The same meaning is uttached to values in parentheses in Table !!! 2 as in Table III 1 Values in parentheses adjacent to topic areas indicate the number of entries from Table III 1 that were Lg collapsed into this utilization category. '

ll NOTE 2:

The first two categories of College Courses and Laboratories as well as Research Activities plus the last category for high school group demonstrations include significant usages sponsored under the Department of Energy UfTR Reactor Sharing Program which allowed fourteen (14) l

=

schools to have 135 usages of the UFTR facilities as delineated in Table III 3. This usage by l 14 schools is one of the most diverse usages yet recorded under the University of Florida

!' . Reactor Sharing Program and represents by far the most total time commitment of UFTR facilities.

NOTE 3: In some cases the assignment of items to one of the seven (7) categories is somewhat arbitrary especially for non college tour groups for whom lectures and other training is conducted or research performed to aid facility modification or development and can sometimes involve extensive and relatively sophisticated usage of the facility.

LE' N_QIfi 4: Console checks are excluded from this Utilization Summary but are estimated to account for E about 15 hours1.736111e-4 days 0.00417 hours 2.480159e-5 weeks 5.7075e-6 months additional utilization per month or approximately 180 additional hours per year.

7 III-28

I <

l TABLE III-3 REACIOR SHARING PROGRAM

SUMMARY

OF USAGE OF UFTR FACILITIES (September,1988 - August,1989)

.I: Users L

f School Usages 2 Faculty Students

, Boca Raton Community High School (BRCHS) 4 1- 1 Central Florida Community College (CFCC) 29 2 36 Florida A&M University (FAMU)- 17 1 1 f . Florida Atlantic University (FAU) 1 1 14 Florida Southern College 1 1 4 I~ Florida State University (FSU) 40 6 2

( Hilliard High School (HHS)

Hillsborough Community College (HCC) 7 1

2 2

27 10

- Southeast Missouri State University (SEMSU) 17 1 1 St. Augustine High School (SAHS) 1 2 34

- Union County High School (UCHS) 4 1 2 University of South Florida, St. Petersburg (USF-SP) 1 2 2 Bl University of West Florida (UWF) 8 6 3 University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire (UWEC) 4 2 1 TOTAL 135 30 138

1. Usage is defined as utilization of the University of Florida Training Reactor facilities for all or any part of a day. In many cases, a school can have multiple usages but all related to the same reserrch project I: or training program such as the one project for Southeast Missouri State University that involved long term irradiations or the multiple usage training program conducted for Central Florida Community College students.

III-29

4 4

i TABLE III-4 ' ' '

'l h'

' MONTHLY REACTOR ENER3 / GENERATION 2 j '

"(September,1988 - August,1989)

Hours at -

Monthly Totals KW Hrs ' Full Power L[

September,1988 1486.613 14.367

October,1988 1184.604 10.117 November,1988 4052.615 35.616 December,1988 3977.690 38.130 l La ; January,1989 3437.880 32.552 ,

February,1989

2767.387 27.400 '!

[ : March,;1.989 3374.522 ~32.418 r , April,1989 3779.036 33.949 .:

May,1989 944.747 8.401 l

-June,1989 2371.769 23.133 l July,1989. 2848.564- 21.116 R l<

August,1989 4972.771 47.982 YEARLY TOTAL 35,198.198 8 325.181 l e

1. The yearly total energy generation of 35.2 Megawatt hours for the 1988-1989 reporting year represents a nearly 32% increase over the previous reporting year total of 26.68 Megawatt hours, while the 325.18 hours2.083333e-4 days 0.005 hours 2.97619e-5 weeks 6.849e-6 months at full power represent a similar 29.9% increase over the previous yearly total of 250.38 hours4.398148e-4 days 0.0106 hours 6.283069e-5 weeks 1.4459e-5 months .

' This increase in energy generation was primarily due to a number of relatively large NAA projects requiring emensive irradiations. There continued to be considerable low power usage of the UFTR also, especially for the reactor operations laboratory course and for research on plasma kinetics parameters l- as well as implementation of the neuron radiography facility. There were also large time commitments 03 for work efforts related to non destructive evaluation of the LEU fuel stored and hoped to be used in j the UFTR HEU to-LEU conversion. Several outages due to failures in the radiation monitoring system '

and the two pen recorder caused some lost facility usage and hence affected energy generation negatively, though not excessively. The total run time for the facility was increased considerably above

'L the presious year at 740.04 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months (see Table III 5) for this reporting year indicating considerable low

' power run time for the operations laboratory, neutron radiography and the UFe plasma kinetics

- experiments as well as UFTR operator training; overall, the indication is toward cons,derable i low and

i. high power usage and continued high utilization of the reactor when the reactor and the necessary ,

l licensed operators are available as they were this year. With the addition ofone new SRO at the end l 1 .

of last year and another RO in January,1989, the availability of operating personnel was greatly j improved.- With the continued high utilization and with the good availability experienced over the entire l c --

reporting year coupled with more licensed personnel, larger yearly energy generation values were '

expected. With expected resignation of one, and maybe two, operators in the next year, maintenance of these statistics may be difficult unless replacement personnel can be trained and licensed within a reasonable time period.

2. The 35,198.198 kW hrs of energy generation represents the third highest one-year energy generation l i

value in the 30 year operational history of the UFTR. '

-l III-30 l

y lI TABLE III 5 MONTHLY REACTOR USAGE / AVAILABILITY DATA (September,1988 - August,1989) -

Monthly Totals Key-On Time Exp. Time 2 Run Time Availability September,1988 57.30 hrs. 153.13 hrs. 45.75 hrs. 90.30 %

= October,1988 58.00 hrs. 127.92 hrs. 52.12 hrs. 100.00 %

November,1987 69.10 hrs. 143.03 hrs. 66.83 hrs. 75.83 %

December,1988 - 70.10 hrs. 180.42 hrs. 60.65 hrs. 79.03 %

~

January,1989 66.90 hrs. 137.75 hrs. 59.07 hrs. 91.13 %

February,1989 65.50 hrs. 150.42 hrs. 59.58 hrs. 82.14 %

March,1989 - 71.30 hrs. 236.33 hrs. 66.88 hrs. 88.71 %

. April,1989- 75.60 hrs. 153.00 hrs. 71.98 hrs. 98.33 %

I May,1989 June,1989 37.50 hrs.

66.10 hrs.

143.75 hrs.

184.83 hrs.

29.88 hrs.

60.20 hrs.

72.58 %

80.83 %

July,1989 100.30 hrs. 177.58 hrs. 95.75 hrs. 93.55 %

I- _ August,1989 - 77.40 hrs. 139.32 hrs. 71.35 hrs. 99.19 %

I. TOTALS: 815.10 hrs. 1927.48 hrs. 740.04 hrs. 87.64 %

f

1. Experiment Time is Run Time (Total Key-On Time minus Checkout Time) plus set.up time for I experiments, tours, or other facility usage including checkouts, tests and maintenance involvmg reactor running or facility usage.

2. The three categories of facility usage data in this table show marked improvement over the previous year; key-on time is up over 26%, experiment time is up over 5.4%, and run time is up over 30%, primarily I~ due to good availability of the reactor and the presence of five licensed operators.

3, Monthly Average availability is 87.64%; on the basis of days of the year, the availability is similarly I. 87.67% as indicated in Table III-6. The yearly availability is similar to the historical high of 91.5%

recorded in the 1986-1987 reporting year and represents a considerable increase over the 79.2% average availability recorded for last reporting year as the facility is showing excellent availability. Despite a variety of maintenance activities and equipment falk:res, there were no large forced outages this year.

I- The large value of run time also shows continued high utilization of the UFTR facility.

III-31 l

[J - TABIE III 6 -

UFIR AVAILABIIJTY

SUMMARY

(September,1987 - August,1989)

I - Month Availability Days Unavailable Primary Cause of last Availability I September,1988- 90.30 % 3.00 days Maintenance to restore dry cell conditions following roofleakage from clogged drains (3/4 day)and I' to restore the reactor shield tank water level (1/4 day).

Scheduled maintenance to perform visualinspection of the reactor cavity and structure via I .- the north trench leading from the equipment pit using a remote:

I .

camera system ' (1 day) and maintenance to remove primary coolant water from the equipment I pit and replace a broken rupture disk (1 day).

- October,1988 100.0 % 0.00 days - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

November,1988 - 75.83 % 7.25 days Maintenance to isolate the failure c and then replace a failed amplifier in_ the temperature recorder (5.

days). Review and evaluation of failure to perform control blade interlockchecks requiredbySOP-A.2 prior to a startup (1/4 day).

Administrative shutdown for Thanksgiving Holiday (2 days).

h December,1988 79.03 % 6.50 days Maintenance to replace all control-blade clutch current bulbs following failure of S 3 clutch current bulbs as well as perform I~ necessary surveillance prior to restart (1/4 day), and to clean l; contacts on the log (purple) pen of the two-pen recorder after it failed high (1/4 day).

III-32

JU l lU - a

TABLE III4 ((X)NTINUED)!

+ UFTR- Availability Summary (September,1988 - August,1989);

l .

Days Primary Cause of-I.ost Availability Month Availability Unavailable Maintenance to include systems' e ~ tests, circuit checks, installation--

_of _ replacement parts ..- and calibration checks following ..

failures in the East and South-f' Area Radiation Monitors and

-the Stack Radiation Monitor (4 days).

Administrative shutdown- for Christmas Holidays (2 days), . .

-January,- 1989 91.13 % 2.75 days Maintenance checks to conclude calibration of the stack radiation -

. monitor following repairs (1/4-

.: day), maintenance to clean contacts on the two pen recorder to restore operation of the purple I.' pen (1/4 day) and maintenance to replace a broken recorder-needle -on the South Area I;L Radiation Monitor (1/4 day).

I a Administrative shutdown for .

holidays due to lack of staff for -

personnel leave (2 days).

l February,1989 82.14 % 5.00 days Maintenance to replace ink feed tubes and the amplifier on the log -

(purple) pen of the two-pen I.- recorder (1/4 day) and replace-ment of the failed flex coupling on the stack dilute fan system and It ; to relamp the reactor cell (1/2 day).

IL I: .

111 33 ,

a- 1 ,

1 TABIE III-6 (CONTINUED) =

, UFIR AVAH.ABIIIIY

SUMMARY

(September,1988 -~ August,1989) .

Days - - Primary Cause of -

Month ~ Availability Unavailable I.ost Availability- -

h Maintenance to clean plugs and aJ '

connectors on the South- Area

'B' Radiation Monitor (1/4 day) and to replace a failed GM-tube in the South Area Radiation Monitor

'l (1/4' day).' Maintenance to -

replace a failed resistor and a _

blown common fuse to restore

- recorder function on area and .

stack radiation monitors (3-1/4 days).

=

Scheduled maintenance to clean the air conditioning coils on the-

-(-'

reactor cell air handling system (1/4 day)~ and maintenance to overhaul and clean the inking l system for the red (linear) pen of the 2-pen recorder (1/4 day),

f March) 1989 88.71 % 3.50 days - Maintenance to overhaul and ,

clean the slidewire system on the-temperature monitor recorder:

. {, following a trip (3 days).

_ Maintenanee to replace the filter :

-l --

on the shield tank recirculation system, to make temporary repair of a break in the Rabbit System .

exhaustline, to repair and install the east area radiation monitor recorder, to repair loose and degraded contacts on the Safety-4 1 control blade position indicator and to replace the ink pads on

.E the temperature recorder (1/2 B day).

April,1989 I; 98.33 % 0.50 days Scheduled preventive maintenance to check out and overhaul the two-pen recorder (1/2 day).

f.

III-34 ,

1 l

^

m x

?

1TABG HI-6 (CONTINUED):

UFIRAVARABHJTY

SUMMARY

. (September,1988 - August,1989)'

Days . Primary Cause of

+ Month Availability - - Unavailable Lost Availability

- May,1989 72.58 % 8.50 days Scheduled: preventive

' maintenance to clean out the I secondary heat exchanger:

sample line and to perform circuit tracing checks on the I two pen recorder (1/2 day).

Scheduled maintenance to l paint controlroom and reactor cell walls -and - to replace batteries and battery charger

j. in ' the area radiation

- monitoring _ system when reactor was not run but was l June,1989 available if needed (8 days).

80.83 % 5.75 days Preventive ' and corrective maintenance to. check out,.

overhaul and repair the two-pen recorder ~ to assure continued calibration (4-1/4 days).

- Maintenance to isolate failed

, 40 amp fuse for deep well pump and then replace all40 amp fuses (inside.the cell)

(1/2 day). Maintenance to tighten the packing on the primary coolant dump valve and then, unrelated, to replace the broken PC rupture disk and secure the equipment pit (1/2 day).

Scheduled maintenance to determine maximumreadings on the stack monitor using Cs-137 source inside and outside the stack prior to changing the Q-2 Stack Monitor Calibration methodology to meet surveillance requirements better (1/2 day).

111-3 5 5

py ,

y

'M TABIE HI4 (CONTINUED)-

e UFTR AVAHABHJTY

SUMMARY

(September,1988 - August,1989) l, Days - Primary Cause of

. Month - Availability - Unavailable Last Availability :

I July,1989 93.55 % 2.00 days Maintenance to installsource well in the stack to support

' I improved stack : monitor -

calibration check method (1. ~

1/2 days). '

Maintenance to clean and.

remove a piece of cleaning-

.h.

wire from the red pen of the :

two-pen recorder and to clean -

l ,

the red pen slidewire and-

i adjust movement ~ (1/4- day) and scheduled maintenance to check voltage signals provided to the test rig used for measurement of control.

blade' drop times (1/4 day).

~

August,1989 99.19 % 0.25 days Scheduled maintenance to check voltage signals provided to the' test rig used for

~

, measurementofcontrolblade drop times (1/4 day).

TOTAL ANNUAL UNAVAILABILITY: 45.00 ~ days = 12.33% -

g TOTAL ANNUAL AVAILABILITY: 320.00 days = 87.67% q l

1 IE- NOTE 1. This availabilitysummary neglects all minor unavaliabilities for periods smaller than one quarter l X day. In most cases these periods are for much less than an hour as some minor problem is !

corrected, usually during or after a preoperational checkout. This availaldlity summary also 3;

} .

neglects unavailability for scheduled tests and surveillances except where noted. ;

NOTE 2. .. Of the 45.00 days unavailability, only 28.25 days were due to forced unavailability due to

maintenance for repairs, delay awaiting parts arrival, trip evaluations, etc. The remaining 16,75

~

were for holidays and associated personnel vacations and scheduled maintenance related -!'

' activities such as painting the cell (8 days), checking voltage readings, cleaning A/C coils in the cell, etc., where the reactor was or could have been made operational if really needed.

4-III-36 n

(

TABLE III-7A UNSCHEDULED TRIPS 1 u

During this reporting year, the UFTR experienced four unscheduled trips which are.

_ described below; these trips are not considered to have affected reactor safety or the health

- and safety of UFTR personnel or the public. All safety systems responded properly for cach trip and a full review was conducted prior to restart in each case to include prompt I reporting as considered necessary or advisable.

Number Date Description of Occurrence

1. 17 March 1989 At 1836 hours0.0213 days 0.51 hours 0.00304 weeks 6.98598e-4 months , after approximately 7-hours of sample irradiation at full power, the UFTR tripped with a high I primary coolant temperature indication. The SRO-on-call (P.M. Whaley) was in the reactor cell conducting radiation surveys and responded immediately to assist in evaluation and I response to the occurrence. The reactor operator at the controls responded promptly to shut down and secure the reactor at 1837 hours0.0213 days 0.51 hours 0.00304 weeks 6.989785e-4 months .

Since the trip indicator was high primary coolant temperature, the temperature recorder was left in operation following the I trip event. In this way the RO and SRO were able to observe indications that the cooldown was normal with no one fuel box outlet temperature significantly higher or lower than the I group; this data indicated normal flow and a spurious trip.

The trip itself was noted to have occurred on fuel box temperature #6, not fuel box #1, so the recording instrument I did not start to drive to that point from very far down scale which could have resulted in an overdrive to give a trip. It was also noted that there was no trend on the temperature I recorder prior to the trip as one point printing indication (Point #5) was slightly high and the next jumped over 10 F to cause the trip. Finally, it was noted that the trip occurred at an indicated temperature of about 151.5 F which is 3.5 F below the nominal limiting safety system (trip) setting of 155 F. The audible warning alarm set at 150 F was also noted to occur.

Under. Maintenance Log Page # 89-18, the specific temperature recorder system failure was determined to be caused by dust / corrosion buildup on the slidewire which caused excessive resistance and drift of the indicator upscale through the upscale burnout feature. This dust / corrosion buildup was cleaned off and the temperature recorder was checked out to assure proper response. The required III-37

r . .- -- - - - -- -- - - -

m,pp,,

g p. p >

x _ :

d(f. ,

TABLE III-7A (CONTINUED) -

M' UNSCHEDULED TRIPS -

T .

i' , Number ' Date Description of Occurrence d reactor systems were then checked out with restart confirming -

proper operation on March 21,1989. To prevent recurrence . ~{

r of this event, further corrective action was instituted-as a -

standard maintenance action -' to. require cleaning the

]

temperature recorder slidewire: and: associated recorder? j

y _ ' ' connections and contacts quarterly at intervals not to exceed gi four (4) months as part of the Scram Check Surveillance (Q-1). There was no compromise to reactor safety in this event,-

g nor was there any danger of personnel receiving excessive 5' radiation doses. All other reactor safety and control systems responded properly. ,

h This entire scenario as well as readiness to restart was communicated to Mr. Paul _ Frederickson (Region II NRC) by ' .

telephone and following telecopy on March 21,1989 after -

f~: initial attempts at telephone communication were unsuccessful on ' March 20, 1989 due to problems with the. Region II telephone system and after the RSRS Executive Committee 1

. (', met on March 20,1989. A final 14 day report summarizing 1 the event and facility efforts to evaluate and correct it was submitted to NRC as a letter dated March 31,1989.

I 2. 16 June 1989 At 1557 hours0.018 days 0.433 hours 0.00257 weeks 5.924385e-4 months after over 6.5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months operation at 100 kW full power (with SRO P.M. Whaley at the console) for an .,

irradiation supporting neutron activation analysis of environmental samples for biochemical assessment lof;the- ;

Pollard Alabama oil field as well as irradiation of dielectric materials for color center analysis, an electrical transient (flickering of lights'was noted) caused momentary loss of normal electrical power resulting in a blade drop reactor trip.

The limiting- safety system setting trip indications _ were ,

illumination of the primary coolant pump light and- the

.! diluting fan light. This. event was not considered to be j:,

promptly reportable since it was clearly due to an electrical transient. A trip evaluation was performed to document this t decision. In addition, all safety and control systems were 1

{u! noted to respond in a proper manner as the reactor was secured at 1558 hours0.018 days 0.433 hours 0.00258 weeks 5.92819e-4 months after 7.05 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months of operation. The next startup on 19 June 1989 was performed by a reactor operator with observation by a senior reactor operator to assure and document that all systems were responding properly for the return to normal operations.

III-38

y i j l %

j. . - ,

' TABLE III-7A (CONTINUED) :

UNSCHEDULED TRIPS

- Number Date Description of Occurrence

. ; i 3.< 6 July.1989 - At 1658 hours0.0192 days 0.461 hours 0.00274 weeks 6.30869e-4 months 'after about 2.7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months of variable power --

operation between 0.5 kW and 20 kW power (with RO G.W.. j Fogle at the console) for neutron radaography of spent fuel )

storage pool boraflex liner material, an electrical transient j (flickering of lights during thunderstorm was noted) caused - 1 i

momentary loss of normal electrical power resulting in a full j reactor trip with dumping of primary coolant after 16 minutes 1 i '

of a 20 kW run for radiography. The limiting safety system 1 setting trip indications were illumination of the primary ;

; . coolant pump, level and flow annunciators.

i ;

i All safety systems were noted to respond in a proper manner -I Lt as the reactor was secured at 1659 hours0.0192 days 0.461 hours 0.00274 weeks 6.312495e-4 months after 2.90 hours0.00104 days 0.025 hours 1.488095e-4 weeks 3.4245e-5 months of. I

!E operation. The next startup on 6 July 1989 was performed u after trip evaluation and a daily checkout by SRO R. Piciullo.

with Acting Reactor Manager P.M. Whaley observing that all .j

~

! systems were responding properly with no further problems *

.noted. ;

h 4. 26 July 1989 At 1152 hours0.0133 days 0.32 hours 0.0019 weeks 4.38336e-4 months during a Reactor Operations Laboratory (ENU-5176L) hot channel factor determination exercise, SRO Rick

[

i Piciullo was the responsible reactor operator over a student operator assisted by a second student. The student operator was in the process of establishing non standard blade configuration Number 3 by removing a control blade with -1 reactor power level near 100 kW. Dudng this manipulation, L the positive reactivity addition was not compensated properly l by the insertion of another control blade. SRO Piciullo

! L attempted to initiate rapid insertion of an alternate control .

blade, but was unable to effect the action prior to the high power level trip at 125 kW. The UFTR control and safety ;

L systems responded normally with a full tnp. ;

a To prevent recurrence of this event, all student operators were I specifically counseled.that control manipulations should be j l

made only when expected conditions are understood and they should check safety channel and otner indications during !

L(' transient operations. In addition, all manipulations to establish nonotandard blade configurations that are conducted 1

1 as part of the hot channel factors laboratory exercise are

=

now required to be performed at 90 kW (steady state) or less. 3 Only after achieving the specified abnormal blade j configuration will the power level be adjusted by the .

III 39

__ _ __ _-.___ m

. c-

~

2 m <

1

-(.. j$7 -

TABLE III 7A (CONTINUED)

~!

?,': ,

. UNSCHEDULED TRIPS 1 a , Number Date Description of Occurrence ?

manipulation of a single control blade to achieve the reactor-power level and blade configuration for which data is to be-obtained.

". y 1

"' ~

This event constitutes a reactor trip from a known cause and i- was ' therefore considered. not aj promptly reportable

' occurrence. For evaluation of the overpower condition, the -

UFTR is designed with safety analysis addressing up to 625-kW, so the overpower event has no impact on reactor safety. q

~

or the health and safety of the public as indicated in the- J

- evaluation performed prior to restart.. ,

.=

i

. 1 .

After a daily checkout was performed, the subsequent restart .

by R. Piciullo was observed by the Reactor Manager to assure and document that all systems were responding properly for--

the return to normal operations. . The restart was uneventful

with all systems responding properly and no problems noted; ;

there has been no recurrence of this event.-

I I

.i l

i a

III-40

TAB!E III 7B SCHEDUIED 'IRIPS 1 l(' There were no schedule.d trips performed for training or experimental purposes during this reporting year. Part of the reason for this lack of scheduled trips was the failure to schedule any large utility operator training programs where such trips are a designed part of the training program. It is expected that some training trips will be included in the ENU-5176L Reactor Operations Laboratory course for the upcoming reporting year to demonstrate similarities and differences in power response for trips versus normal shutdown as well as in various student laboratory exercises to demonstrate rapid decay and recovery of stack count rate with power reduction and increase as part of Argon-41 stack effluent measurement exercises. Such trips can also be used to provide training in control room I presence and awareness of changing conditions and responses in training UFTR operator license candidates.

Number Date Description of Occurrence l I

III-41 L

I Ie7 -' >

TABLE III-8 h LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES i

During this reporting year there were no events which are considered to he.ve compromised reactor safety or the health and safety of the public. Sev:ral events, classified as unusual occurrences, are described below as they deviated from the normal functioning of the I' facility and are included here as the most important such deviations for the reporting year.

Unscheduled shutdowns are included here as well. Trips are not addressed here since they

-a are included in Table III 7. Two events, one related to reporting of Level 1 administrative 1

~J changes (#7) and one related to unposted radiation areas (#9) were tracked as potential abnormal occurrences in the monthly UFTR reports; both were promptly reported to NRC and, as indicated in this table, neither is considered to have impacted the health and safety I of the public or the safety of the UFTR.

Number Date Description of Occurrence 1

1. 6 September 88 At 0635 hours0.00735 days 0.176 hours 0.00105 weeks 2.416175e-4 months on 6 September 1988, the Facility Director responded to a security alarm at 'he UFTR caused by several leaks from the building roof where water had built up to a depth !

of 3 5 inches due to clogged drains. Under Maintenance Log I Page #88-42, the roof drains were unclogged; the water in the cell, including some in the equipment pit, was cleaned up, l checked out as not contaminated and dumped to the holdup '

tanks; the cell floor and several cable trays along the walls were dried cut and all systems found to be unaffected. Leakage ceased from the roof after it was drained with no further leakage occurring through the remainder of the year despite I several heavy rain storms; periodic checks have-assured roof integrity and no recurrence of clogged drains.

j 2. 4 October 88 During performance of the semiannual inventory of special nuclear material, water was noted to have leaked into a number of the irradiated fuel storage pits including two (2) containing irradiated fuel. This water intrusion was traced to the water

leakage into the cell floor due to blocked roof drains which occurred on 6 September 1988. The water was removed E following necessary tadioiogicai controis to assure and document 5- that no contamination was involved. An evaluation was performed to assure no violation of UFTR Technical I specifications was involved in this event with the key factors being that the two wetted pits containing irradiated fuel had only a few 100 mis of water in them and they had aluminum spacers

' to assure the fuel was not sitting in water; subsequent checks also assured no contamination problems were involved. At its October 20 meeting, the RSRS recommended reporting the event to the NRC which was done on the following day with L , general agreement with the UFTR staff evaluation of the event.

III-42

3

- g.

r .

TABLE III 8 (CONTINUED) 1.OG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES Description of Occurrence l Number 'Date

3. 1 November 88 In reviewing the November operations log entries on November 1 11,1988, an apparent violation of the UFTR Standard Operating Procedures was noted to have occurred on 1 November 1988 as reported to NRC on 14 November 1988 with a following I telecopy on the same day. On 1 November 1988, a daily-checkout was started at 0830 and completed at 0900. The reactor was then run several times with a shutdown concluded I at 1512 hours0.0175 days 0.42 hours 0.0025 weeks 5.75316e-4 months . At 1528 the reactor was started up for a reactor operations lab exercise (calorimetric) for two students with a i normal shutdown at 1705 followed by a quick restart begun at 1706 to demonstrate the effect of delayed neutrons.

Although Tech Spec requirements on the restart were met, this I final startup on 1 November 1988 failed to meet the additional requirement delineated in UFTR SOP A.2, " Reactor Startup"-

in Paragraph 4.4.6 that the control blade interlocks be checked 1 prior to the restart when the daily checkout is omitted as allowed under Tech Specs 4.2.2(7) since the previous normal reactor shutdown had occurred within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months . Therefore, the I final UFTR startup on 1 November 1988 was considered a potential violation of Section 6.3 of the UFTR Tech Specs g requiring that the facility be operated in accordance with written B procedures.

Prior to restart or being allowed to perform licensed duties, all I operators received retraining on the requirements for performing _

daily checkouts contained in UFTR SOP A.2," Reactor Startup" in Paragraphs 4.4.2, 4.4.4 and 4.4.6 to assure proper I understanding of requirements.

The RSRS Executive Committee agreed with the reactor staff I and administration that there was no compromise to reactor safety in this event nor was there danger of personnel receiving excessive radiation doses. The potential violation is administrative in nature with the final report submitted to NRC with letter dated November 17,1988.

4. 4 November 88 At 1108 hours0.0128 days 0.308 hours 0.00183 weeks 4.21594e-4 months with the reactor operating at 100 kw for an irradiation supporting neutron activation analysis (with SRO P.M. Whaley as Reactor Operator), the temperature recorder stopped tracking. SRO Whaley noted that reactor power level 1

- indicators were functioning normally and, noting that no other 111 43

s ,

i I TABLE IH-8 (CON'UNUED) l LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES Number Date Description of Occurrence ,

I abnormal indications existed, commenced an unscheduled I shutdown. The reactor was shut down and secured without incident with all other systems responding properly. Following securing of the reactor and recorder, the temperature recorder ;

was manually activated. . Manual manipulation of the indicator j print wheel was accomplished with no resistance by the !

mstrument. The print wheel remained at the indicating point

I established by manipulation of the print wheel. 1 Immediate corrective action consisted of securing the reactor and putting it on administrative shutdown until the problem 'l could be isolated and corrected with the NRC promptly notified on November 4,1988. Preliminary investigation indicated a loss j of power to drive the servomotor. In circuit measurements of )

the servo drive motor indicated one set of windings had low !

resistance. Following the removal (for physical examination) !

=l and replacement of the microswitch that disables the motor l during switching transients, system operation was returned to I normal. Checks indicated the servo drive motor had proper resistance values but symptoms of the event were duplicated by installing external resistance in parallel (simulating contact j resistance) with the microswitch. Therefore, the microcwitch 2

l. that disables the recorder motor during switching transient was replaced along with a vacuum tube which had a marginally acceptable gain when tested; then a calibration check was :

performed on the temperature monitoring system using extra -

thermocouples evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety questions per 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 88 26, Following -

completion of a valid weekly and daily preoperational check on the affected portions of the reactor systems, completion of a trip evaluation, and a one hour power operation exercising the '

temperature monitor over most of its normal range, the reactor was approved for return to full normal operations based upon RSRS approval and NRC notification.

I This event was evaluated to involve no compromise to reactor safety nor was there any impact on personnel radiation doses.

This event was considered to be a promptly reportable occurrence since the temperature recorder would potentially fail to register the high temperature required to initiate a high primary coolant system semperature trip. However, all other I-' , control and safety systems responded properly and the reactor

.s III-44

& y 4-gw -- - - -, ,-

1 I '

I ,

4

,y, -

L *L , TABLE III-8 (CONTINUED)

IDO OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES Number Date Description of Occurrence was promptly shut down and secured as required by technical specifications. All operators were made co problem prior to approving reactor operations;gnizant of t L there has been Ig no recurrence of the recorder failure. The final report to the 15 NRC on this event was submitted with a letter dated November 14, 1988.

5. 5 December 88 After successful completion of weekly and daily preoperational checks, the Control Blade Safeip3 clutch indicating lamp was a discovered to be burned out prior to an afternoon reactor run.

j Reactor staff and administration, including Director W.G.

Vernetson, concluded there was no compromise to reactor safety in this event, nor was there any impact on personnel radiation dose since this event occurred prior to startup. All control and safety systems responded properly. Since this event occurred prior to commencing a reactor startup, it was evaluated not to be promptly reportable.

D Immediate corrective action consisted of performing a daily checkout and then replacing the burned out clutch current indicating bulb and all three other bulbs to include the necessary control blade drive and drop time checks. All checks were Ll successful so the reactor was restored to operations status later on December 5,1988.

-l Although there are no radiological or safety consequences of this event, such failures are to be avoided. In response to previous clutch current bulb failures in the last two years (one at

.l shutdown conditions and one at power), the frequency of-preventive clutch e.irrent indicating lamp replacement was mereased from annual to semiannual preventive maintenance.

j This action is in agreement with previous management evaluations and discussions with the RSRS Executive Committee on June 13, 1988. This action was expected to reduce

', significantly the likelihood of recurrence of this failure event which occurred at nearly 6 months interval from the last failure of a clutch current indicating lamp.

6. 17 February 89 At 1512 hours0.0175 days 0.42 hours 0.0025 weeks 5.75316e-4 months , with the reactor operating at 100 kW for irradiations via the Rabbit System, RO M. Wachtel noted that the recorder function only on all three area radiation monitors and the stack monitor was lost. Since this function is a limiting L III 45 1 .

t

,1

TABLE III-8 (CON'ITNUED)

IDG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES Number Date Description of Occurrence

, condition for opadon, the RO immediately commenced an -

unscheduled shutdriwa wkh the reactor secured at 1515 hours0.0175 days 0.421 hours 0.0025 weeks 5.764575e-4 months ;

and all other systems responding normally. Under MLP #89 ,

10 a series of checht was performed on the regulated and ,

unregulated recorder module power supplies; a blown fuse was

, replaced on the sonth ARM (common to all 4 recorders) and

i3 u, a broken resistor in the banery pack (problem source) was !

replaced with an on hand spare. Following successful performance of the weeMy and daily preoperational checkouts

3

E and completion of *.he event evaluation on 21 February 1989,

the reactor was remrned to service with no further problems noted. Since the reactor war, shut down promptly upon failure of the recorders and duethe detectors all contmued to operate, ,

the failure event is no.t conddered to have impacted the health and safety of the pub!k cc facility safety and the event was !

evaluated as not promptly treportable. 3

7. 19 February 80 in preparing for the internal audit by the RSRS, it was j

g discovered that a change in the Level 1 administration of the

3 UFTR had apparently not been communicated to the NRC within the required 30 dap of occurrence. Effective August 1, a 1988, Dr. Winfred M. Phillips assumed the position of Dean of t[ the College of Engincoring at the University of Florida replacing -i outgoing Dean, Dr. Wayne H. Chen. The Dean of the College ,

a of Engineering holds line responsibil!ty for Level 1

~

g administration of the University of Florida Training Reactor above the Chairman of the Nuclear Engineering Sciences ,

Department, which is the first sublevel of Level 1 leading ;'

I~ eventually to the President, who is the individual responsible for the UFTR facility license, charter and site administration.

It was thought that this change had been reported previously !

within the required 30 day period; however, an audit of these - -

records failed to produce the record of submittal. As promptly I reported by telephone to NRC Region II and following telecopy L on 21 February 1989, the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee L .

(RSRS) reviewed this apparent oversight and concluded it was l a potential violation of Tech specs Section 6.6.3(1) which l requires notification of such administrative changes within 30 ,

days and instructed NRC notification per Section 6.6.2(3)(g) of L( the UFTR Tech Specs. The official notification of the Level III-46 l

I n

I^- ~ .

L' TABLE III-8 (CONTINUED) l LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES Number Date Description of Occurrence I change was also submitted to NRC via a letter dated 21 February 1989.

l Though apparently delayed due to oversight, this change was reported as part of the UFTR Annual Report submitted with a letter dated November 30, 1988, though not specifically

,I highlighted in that report. Since there are several individuals lE involved in Level 1 administration of the UFTR, this delayed notice calling out the change is not considered to have involved any significant administrative oversights especially since Dr.

l Phillips has been well involved in the facility administration i

since assuming the role of Dean of the College of Engineering in which capacity he had toured the UFTR facility. The final report on the occurrence was submitted to NRC as a letter dated February 24,1989.

I 8, 16 March 89 At 1305 hours0.0151 days 0.363 hours 0.00216 weeks 4.965525e-4 months , as the reactor was being started up, the reactor J l operator (SRO W.G. Vernetson) noted erratic indications on !

'a- the Safety-1 Control Blade Position Indicator (BPI) with all g other indications showing a normal startup. A prompt shutdown >

was initiated to address the problem. An unscheduled shutdown .

was completed without further problems with all other i instrumentation responding normally at 1307 hours0.0151 days 0.363 hours 0.00216 weeks 4.973135e-4 months . Under '

Maintenance Log Page #89-17, the S 1 BPI was removed, loose contacts were tightened and degraded contacts were cleaned. 7 The BPI was replaced and checked out over its full range of operation to assure proper function. After evaluation of this event, the following reactor startup and subsequent operations on the same day were completed without incident with no further recurrence of the spurious operation of the BPI for Safety Blade 1. This event was evaluated as not promptly reportable.

9. 17 March 89 As a follow up to the NRC Radiation Safety Inspection of

.l February 27-March 2,1989 where posting of the vertical ports was considered inadequate, it was decided to perform detailed radiation surveys in the reactor cell and upgrade the posting of any existing hot areas or hot spots to assure the adequacy of existing surveys. Various localized areas around the reactor cell, especially on the sides away from the control room, are known

'l-to have 5 30 mR/hr radiation fields associated with them. The existence of such levels had been known with several of the III 47

I.

TABLE III-8 (CON'ITNUED)

LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES Number - Date Description of Occurrence I

E. hotter areas posted prior to the inspector's visit. At any power iB- level below 10 20 kW, most of these radiation levels become insignificant even for long term visits to the cell.

This follow up detailed survey was begun on March 17,1989 as a concurrent activity with an irradiation begun at 1038 brs.

J

'E During the survey performed by SRO P.M. Whaley after some time at full power, a streaming collimated beam about 1 inch across was discovered to be coming through the rabbit system shield on the west side of the reactor. Though a thin beam, the radiation level was noted to be approximately 45 mR/hr at the face of the rabbit shield using the 740F 2418 Ionization Chamber (a true dose indicator). Since the cell is posted as a radiation area, this level was not, in itself, thought to be a problem. After review of the records,it was concluded that this situation had probably existed since the new shielding

'I.

arrangement was installed on January 20,1987 to provide a better, less leaking shield for the rabbit system where it penetrates the west face of the reactor structure. Upon discovery of the higher than expected radiation level at the west face, the level at the door inside the cell was surveyed to be ;

e about 18 mR/hr., also in a thin though spreading beam.

g Immediately upon determining this level at the inside of the door, additional portable shielding was placed in front of the beam to eliminate the collimated beam and reduce radiation levels in the area of the end of the rabbit shield below 5 mR/hr and eliminate the possibility of levels requiring posting outside the back door. As a follow up with proper controls in place, the ionization chamber was also used to survey in the west reactor lot looking for the collimated beam emanating from the rabbit system shield. A small spot on the outside of the door (not l- allowed, by technical specifications, to be used for entry / exit during reactor operations at any power level) registered about

( 14.5 mR/hr with values in the 4-8 mR/hr range at the door inside a 912 inch circle. With distance from the door, measurements with the ionization chamber showed radiation levels dropped off rapidly so the level at 45 inches on the direct

'l beam were down to about 0.5 mR/hr. With the portable shielding removed and the area properly posted, a detailed survey at the back reactor cell door showed that the area in the j.

' back lot at which the radiation level was at or about 0.5 mR/hr extended to about 45 inches from the door and was roughly i 111-4 8

_-____-__-_..-___A

~1 1

i 8

TABLE III-8 (CONTINUED) ;

1.OG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES I Number Date Description of Occurrence I cone shaped at about 4 feet above ground level. The cone was about 10 inches wide at the door and not much different at the outer edge.

This entire scenario was communicated to Mr. Paul Frederickson (Region II NRC) by telephone and following 1 telecopy on March 21,1989 after initial attempts at telephonc ;

communications were unsuccessful on March 20, 1989. A J permanent, portable arrangement of shielding was installed at j the west side of the rabbit shield on March 23,1989 with an official notice posted warning that the extra shielding is not to be removed. Removal of the shielding will also necessitate a I new radiation survey of the area involved. A complete detailed survey of the entire west side of the reactor room to include the entire door area was completed on March 23, 1989 showing l resolution of the occurrence with all levels external to the cell d at the door surface below 2 mR/hr at full power and dropping l rapidly with distance from the wall to below 0.1 mR/hr. I f The root cause of this occurrence is considered to have been an inadequate survey performed on the new rabbit system shield on January 20,1987, probably abetted by the expectation that l

j a single piece monolithic shield should be better than a multipiece pile of shield pieces as had been used previously. )

What was not accounted for was the reduction in effective I- shielding thickness along the direct path of the rabbit exit line J from the west side of the UFTR which takes a curved i (serpentine) path through the shield. In addition, it is felt that quarterly radiation surveys of the restricted area were not

-l designed to locate such collimated beams. Therefore, as committed to NRC Inspector Kuzo and to the RSRS Executive 1

-l Committee on March 20 and to the full RSRS at its meeting on March 21,1989, Radiation Control Technique #31 (Instructions for Performing UFTR Environmental Monitoring) used to g~ conduct quarterly radiation surveys was revised to assure that adequate surveys would be conducted, both to assure conditions are not changing and to assure the location, identification, mitigation and/or posting of radiation areas and hazards are I._ addressed as necessary. Finally, all UFTR associated personnel received oralinstructions in the proper performance of radiation surveys; in addition, a formal class with a practical exercise was

. conducted in this area using the new radiation control technique III 49

.I TABLE III-8 (CONTINUED)

LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES i

Number Date Description of Occurrence ig as a basis prior to performance of the next quarterly radiation

'3 survey. After traimng was conducted on the revised technique, it was first used on May 30 31,1989 and was demonstrated to provide the necessary quality as well as control in performance

[ of radiation surveys.

Since the west reactor lot is a semi restricted access area, the occurrence basically involved a failure to post a small area that would properly be labeled a

Radiation Area." The lot itself is

a locked most of the time, required so after normal work hours.

g Those using the lot for parking do not, because of its location, use the area where the radiation area was located. Since this area is in a location that is not normally accessed by those using the back lot and since anyone standing there would have to do so in a small area for an extended period to receive even a measurable dose to the whole body, the consequences of this failure to post the area outside the door are considered to be negligible. In addition, the area that would have been classified ~;

a " Radiation Area," has a slope away from the building for i control of water runoff making it even less likely anyone would 1 have spent considerable time in the area. The area is not one

where area cars are normally parked. Visitors to the facility

'l would also not have occasion to be in this area. Service personnel using the lot typically are involved with the Nuclear l Sciences Center building power room or the diesel generator l room, both at the far end of the lot. Whenever those personnel !

have work assignments involving the UFTR, they check in with the reactor staff for guidance and/or clearances. Therefore, it is very unlikely that anyone received a significant or even measurable dose from this location especially since the UFTR !

over the period from January,1987 through February,1989 i j addressed by this occurrence has averaged less than 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months per ;

a week at full power; therefore, the small radiation area also existed for only about 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months per week on the average. Since additional portable shielding was moved into place immediately l upon discovery of the radiation beam and a " permanent" portable shield was installed within a few days prior to further power running, this occurrence is not considered to have affected the health and safety of personnel or the safe operation of the UFTR.

111 50

i a, - :

1 TABLE III-8 (CONTINUED)

LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES l Number Date Description of Occurrence i This information was communicated to NRC via various telephone calls including a teleconference conducted March 27, 1989 which included Paul Frederickson, George Kuzo and Scott Shaeffer as well as W.G. Vernetson and P.M. Whaley. 'Ihis i'

occurrence was incorporated into the results of the inspection conducted February 27 March 2,1989 since discovery of the '

I I beam derived from the inspection results. A final 14-day report summarizing the occurrence and facility efforts to evaluate and correct it was submitted to NRC as a letter dated March 31, 1989. The NRC inspection report and the UFTR reply to it are included in Appendix A to this annual report.

I .

O I

I.

III-51 ,

I' IV. MODIFICATIONS TO THE OPERATING CHARACIERIS11CS

OR CAPABILITIES OF THE UFTR A number of modifications were made to the operating characteristics or capabilities of the UFTR and directly related facilities during the 1988-1989 reporting period. These modifications were all subjected to 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations and then determinations (as I necessary) to assure that no unreviewed safety questions were involved.

Carried over from the 1984 1985 Reporting Year:

Modification 6: Replacement of Vent System Manometers Modification 7: Addition of Secondary Water Flow Sensors (Rotameters)

Carried over from the 1987-1988 Reporting Year:

Modification 88-21: Vertical Port Plug Material Modification Modification 88-24: Installation of Optically Coupled Tachometer for Redundant Stack RPM Indication 1, Vertical Port Plug MatHal Modification (Temporary Closed Item)

(Modification 88-21: Evaluation Completed 18 August 1988)

The construction and use of more effective vertical port shield plugs for better shielding around the ports was checked out after being evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety questions. Modification No. 88 21 was superceded by Modification 89 2, Redesign of Shield Plugs for Center and East Vertical Ports later during the reporting year, Controlling Document: Modification 89-2, Redesign of Shield Plugs for Center end East Vertical Ports

2. Wetting in Some Spent Fuel Storage Pits (Temporary Evaluation of Occurrence -

Closed Item)

(Modification 88 25: Evaluation Completed 20 October 1988)

On October 3,1988 during the performance of the fuel pit inventory about 100 ml of water was discovered in two spent fuel pits occupied by irradiated fuel.

Subsequent investigation indicated that a number of unoccupied spent fuel pits had water intrusion, some with significant amounts of water. The water entry problem was suspected to be related to roof leakage that occurred early in the reporting period (September 3,1988, through September 6,1988). The water in the occupied spent fuel pits was not at a level that would have contacted the stored fuel plates, and the UFTR Safety Analysis Report states that under optimum conditions of reflection and moderation the spent fuel pit storage will maintain k,n less than 0.8 I, indicating that there is no potential for criticality in the spent fuel pits. Since the IV-1

I ;

o

{ j reflection and moderation the spent fuel pit storage will maintain k,nless than 0.8 j-indicating that there is no potential for criticality in the spent fuel pits. Since the water contacted the stored fuel, there was no potential for degradation from water l

4 contact. This event was evaluated not to involve an unreviewed safety question as i( -

the pits were dried out and returned to normal service conditions.

Controlling Document: Maintenance Log Page 88-42 (Closed on 5 December

]

1988) j l

10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation 88-25

3. Use of a Soare Thermocouole for the Temperature Recorder Calibration Check (Temporary - Closed Item) l (Modification 88-26: Evaluation Completed 8 November 1988)

This modification was to allow the use of a spare thermocouple to facilitate retest efforts in recovery from a failure of a Temperature Monitoring Panel microswitch, i Since thermocouple lead wire is normally connected at a terminal board in the panel J to minimize the effects of other material connections, since the thermocouple was !

to be installed at the terminal panel, and since this proposed action represented the I utilization of standard methods and techniques, this action was evaluated not to 1 involve any unreviewed safety question. J Controlling Document: Maintenance Log Page 88 50 (Closed on 9 November 1988)

4. Substitution of Transistor SK3103 for 2N3440 in the East Area Monitor Preamolifier '

(Permanent - Closed Item)

>I (Modification 88 27: Evaluation Completed 1 February 89) h Following identification of a transistor failure (high voltage power supply regulation in the preamplifier circuit) of the East Area Monitor, the failed transistor was replaced with a substitute with equivalent specifications. This replacement was l evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety question.

Controlling Document: Maintenance Log Page 88-53 (Closed on 3 January 1989)

I 5. Substitution of Transistor ERS-232 for MPS-A66 in the Stack Radiation Monitor Preamplifier (Permanent - Closed Item)

(Modification 88 28: Evaluation Completed 1 February 89) i l- Following identification of a Stack Monitor transistor failure (preamplifier circuit),

the failed transistor was replaced with a transistor of equivalent specifications. This replacement was evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety question.

Controlling Document: Maintenance log Page 88-53 (Closed on 3 January 1989)

IV 2

I l t

l- -

l

. ' 6. Trancictor Reolacement/ Substitution Fact Area Monitor Premmnlifier ECG182 for MJE3055 (Permanent Closed Item) j (Modification 88-29: Evalution Completed 1 February 1989) ;

Following identification of an East Area Monitor transistor failure (a 15 volt series l pass Darlington transistor in the stack monitor preamplifier circuit), the failed I

~

transistor was replaced with a transistor of equivalent specifications. This '

replacement was evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety question.

1 Controlling Document: Maintenance I.og Page 88 53 (Closed on 3 January 1989)

7. Exocriment Nuclear Generated Plasma Dinanostics by Pulsed Ionizntion Chamber

~

Techniones (Experimental - Closed Item)

(Modification 891: Evaluation Completed 21 March 1989) I 1

An ionization chamber with pure He fill gas (90% He3) was designed to fit into an insulated apparatus with an internal heater indicated in Figure 1 (PIC Chamber Housing and Heater Assembly); the device was inserted into the thermal column for neutron exposure. The kinetics of the heated gas / plasma were calculated based on pulsed ion chamber measurement techniques. Since this experiment is identical to 1 experiments previously performed with the exception that the previous apparatus I utilized a UF, fill gas, all aspects of analysis were as previously evaluated except that -

no fissile material was introduced into the reactor and no personnel chemical hazard

) existed. This experiment was evaluated not to have the potential to involve any i unreviewed safety question. !

Controlling Document: Run Request 89-15 (First Run: 10 March 1989) l

8. Redesign of Shield Plugs for the Center and East Vertical Ports (Permanent Closed l Item) !

l (Modification 89 2: Evaluation Completed 21 March 1989)

Special shield plugs tested under Run Request 89-12 were proposed as permanent )

modifications to lower the potential dose rate above the center and the east vertical .1 ports. The reduction of the gamma field and the neutron field were experimentally I found to be superior to the previously installed shield plugs. Based on the results l of the experiment and the activation characteristics of the material used in the shield .

plugs, this modification was evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety question l and the new shield plugs have been in use for normal reactor operations since 17 1 March 1989. I Controlling Document: Run Request 89-12 (First Run: 18 March 1989) i 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation 89 2 11 l -

IV-3 i

l

. .-. - - - .. .. .. _ ._- ~- -

I I - :

9. Erratic Ooeration of Wide Ranne Drawer Test Point #4 (Evaluation of Occurrence -

~

l_ Closed Item)

(Modification 89-3: Evaluation Completed 18 April 1989) i During calorimetric calibration voltage testing, it was found that test point #4 voltage required to be 5.7 VDC could be made to read either 5.299 (satisfactory reading) or 3.M8 VDC by repeated oxration of the test switch. Since (1) all other switch ,

. positions indicated normal va.ues, (2) channel testing even for the seitch position #4 i was satisfactorily completed, (3) only one set of switch contacts was affected and (4) only the test signal for the one channel was affected (not the operation of the instrument), this erratic operation was evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety question.

lm Controlling Document: Maintenance I.og Page 89 21 (Closed on 4 April 1989)

( 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation 89 3 l 10. Chance of Manufacturer for Area Monitor Batteries (Permanent - Closed Item)

(Modification 89-4: Evaluation Completeli 30 May 1989)

[

j The EL Model 695 batteries used for non interruptible power in the area radiation i monitoring panel are no longer manufactured; an evaluation was performed to assure !

H that a direct substitution by Power Sonic provides equivalent function and the Lg substitute was implemented after the evaluation that the substitution did not involve

!E p

any unreviewed safety question.

l Controlling Document: Maintenance Log Page 89 24 (Closed on 11 May 1989) ,

l

11. Irradiation Induced Channes in the Ootical Pronerties of Dielectric Material

~

(Experiment - Closed Item) ,

(Modification 89 5: Evaluation Completed 30 May 1989)

Dielectric materials (principally topaz) in an aluminum irradiation holder indicated u in Figure 2 (Aluminum Holder for Shield Tank Irradiation) covered with a cadmium shield as indicated in Figure 3 (Cadmium Cover for Shield Tank Box Supporting Gamma Irradiation) was to be suspended in the UFTR shield tank for a gamma

irradiation. Since the UFTR Safety Analysis Report indicates that the shield tank is an irradiation port, since the reactivity worth and the activation characteristics

=

were evaluated to be negligible and since other (smaller) cadmium covered samples had been previously gamma irradiated in the shield tank, this experiment was evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety question. ,

Controlling Document: Run Request 89 5 (First Run: 23 May 1989)

IV-4

I I 12. Neutron Rndiography Shield Anembly Imnlementatinn (Experiment - Closed Item)

(Modification 89-6: Evaluation Completed 1 August 1989)

This modification addressed installing special shielding for the UFTR neutron

'I radiography system as indicated in Figure 4 (Diagram of Radiography Shield). The UFTR Safety Analysis Report addresses the extraction of a neutron beam and indicates the removable character of the thermal column stringers. - Although

?otentially hazardous situations are analyzed by this evaluation as not probable, the

dentified potential impact on the control blade drive units is addressed in the UFTR SAR, as is the maximum floor loading. Since the experiment had previously been :

performed with a different shielding configuration and the potential problems from the new shielding configuration are addressed by the UFTR SAR, the new shielding ;

configuration used in conjunction with the UFTR neutron radiography system was evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety question.

Controlling Document: Run Request 89 36 (First Run: 29 June 1989)

I 13. Installation and Use of a Source Well in the UFTR Stack to Aid Stack Monitor Calibration Checks (Permanent - Closed Item)

.I Modification 89-7: Evaluation Completed 1 August 1989 This modification, as indicated on Figure 5 (Stack with Modification Showing Access Coverplate) and Figure 6 (Stack With Modification Showing Source Well) was proposed and installed to permit the calibration check of the UFTR stack monitor to be performed at count rates near or above the normal operating levels of 2000 cpm, where previously the maximum count rate available with the University of Florida calibration sources was below 200 cpm. This modification established an

g. enclosed penetration (source well) into which the calibration check source could be inserted; the source well allows the check source to be positioned near the detector for a high count rate. This modification was evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety question and to allow significant improvement in the performance of the Stack Monitor calibration.

Controlling Document: Maintenance Log Page 89-40 (Closed on 25 August 1989)

, IV-5 f

- 'M m -t FU t__L; .

I- _] Al DE63 Hetc-r E mil Akmina e M S.S "e

3

-d' o -

p INSULATOR _ -

s

,.a ,= '

E

$$E:$;Nb!$;2sm;f$$!E;)E;.;d;[i;$5[$$.flh 5 g

" " " ind i "

" ONZATION CHAMBER . - - ,

u. ..

a c.

EE IJE -

y ------ ~

. . . . ..;.;.... . . m .- w. .m. ..g . . .r.....

...z.: .=. 5Yj.u.;y..

2 a

n -

> IE 1

E e _ _ _ _ -

B M.

--=>D C

t. .

+

.5

'N##3 PIC CHAMBER f00SIFO AHO FEATER ASSEMBLEY (112 SCALE)

a I ..

g - .

. .., j i ALEMIXEM HOLDER !

I 403 S3IELD TAXK IRRADIAZ:0X ,

l =

. C- ? =

-O l i

$ C3 c) l T i.

g. z 3 7 4l.3 l e

! 5 Os c) ll T '

e= =

-9 ll 5.5 IN.

l I~ hg@ @ cd CA O O O @c) ll l

!I i c, ce c) :

9l.

l c) m ,

LI (a c)

.l'-

l 0'g g)e @ g @ ,

I .. .hsd>

n' 3 is'

--,,, vin d ihdr

l. -

Figure 2. Aluminum Holder for Shield Tank Irradiation. ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l I .

l 8

g/ . ~. : .

LE CADMIEM :C0VER FOR SEIELD TANK B0X gg. 7 . SUPPORTING GAMMA I3RAJIATION ll :

I ...

I 0

.. /. u 0

l ...

tI

. / )

.E u . !

l l !

ntpano n:

0 f///bfff l^ mino n4#/1L ilh/g f i Q I. .

. / l l Figure 3.- Cadmium Cover for Shield Tank Box Supporting Gamma Irradiation.

)

I s 1

.j i ,

4 j

I !

I

I >

l 3

1

{

. . . 1

= -

r I

~

', b I

e 1 ( !

, ,a 3&

i

\.

I f -

n km '

l mummw l

Figure 1: DIAGRAM OF RADIOGR&PHY SHIELD i 1

I 4

L

)

I.

Figure 4. Diagram of Radiography Shield. ;

l .

, ', lt .

.o I

g 5 $

E ld u

2, - S,i s e

.y g .__ s =

l o C

v h

A li g

O e

1 a

s 2

(v W'M:s E i .

y ___

'N 0 W

O e , - e .

2 Ql '

6 l

> I

, 8 o

' E' ' : O JE*k H g U O

W O y- l 3 D&

I W o "<

gd

@O 9 s.J .

- a.

0 v

O!

t .,

$3 O l

< ct 3 0 0 0 0 I--

'v0 ll. !

Figure 5. Stack with Modification Shov.ag Access Coverplate.

___ ._._____ _ _ __-__ _ _ ___ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _..__ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ - - - - -O

l l "

\ I N a

i

' B$ Nb 4.

E r:n

~

e$w I hw 3

W W

a a '-

J g .

m 5

g- w l

y g a a .

\

=i a1g ht.

s o

I m1Ao2 tW Glc g g

~

4 g -

B v

-i i N

v

I I' n Rd /

O v ' nv d w o: tts::<

e a.

~C b

u.

I W

( -w\ Y, 3 I' 5

-a

~~~'

O o

- 7-H~ _

W D

7

,1 7 :---

& C Y a -

~

i .w.m ca,e 9- 3

. tu n '

B I e

.x J

u-]

l a no conos tu m i a>

V c<

Lu

[l m

i 5

g H

,n (L Ve 2

..- .)

Z W LLI aa R Jn w

'g LL LL <

3Z -

LU W )

Figure 6. Stack With Modification Showing Source Well.

i

'I -

1 I V. SIGNIFICANT MAINTENANCE, TES'I5 AND SURVEI!1ANCES g OF UFIR REACIOR SYSTEMS AND FACIUTIES i

l A review of records for the 19841985 reporting year shows extensive corrective and preventive maintenance was performed on all four control blade drive systems external to the biological shield. Similarly maintenance work during the 19851986 reporting year was 4 even more extensive as the problem of a sticking safety blade (S 3) recurred on Se stember !

3,1985. The recurrence necessarily demanded a detailed and complete check of al, control !

blade drive systems to determine finally and correct the cause of the sticking blade internal J I to the biological shield with the 1986 1987 reporting year involving relatively little maintenance and no large maintenance projects.

)

For the previous 1987 1988 reporting year, there were two dominant though manageable maintenance projects. The first large scale maintenance project during the 19871988 reporting year involved an extensive effort to clean the control blade drive motor I gear assemblies to free them of hardened grease and replace worn bearhe:,. Though only Safety 2 had failed to withdraw on demand, all gear assemblies had grease in various stages of hardening which was cleaned out and then replaced with fresh grease and new bearings, I to restom free withdrawal of S 2 and assure free motion of all control blades. The second large scale project was involved with the evaluation, corrective action, testing and monitoring of the two safety channels due to two occurrences of the downscale failure of the Safety Channel 1 meter indication (and probably the function). The extensive checks,

,I maintenance efforts to clean connections, change connections and replace parts and special test development and implementation as well as the monitoring involved for the two occurrences easily make this the largest maintenance effort since the control blade drive Il system maintenance performed internal to the biological shield in the 19851986 reporting year.

Other significant maintenance efforts in 1987-1988 were devoted to the diluting fan motor and RPM indicating system, the two pen recorder response and the blade position indicators for all control blades. Although corrective mamtenance in 19871988 was l- considerably increased over the previous reporting year, it was expected that much of the corrective and preventive maintenance performed last year would assure a return to high availability in the 19881989 reporting year, and this is exactly what occurred. Indeed, the I 79.2% availability for the 19871988 year indicates more or less routine maintenance and surveillance checks and tests throughout the year except for the two large projects cited above; for 19881989, the availability is back to near 90% at 87.67%. Of the 45 equivalent full days of unavailability, only 28.25 days were actually due to forced unavailability primarily due to corrective maintenance for repairs. In contrast to previous years, there was no single project dominating unavailability, though multiple maintenance tasks on the l[ two pen recorder and on the Radiation Monitoring System clearly dominate the main.

lu tenance efforts for the reporting year and warrants consideration of replacing these items ,

when funds are made available. Of the 16.75 days of unforced unavailability, the effort to paint the cell was the dominant event involving 8 days and accounting for nearly 50% of all unforced or planned unavailability with staff unavailability accounting for most of the '

remaining days.

In the tables that follow, all significant maintenance, tests and surveillances of UFTR V-1

~

b reactor systems and facilities are tabulated and briefly described in chronological order; I these tabulations also include administrative checks. Table V 1 contains all regularly scheduled surveillances, tests or other checks and maintenance required by the Technical Specifications, NRC commitments, UFTR Standard Operating Procedures, or other i administrative controls; these items are normally delineated with a prefix letter and a number for tracking purposes. The number of these surveillances increases each year as the UFTR Quality Assurance Program matures and requirements become more restrictive.

A listing of all the maintenance projects required to repair a failed system or component or to prevent a failure of a degraded system or component is presented in Table l V-2. These maintenance efforts are frequently not scheduled though they can be when a problem is noted to be developing and preventive actions are implemented, in addition, they frequently are associated with reactor unavailability. Finally, these maintenance items l can be associated with surveillances, checks or test items listed m Table V 1 since some of these scheduled surveillances are also required to be performed on a system after the system undergoes maintenance. For example, when the area monitor check sources or I detectors are the subject of preventive or corrective maintenance as listed in Table V 2, the 0 2 calibration check of the area monitors must be completed as listed in Table V 1 before the reactor is considered operable. Similarly, when maintenance is performed on the I control system, various surveillances such as drive time and drop time checks must be performed satisfactorily before the reactor can return to normal operations.

I In Table V 2 the first date for each entry is the date when the Maintenance Log Page (MLP) was opened; the date for work completion and the MLP number are included at the end of the maintenance description. As a result, the first item listed in Table V 2 has I a starting date prior to the beginmng of the current reporting year. It is entered here because the mamtenance was completed in the current 19881989 year. Similarly, one maintenance log page remains open at the end of the current reporting year, i

V-2

{ !

l l' :

TABW V-1 CHRONO 1DGICAL TABULNDON AND DESCRIFnON OF SCHEDUMD i UFIR SURVFR1 ANCES, CHECKS AND TES13 l Date Surveillance / Check / Test Description I

s i

6 September 1988 O Quarterly Chcck of Scram Functions -l 1

7 September 1988 O Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements j

l 13 September 1988 O Quarterly Check of UFTR Building Fire Alarm System

. (Zone 3) ]

J i .

20 September 1988 S 10 - Semiannual Check of Emergency Call Lists (Previously A 5 Annual Check) ]

21 September 1988 S8- Semiannual Leak Check of PuBe Neutron Source 27 September 1988 A3 Annual Measurement of UFTR Temperature Coefficient i of Reactivity )

1 LE 29 September 1988 S Semiannual Replacement of Well Pump Fuses I

,7 i 3 October 1988 S6- Semiannual Inventory of Security-Related Keys for UFTR and UFSA I 3 October 1988 S3 Semiannual Inventory of Special Nuclear Material-6 October 1988 S8- Semiannual Leak Check of SbBe Neutron Source 10 October 1988 O Quarterly Report of Safeguards Events I 19 October 1988 O 9 - Quarterly Calibration Check of Air Particulate Detector 25 October 1988 O Quarterly Radiological Survey of Unrestricted Areas 25 October 1988 O 5 - Quarterly Radiological Survey of Restricted Areas 26 October 1988 S 10 - Semiannual Check of Emergency Call Lists i -

27 October 1988 O 3 - Quarterly Radiological Emergency Evacuation Drill l 1 November 1988 O 2 - Quarterly Calibration Check of Area Radiation Monitors V-3

i I

TABLE V 1 (CONTINUED) l CHRONOLOGICAL TABUIATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SCHEDULED UFTR SURVEILIANCES, CHECKS AND TESTS ;

t Date Surveillnnee/ Check / Test Dewriotion 16 November 1988 O 2 - Quarterly Calibration Check of Stack Radiation Monitors 5 December 1988 S1- Measurement of Control Blade Drop Times l 5 December 1988 S Measurement of Control Blade Controlled Insertion Times 5 December 1988 S 11 Semiannual Replacement of Control Blade Clutch Current Lamps

-l 15 December 1988 Q 1 - Quarterly Check of Scram Functions 20 December 1988 O 3 - Quarterly Radiological Emergency Evacuation Drill J (Large Annual Drill involving All Outside Agencies) I 20 December 1988 S7- Semiannual Check / Replacement of Security System J

.g Batteries i 29 December 1988 O Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements i 30 December 1988 O 2 - Quarterly Calibration Check of Area Radiation Monitors !

g 3 January 1989 Q 2 - Quarterly Calibration Check of Stack Radiation Monitor 5 January 1989 O 7 - Quarterly Check of UFTR Building Fire Alarm System g (Zone 4) (Annual Inspection) 5 January 1989 S Measurement of Argon-41 Stack Concentration (Includes Measurement of Dilution Air Flow Rate - Previously A-

'I- 1 Surveillance) 25 January 1989 O Quarterly Radiological Survey of Unrestricted Areas 26 January 1989 S-10 Semiannual Check of Emergency Call Lists 30 January 1989 S9- Semiannual Replacement of Deep Well Pump Fuses 31 January 1989 O 5 - Quarterly Radiological Survey of Restricted Areas ,

V-4

l TABLE V-1 (CONTINUED)

I CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SCHEDULED UFTR SURVEILLANCES, CHECKS AND TESTS Date Surveillance / Check / Test Descriotion -

2 February 1989 Q Quarterly Calibration Check of Air Particulate Detector 15 February 1989 B 1 - Biennial Check to Assure Negative UFTR Void Coefficient of Reactivity 21 February 1989 O Quarterly Check of Scram Functions 2128 February 1989 S2- Annual Reactivity Measurements (Worth of Control Blades, Total Excess Reactivity, Reactivity Insertion Rate and Shutdown Margin) (Partial) 22 February 1989 A 1 - Instrument and Test Equipment Calibration (Simpson Multimeter Model 260, Series Six, Serial No. 580263) 6 March 1989 A1 Instrument and Test Equipment Calibration (Beckman Multimeter Model 4410, Serial Number 40427021)

'I 7 March 1989 S Semiannual I.cak Check of PuBe Neutron Source 7 9 March 1989 A2 UFTR Nuclear instrumentation Calibration Check and Calorimetric Heat Balance l 13 March 1989 O 7 - Quarterly Check of UFTR Building Fire Alarm System (Zone 1) l 14 March 1989 S Semiannual Leak Check of SbBe Neutron Source 29 March 1989 Q6- Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements 31 March 1989 S2- Annual Reactivity Measurements (Worth of Control Blades, Total Excess Reactivity, Reactivity-Insertion g Rate and Shutdown Margin ) (Completed) 310 April 1989 S Semiannual Inventory of Security Related Keys for UFTR g and UFSA 4 April 1989 S3 Semiannual Inventory of Special Nuclear Materials ,

l .

V-5

I I .

l l

TABLE V 1 (CONTINUED) !

CHRONOLOGICAL TABUIATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SCHEDULED j UFTR SURVEILLANCE 5, CHECKS AND TESTS ;

l i

Date Surveillance / Check / Test Description 11 April 1989 O 2 - QuarterlyCalibration Check of Area Radiation Monitors i 13 April 1989 O 2 - Quarterly Calibration Check of Stack Radiation Monitor 1718 April 1989 O Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements 1

l 17 April 1989 O 3 - Quarterly Radiological Emergency Evacuation Drill ,

8 May 1989 O 6 - Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements (Partial) J 26 May 1989 O Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements (Completed) 30 May 1989 O 9 - Quarterly Calibration Check of Air Particulate Detector 30 May 1939 S Semiannual Check / Replacement of Security System ;

Batteries l l 30 May 1989 O 5 - Quarterly Radiological Survey of Restricted Areas 30 31 May 1989 O Quarterly Radiological Survey of Unrestricted Areas I 27 June 1989 O 1 - Quarterly Check of Scram Functions 27 30 June 1989 S Semiannual Check and Update of Emergency Call Lists ,

29 June 1989 O 7 - Quarterly Check of UFTR Building Fire Alarm System (Zone 2) 30 June 1989 O 6 - Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements L 5 July 1989 S Semiannual Check and Update of Emergency Call Lists

[ .

(Partial) ,

24 July 1989 O 3 - Quarterly Radiological Emergency Evacuation Drill 25 Jaly 1989 O 2 - QuarterlyCalibration Check of Area and Stack Radiation l

Monitors I.

y.g l

1 TABLE V 1 (CON'a im TED) !

CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SCHEDULED )

UFTR SURVEILLANCES, CHECKS AND TESTS J ate Surveillance / Check / Test Description 31 July 1989 S 9 - Semiannual Replacement of Well Pump Fuses i 31 July 1989 O Quarterly Radiological Survey of Unrestricted Areas 31 July 1989 O Quarterly Radiological Survey of Restricted Areas 121 August 1989 S-10 Semiannual Check and Update of Emergency Call Lists l (Completed) )

23 August 1989 S Measurement of Argon 41 Stack Concentration 24 August 1989 S Measurement of Dilution Air Flow Rate (Previously A- l 1 Surveillance) 31 August 1989 S1- Measurement of Control Blade Drop Times l

31 August 1989 SS Measurement of Control Blade Controlled Insertion Times '

31 August 1989 S Semiannual Replacement of Control Blade Clutch :

Current Light Bulbs All required NFTR surveillances, checks and tests are up to date at the end of the reporting year.

I I .

.I V-7

i I TABLE V 2 1

CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECT. IVE MAINTENANCE ,

Date Maintenance Descriotion 8 August 1988 Removed limerock, laid on the west reactor lot to improve the i surface, from the storm sewer in the west reactor lot to assure l adequate drainage under a University of Florida Maintenance l l Work Order 56 3942 (14 Oct 88, MWO #56 3942) ;

!g-g !

29 August 1988 Following discovery on several occasions during a rainy mid- ;

I August,1988 of small see? age leaks of water into the reactor cell along the east cell wal where it meets the floor, University of Florida Work Management personnel as well as the j

i University Architectural Engineer, Mr. Don Jennings, ;

investigated and checked the leakage location and discussed several possible corrective actions. including reworking the .

building exterior or using epoxy on the interior with i Maintenance Work Order No. 56-6246 assigned to address '

corrective action. Following Don Jennings' check on September 23, the floor near the wall was cleaned and periodic checks were

_l.

made to determine ongoing status of the leakage. Following several subsequent monthly checks indicating no recurrence of leakage, assessment of water leakage along the east reactor cell *

=

v>all was closed out with no further problems noted (24 Jan 89, MLP #88-41). .

6 September 1988 Inclement weather from 13 September 1989 resulted in a large quantity of water being deposited on the UFTR reactor cell roof. Partially clogged roof scuppers prevented the roof water from clearing properly, resulting in a water level above the '

flashing. Some of this water entered the UFTR cell by flooding over the flashing. Approximately 60 gallons of water were-removed from the UFTR cell floor in addition to small amounts I_ of water '. hat were subsequently removed from the spent fuel pits (see 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation 88 25). The cell contents '

were checked, cleaned and dried where appropriate. Electrical circuits noted to be at risk from this event were checked for integrity and function; specifically the security system, east and north wall cable trays and the terminal / junction box at the east I. end of the equipment pit were checked. Additionally, the floor around the pedestal for the regulating blade was noted to be I.

V-8

a 3

TABLE V 2 (CONTINUED)

CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR 4

PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description

= ,

wetted, so the pedestal cover was removed and the area and cables dried, followed by normal equipment checkouts - see also 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 88-25. This maintenance was left

' open for periodic roof checks over several months to assure the-m continued integrity of the roof had not been violated by this event with no further problems noted (5 Dec 1989, MLP #88-42).- ,

6 September 1988' Added 48 gallons of demineralized water to the UFTR shield tank to restore normal shield tank level (6 Sep 88, MLP #88-43).

8 September 1988 Performed routine preventive maintenance on the UFTR cell

, air handling (air conditioner) unit involving lubrication and filter replacement by University of Florida Physical Plant Division (8

_- Sep 88, MLP #88-44).

12 September 1988 Replaced makeup water resins to assure availability of high 1 purity makeup water for UFTR water systems (12 Sep 88, MLP 1 #88-45).

_ 15 September 1988 Attempted an inspection of the reactor cavity as part of analyses supporting the planned conversion from HEU to LEU fuel to confirm structural design details. Following radiation surveys a under RWP 88-7-1, access was attempted via the north trench

, under the reactor from the equipment pit on the north side of the reactor. Because of the loose nature and method of packing J of the trench shielding materials, !! appeared that the shielding

could not be easily replaced if removed completely; therefore, the attempted inspection'was terminated prior to removing any

]

of the loose material and with indeterminate results. With replacement of all north trench shielding materials, the system l was restored to its normal configuration with no further i problems. (16 Sep 88, MLP #88 46).

~

l . 20 September 1988 Replaced a rupture disk broken due to student error, and I remo"ed about 69 gallons of contaminated water from the equipment pit under RWP 88-8-I following notification of the Radiation Control Officer and the Reactor Manager; I, subsequently added about 102 gallons of demineralized water 1

V-9

g. l<

I TABLE V 2 (CONTINUED)

CHRONOLOGICAL TAT 311LATION OF UFTR PREVENTIVE /CORREC11VE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description to the primary coolant storage tank to restore normal storage tank level (21 Sep 88, MLP #88-47).

4 October 1988 Prepared and installed improved shielding around the rabbit system shielcing penetration at the west side of the reactor.

l'; 12nd shielding slabs were manufactured. to fit the cavity surrounding the rabbit tubc/ biological shielding penetration and arranged with borated polyethylene and cadmium sheets to I- reduce the radiation level from the rabbit system (25 Oct 1988, MLP #88-48),

h~ 10 October 1988. Checked out the south area monitor operation following discovery that the check source pchition would not function during the weekly checkout; checked and cleaned contacts on the south area monitor pin connectors to restore normal h-' functional movement of the check source with no further problems noted (10 Oct 88, MLP #88-49).

(- 4 November 1988 With the reactor operating at 100kw, the temperature recorder stopped tracking. After noting that reactor power level and _

other indicators were functioning and indicating normally, the reactor was' shut down and secured without incident. The temperature recorder readings for all monitored points then failed to vary when the temperature recorder was manually L

activated.

Under MLP #88-50 the fault was eventually traced to the microswitch used in trip point testing to remove the signal from the amplifier so the slide-wire bull gear can be manually manipulated without overriding the balance motor. Essentially, the microswitch failed to a position that de coupled the amplifier from the thermocouples. The microswitch was replaced along .

with a vacuum tube amplifier which had a marginally acceptable

.I; gain when tested and a calibration check was performed on the temperature monitoring system using extra thermoccuples evaluated not to involve any unreviewed safety questions per 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 88-26. After completion of a valid weekly and daily preoperational check on the affected portions j of the reactor systems and a one-hour power operation 5: , exercising the temperature monitor over most of its normal V-10

I -

TABLE V-2 (CONTINUED)

CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Descriotion range, the reactor was returned to normal operations with no further problems noted (9 Nov 88, MLP #88-50).

S December 1988 Following discovery of a failed S-3 control blade clutch current g light bulb prior to beginning a daily checkout, all four clutch 3_ current bulbs were replaced. Following satisfactory completion of required measurements of control blade drop times as well as measurements of the controlled insertion times and controlled removal times, the system was restored to normal with- no further problems noted (5 Dec 88, MLP #88-51).

k 22 December 1988 Cleaned contacts and recalibrated the recorder to restore normal operation of the log channel of the two-pen recorder that had been noted to be failed during a preoperational check (22 Dec

88, MLP #88 52).

27 December 1988 During a weekly checkout, the East and later the South Area f.

Monitors were noted to be failed along with the Stack Monitor.

The South Area Monitor was restored to operational status by cleaning contacts. Subsequent troubleshooting of the East Area Monitor revealed 'a failed input capacitor and- HV voltage regulator which were replaced (the capacitor with an exact replacement but the regulator with a substitute evaluated under l 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 88-27 not to involve any unreviewed safety questions). The Stack Monitor was found to have a failed preamplifier transistor and this was replaced with an equivalent spare evaluated under 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation

{ No. 88-28 not to involve any unreviewed safety question.

Finally, a low voltage transistor regulator and a transistor bistable in the East Area Monitor were determined to be failed l< and were replaced; the bistable was replaced with a spare but the regulator was replaced with a substitute evaluated under 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 88-29 not to involve any unreviewed

(: safety questions. All radiation monitors were then recalibrated and the system returned to operational status with no further problems (3 Jan 89, MLP #88-53).

12 January 1989 Repaired a leak in the polyethylene tubing for the rabbit system vent and return nitrogen gas supply line discovered during system preoperational checks to return the system to service with V-11

I.

c .

'. ' a

' TABLE V 2 (CONTINUED)

. CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE

Date Maintenance Descriotion no further problems noted (12 Jan 89, MLP #89-1) i I 13 January 1989 Cleaned contacts, repaired one contact in the DC calibration voltage divider network and recalibrated the two pen recorder 3f- to restore proper operation (13 Jan 89, MLP #89-2), i

~

13 January 1989 MWO 59-4529 was opened following and _ emergency drill

~l,' recommendation that access to the radiochemistry laboratory -

from the outside via the double doors be better controlled.-

MLP #89-3 was opened for commencement of work on 25

- January 1989. Added a quickthrow-type deadbolt L to the radiochemistry laboratory west exit with a reactor cell lockset :

and rekeyed the south side of the door to the reactor celllockset for better emergency access control at the exit door following

= I< recommendations from the annual emergency drill that access control be improved (9 Mar 89, MLP #89 3)..

'31 January 1989 i Replaced galvanometer on the south area radiation monitor

~

recorder prior to start of operations to restore recorder operation with no further problems noted; also repaired spare t recorder needle (31 Jan 89,' MLP #89-4).

1 February 1989 Replaced ink supply tank in the red pen and the log channel-

amplifier (purple pen) of the_ two pen recorder with on-hand -!

spared and recalibrated recorder to restore proper operation with no further problems noted (1 Feb 89, MLP #89-5).

8 February 1989 Replaced torn flex coupling on the diluting fan duct to assure I

g integrity of vent system with work accomplished by UF technical 15 support staff personnel (Physical Plant Personnel) with no further problems noted (8 Feb 89, MLP #89-6).

10 February 1989 Removed broken security system key from security monitoring l

system control panel with work accomplished by UF locksmith and no further problems noted (10 Feb 89, MLP #89-7).

L 10 February 1989 Cleaned plugs and connectors on the south area radiation monitor module and subsequently replaced the GM tube in the

, monitor and recalibrated the detector system to restore normal V-12

e .

y I 1 I j

-l

TAELE V.2 (CONTINUED) n i L CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR !

j l

l PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE L

Date Maintenance Descriotion function with no further problems noted (15 Feb 89, MLP #89-

,f 8). ]

MLP #89 9 was not used.

17 February 1989 Replaced blown fuse common to all four area and stack radiation monitor recorders and broken resistor on battery pack l-- following. loss of all- recorder functions during a reactor operation utilizing the rabbit system to restore normal operation '

of area and stack monitor recorders (21 Feb 89, MLP #89-10). l 22 February 1989 Inspected and cleaned the air conditioner coils on the. reactor 'l cell air handling system with high pressure water and detergent i as preventive maintenance with work accomplished by Physical I~ Plant Support Staff through external contractor and with no j problems noted (22 Feb 89, MLP #89-11). '

t

~ I. 23 February 1989 Cleaned and overhauled the red pen ink supply system (ink well, tubing and primer) of the two-pen recorder to restore adequate inking function for tracing transients (23 Feb 89, MLP #89-12). l 1 March 1989 Resurfaced and painted all reactor building doors leading to the l west lot under UF MWO #59-3402 (opened on 3 January 1989) to protect their integrity following discovery of significant rust l I and corrosion with work performed by Physical Plant Division personnel (28 Apr 89, MLP #89-13).

I l

6 March 1989 Replaced clogged ceramic filter on the shield tank recirculation

~

system to restore proper flow to the system (6 Mar 89, MLP

. # 89 14).

6 March 1989 Repaired a break in the elbow in the rabbit system exhaust line l where it enters the equipment pit after assuring no l cortamination was involved. Break was temporarily repaired

i. using duct tape and then later permanently repaired with a new l l aluminum elbow to restore and assure the integrity of this exhaust line with no further problems noted (31 May 89, MLP

'I, #89-15).

1 V.13

+

I

'g' TABLE V-2 (CONTINUED)

CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR l PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE

'g Date Maintenance Description 10 March 1989 Repaired a failed chart drive motor on the recorder of the East j[ Area Radiation Monitor and reinstalled the recorder in place ut of a spare unit that had been temporarily installed to restore proper function with no further problems noted; also replaced

a galvanometer on the spare area monitor recorder to assure availability for replacement (13 Mar 89, MLP #89-16).

-3 16 March 1989 Tightened and cleaned contacts on the Safety One control blade B position indicator to restore proper position indication following an unscheduled shutdown for loss of the ? blade position

-indication (16 Mar 89, MLP #89-17).

-20 March 1989 Performed maintenance on the temperature monitor recorder to correct overshoot when monitoring upscale temperatures I! following a reactor trip from a spurious indication of high primary coolant temperature on fuel box outlet point -#6.

Maintenance included bearing lubrication as well as slidewire 1

and contactor cleaning to restore proper functioning of the temperature recorder with no further problems noted (21 Mar 89, MLP #89-18).

24 March 1989 Changed ink pads on temperature monitor recorder to restore the level oflegibility on the chart paper (24 Mar 89, MLP #89 I; 19).

' ; 3 April 1989 Added demineralized water (55 gallons) to the primary coolant storage tank to raise the level from 21.0 inches to the 28.5 inch level to fill the tank (3 Apr 89, MLP #89-20).

f 4 April 1989 Performed maintenance checks to address erratic operation of point #4 on the Log Calibrate Switch of the Wide Range Channel noted during a preoperational checkout. To verify (t proper operation, the nuclear Instrumentation Voltages for the Log Calibrate Switch of the Wide -Range Channel (A-2 Surveillance) were checked with position 4 test voltage found l' to be dependent on direction of approach whether from position 3 or position 5 with the other 5 calibration points operating satisfactorily. Under 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation Number 89-3, this anomally was evaluated to be acceptable since only the one

{_ -

test function position is affected, the readings meet the y.14 '

M ; -,

kn.

c -

TABLE V 2 (CONTINUED)

I CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR-PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE

, , Date - Maintenance Descriotion requirements of the Daily Checkout procedure and the problem :i is with contacts in the switch that only affect the testing of the' -!

{. -

one point. The system was returned to service with no further problems noted (4 Spr 89, MLP #89-21). ;

13 April 1989 Removed from service and bench checked the portal monitor ;

for spurious alarms to include removing the control unit and .

examining and cleaning all connections on the circuit boards and

j. cards in the monitor control panel to restore proper operation ,

'E with no further problems noted (31 May 89, MLP #89-22).

g 28 April 1989 - Performed preventive maintenance prompted by cyclic noises

~W in its operation, check out and overhaul the two-pen recorder to include replacement of the position feedback balance theostat as well as performing cleaning and lubrication of the mechanical components of the slidewire drive system. Following calibration )

and return to service, the two pen recorder functioned without j significant problems (28'Apr 89, MLP #89-23), i 28 April 1989 Replaced radiation monitoring console backup batteries (8 in !

front panel,4 in back panel) following determination of battery j degradation. Batteries were obtained from a different !

manufacturer and evaluated to be an exact re' placement per 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation Number 89-4, Proper operation has been restored (11 May 89, MLP #89-24). l 1 May 1989 Removed, cleaned out and replaced the secondary heat exchanger sample line to restore free sampling flow and assure ;

i '

free collection and sampling of secondary cooling flow with no further problems noted (1 May 89, MLP #89-25). I l

8 May 1989 Painted the interior walls of the reactor cell including the high ,

walls with an extendable basket and the low level storage area '

which was cleaned out and assured not to be contaminated l prior to being painted and then restored in a reorganized

j. arrangement. Painting was accomplished by UF Physical Plant Personnel and resulted in improved cell appearance (15 May 89, MLP #89-26).

{ V-15

l.

y

,y m 4

TABLE V-2 (CONTINUED)

' CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Descriotion

19. May 1989 Performed preventive maintenance to include circuit tracing and circuit checkout on the two pen recorder to assure its operational function. Instabilities in the log channel of the two pen recorder lead to replacement of the synchro amplifier with an on-hand spare. Following calibration and return to service, the two pen recorde" has continued to function without L significant problerre @ Jun 89, MLP #89-27).

5 June 1989 Replaced the 40 amp fuses of the deep well cooling system L following deep well pump trip due to fuse failure to restore proper operation of secondary coolant pump (5 Jun 89, MLP

- #89 28).'

j.

7 June 1989 Repaired the contactor arm on the carriage of the 3 ton overhead crane which was broken at a previously; broken juncture with failure attributed to fatigue accentuated by uneven -

placement of a concrete slab. The previous repair was brazed; ;

this repair was made by welding to last longer with no further l problems noted (8 Jun 89, MLP #89 29).

8 June 1989 Replaced a failing spring and greased the whole lock system in the main reactor cell entrance door to restore proper automatic l latching of the cell door when closed with no further problems ;

noted and work accomplished by UF Physical Plant Divirion i locksmith (8 Jun 89, MLP #89 30).

d 1

9 June 1989 Response checked / tested the stack radiation monitor with the l Cs-137 source used outside the stack and then inside the stack i

to assure the instrument will respond at the 4000 cps alarm level ll-in anticipation of installing a source well in the stack to be used E, in the revised Q-2 surveillance for calibration check of the stack

.. radiation monitor per recommendation made by the RSRS in the annual audit (9 Jun 89, MLP #89-31).

! 12 June 1989 Cleaned and adjusted the overhead crane contactors to assure lg proper seating to restore normal operation of the overhead is crane (12 Jun 89, MLP #89-32).

i V-16 o - -)

I I

TABLE V-2 (CONTINUED)

CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date - Maintenance Description 12 June 1989 Tightened the packing on the dump valve to stop a small' scepage leak to restore valve operation to normal with no further problems noted (12 Jun 89, MLP #89-33).'

12 June 1989 Replaced the primary coolant rupture disk broken during the

'In weekly checkout due to operator error unrelated to tightening packing on the dump valve and removed about 40 gallons of contaminated water from the equipment _ pit following I:- notification of Radiation Control Officer and Reactor Manager; subsequently added about 100 gallons of demineralized makeup water to the primary coolant storage tank to restore normal Il storage tank level (12 Jun 89, MLP #89 34).

20 June 1989 Adjusted the charging voltage downward by 0.5 volts to prevent overcharging the emergency power supply batteries in the Radiation Monitoring Console with no further problems noted (20 Jun 89, MLP #89 35).

I ' 23 June 1989 Performed maintenance to overhaul the purple pen circuit of the two-pen recorder following recurrent. problems with l calibration drift.- In addition to cleaning a numbei of connections and troubleshooting the entire purple pen circuit, a diode (CR11), a resistor (R35) in the chopper drive circuit

( were replaced in the purple-pen system circuit to correct the problem of drift. Following calibration checks, the two-pen recorder was returned to service with no further calibration drift problems (27 Jun 89, MLP #89-35).

28 June 1989 Cleaned the temperature recorder slidewire and associa:ed I ..

contactors as preventive maintenance to assure continued proper operation of the temperature recorder; work was performed following quarterly scrams checks per NRC commitment (28 June 89, MLP #89-37).

12 July 1989 Cleaned the red pen ink delivery system and removed a small I piece of cleaning wire from the tip of the red pen to restore proper inking trace on the two-pen recorder (12 Jul 89, MLP

89-38).

I.

V-17

a l

'; TABLE V-2 (CONTINUED)

CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date'- Maintenance Description $

17 July 1989' Replaced a partially clogged ceramic filter in the shield tank ~

recirculation system with an on-hand spare to restore full flow in the system with no further problems noted (17 Jul 89, MLP

89 39).

('

24 July 1989 Installed a source well in the' base of the stack by cutting a penetration and mounting a PVC tube source holder with cover 4 to provide a means to position the Cs 137 check source to 1 L provide a means' for calibration of the stack monitor at.high ,q l

count rate as controlled by 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 89-7 l and as shown not to impact the stack monitoring system with j no problems noted (25 Jul 89, MLP'#89-40).

L- .24 July 1989 Replaced the ink pads in the 12 Point recorder for the l '

- temperature monitoring panel to restore legibility of '

temperature recorder print out (24 Jul 89, MLP #89-41).

24 July 1989 Cleaned the slidewire of the two pen recorder, shifted the I slidewire position and calibrated the recorder to correct problem of the red pen' sticking at the top end of the scale due to ink accummulation on the slidewire and. restore free ' operation and proper inking with no further problems noted (24'Jul 89, MLP

89-42).

31 July 1989 Removed the makeup system' resin holders and dumped and:

replaced the resins with fresh resins to restore the makeup water l system to operation with resistivity checked to be above 2.5 l megohm-cm (31 Jul 89, MLP #89-43).

L. :

31 July 1989 Connected up the control blade drop time test rig to include locating the power leads and measuring voltages for future reference as part of the planned implementation of an improved L3 and simpler method for measuring the control blade drop times l5 (S-1 surveillance) with the system then restored to normal with no problems noted (MLP #89-44 remains open).

j V-18

I . TABLE V 2 (CONTINUED).

CHRONOLOGICAL TABULATION OF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE L

l: Date Maintennnee Description ,

t 15 August 1989 Cycled the key switch in the security system console to clear a ;

, tripped local condition caused by the key switch being in an - -

S intermediate position (not affecting system operation in day .,

mode) to restore the system to normal with no further problems

- noted (15 Aug 89, MLP #89-45).

I '

24 August 1989 Disassembled the main reactor cell door latching mechanism;' l removed and replaced a nearly failed spring with a duplicate and LIi with work performed by UF Physical Plants Division locksmith.

After reassembly, the lock mechanism was reinstalled and assured to be latching freely with no further problems noted (24 -

Aug 89, MLP #89-46). ,

E l

! MLP '#89-44 Remains Open From 31 July 1989. -

g s

i g

I g

V-19

VI. CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND OTHER KEY DOCUMENTS Q

Em This Chapter contains a narrative description and status report on the various changes to key UFTR license-related documents that occurred during the 19881989 reporting year. As

{u. such, this Chapter provides a ready reference for the status of various license related

' documents to include Technical Specifications, Safety Analysis Report, Standard Operating Procedures, Emergency Plan, Security Response Plan, Reactor Operator Training I; Requalification and Recertification Program, HEU-to LEU Conversion Documents as well as Quality Assurance Program Approval for Radioactive Material Shipments and other key documents as they are generated or changed.

A. Changes to Technical Soecifications The new Technical Specifications for the UFTR were issued on August 30,1982 and officially established on September 30, 1982. Two sets of requested corrections /-

changes to the Technical Specifications were submitted to the NRC during the 1982- i 1983 reporting period. As noted in the 19831984 Annual Report, the UFTR facility l received approval for Amendment No.14 and No.15 to the UFTR Technical i Specifications during that reporting year. As noted in the 1985-1986 Annual Report, the UFTR facility requested and received approval for Amendment No.16 to correct an error in numbering Section 3.5 which had been incorrectly numbered Section 3.4 1 On 11 December 1986, the stack dilute fan and the core vent fan were secured by actuation of the evacuation alarm and the evacuation alarm / core vent system interlocks while the stack count rate was approximately 300 cps due to a normal-Argon-41 vent and stack inventory buildup established by a prior run. The automatic evacuation occurred as part of the Q-3 Quarterly Evacuation- Drill scenario.

Establishment of two area monitors at the high level trip setpoint initiated the core

( vent / diluting fan interlock with the evacuation alarm actuated as required .by Technical Specifications. However, UFTR Technical Specifications in Section 3.4.3 as a limiting condition for operation states that "the vent system shall be operated until the stack monitor indicates less than 10 counts per second"; as a result, the actuation for the drill constituted a potential violation of Technical Specifications on Limiting Conditions for Operation (even though the reactor was not running) and was reported as such.

I Tech Spec Amendment 17 generated in response to this event involved a complete reorganization of Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the Tech Specs into a format to match the remainder of the UFTR Tech Specs so that currently mixed and/or missing elements would be contained in the proper Section (either 3.3 or 3.4) plus incorporation of several minor changes along with the easing of the requirement that the vent system shall be operated anytime the stack count rate is not less than 10 cps.

In addition to logical reorganization of Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the UFTR Tech Specs to conform with the remainder of the existing Tech Specs where each Section has an introduction, a listing of specifications and finally a set of bases to support the VI-1

n -

'p listed specifications related to the Technical Specifications on the Reactor Vent-m- System and on the Radiation Monitoring Systems and Radioactive Effluents, the

['

key purpose of the substantive change in Section 3.43 was to allow securing the core ~

vent fan when necessary without violating the Tech Specs. With this amendment, if

(- the Reactor Vent System is secured, as it must and should be for a valid emergency i

condition or a system failure, the event is not necessarily a violation of the Technical Specifications simply because the vent system was secured at >10 cps. At NRC's request, the revision also addressed provisions for controlled release of radioactive effluents to the environment during abnormal operating conditions. Otherwise, the content and intentions of the Tech Specs were not considered to be changed by this-Amendment.

. The approved license (Tech Spec) Amendment 17 was finally received on May 3, 1988 (previous reporting year) per a letter from _NRC dated April 27,1988. The j approved Amendment 17 corresponds exactly to that submitted on March 7,1988.

l The amendment consisted of a revision to the Tech Specs to permit conducting i certain activities when the reactor is shutdown, the reactor vent system is secured i .- and the stack monitor is reading greater than 10 cps. As requested by NRC and l_ submitted by the licensee, the Tech Specs were also revised to include a backup -

L- means for quantifying the radioactivity in the effluent during abnormal or emergency - l operating conditions in addition to administrative changes. Under Maintenance Log i Page #88-19, the backup core vent sampling system was installed on May 4,1988 of -

the last reporting year into the rabbit system line per 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation i I. ' Number 88-1 with availability for all subsequent reactor operations. The process of incorporating the Amendment 17 changes into the UFTR Standard Operating ProceQares was finally completed on December D,1988 at the RSRS meeting when the SUP changes were approved. Training was then conducted on the affected revised procedures on January 4,1989 at which point the changes were fully ,

implemented in the Standard Operating Procedures as they substantially affect 1 UFTR' SOP-A.1, SOP-A.4 and SOP-B.1 in relaxing requirements on running the ,

Reactor Vent System above 10 cps on the stack monitor and enabling sampling of l the core vent system during emergencies. l No further requests for changes in the approved Tech Specs are anticipated for the operation of the UFTR with its present high enriched fuel at a rated power level of

{

100 kWth. It is expected, however, that another substantive amendment to the l I_ Technical Specifications will be required before the UFTR can be converted from '

utilizing high-enriched MTR plate type fuel to utilizing low-enriched SPERT pin- !

type or silicide plate-type fuel. Using DOE support to analyze conversion options, ;

a decision has been made in the current reporting year not to use SPERT fuel but -l to use plate-type fuel which will minimize required tech spec changes. )

B. Revisions to UFTR Safety Analysis Reoort i

As indicated for the previous 19871988 reporting year, FSAR Revision 5 had been :

submitted to NRC and inserted in the UFTR Safety Analysis Report to incorporate l changes that were the result of ongoing reviews of the UFTR Safety Analysis Report '

to assure updated accurate contents. This revision nad been in progress when the NRC Operator Licensing Examiner J. Arildsen noted several minor typographical i

f VI-2

I h

errors and the outdated control blade integral reactivity worth curves in his exam preparations using the FSAR. So these changed pages to include Page 1-4 updating.

- descriptions of experimental facilities and control blade integral reactivity worths,-

Page 1-5 correcting typographical errors and providing better descriptions of the I -

reactor vent system,_ Page 3-6 correcting typographical errors and indicating the correct unchanged location of the emergency personnel exit in the cell freight door,1 Page 4 9 (Table 4-1) updating UFTR operating characteristics and correcting several typographical errors, Page 71 reflecting instrumentation operation in the UFTR IL console and updating the list of control and indicating instrumentation to reflect changes previously reviewed and implemented, Page 9-1 correcting a typographical error for the crane capacity and Page 15 2 correcting several typographical errors I,

including a sentence repeated twice.

Most of these changes corrected obvious typographical errors, text inconsistencies, or minor changes in current operating characteristics. However, the changes on Page 7-1 reflected instrumentation operation in the UFTR console as it has been in place prior to relicense submission in 1981 as well as additions to provide control of rabbit I system energization and communications with the rabbit system operator added since relicensing. Also on Page 7-1, three items were added 'to the list of console instrumentation to include a digital clock replacing a previously installed analog I- -

clock, a PuBe source alarm indicator present for over 10 years, and the energization switch and communication line for the pneumatic-operated rapid sample insertion

, (rabbit) system.

As indicated, further updating changes to FSAR Chapter 11 (Radioactive Waste

' Management) were in progress throughout the 1988-1989 reporting year. This change is Revision 6 of the SAR and will comprise a complete review and updating fl. of the UFTR Safety Analysis Report as a continuing effort to assure an accurate document for controlling facility operations. This revision is expected to be

f. submitted to NRC early in the next reporting year and should be incorporated into all official copies of the UFTR Safety Analysis Report early in the year.

l C. Generation of New Standard Ooerating Procedures Two new Standard' Operating Procedures were generated during the current reporting year. Both. procedures were generated primarily to assure proper I=. radiological controls and documentation are used in the trnnsfer of radioactive materials to or from the UFTR R-56 license. These procedures were generated as-

the result of procedure review and upgrading in response to the NRC inspection of the Radiation Protection Program conducted in March,1988 recommending that better documented controls of radioactive materials be implemented; in addition, I; facility management desired to simplify the tracking of materials between the UFTR R 56 license and the University of Florida 356-1 state license while meeting all NRC requirements. The result was two new procedures to control UFTR radioactive material transfers and to control utilization of the rabbit system along with major

.I= revisions of several existing procedures especially UFTR SOP-A.5 (Experiments) used to control and document review of experiments run in the UFTR.

VI-3

{"

- The first key step in this process was to generate a policy statement on how such B, _ transfers are to be conducted. _ The policy statement is entitled " Policy for Transfer 3; of Radioactive Materials Between the UFTR R 56 License and the University of Florida 356-1 State License" and is contained in Appendix D of this report. After .

- g' ' several drafts and extended discussions and consideration of proper implementation, 3 this policy statement was implemented in December,1988, essentially at the same time as the implementing procedures, both new ones and revisions of existing SOPS. .

The policy ~ addresses the conditions to be met for irradiated material to be transferred between the R-56 to the 356-1 licenses as well as who may be approved as the' Principal Investigators for such experiments in order to assure expected

activity levels of all experiments have been reviewed prior to irradiation. _ Five (5) relatively detailed policy statements then address five (5) basic areas:

1. Transfer of activated samples from the UFTR R-56 License to the 356-1 State License including via the rabbit system.

2. Transfer of various surveillance samples such as swipes, air samples, water samples and gaseous effluents removed for analysis.

'(

3. Transfer of experiment samples and activated materials that are to leave from or return to the reactor cell or the UFTR facility to include a full detailed form with simplified alternate forms allowed for activated foils, neutron l,i radiography film cassettes and rabbit system samples as three frequently generated types of samples or materials.

{

=

4. A definition of reactor waste an'd how such waste must be shipped directly from the facility without transfer to the 356-1 State License.

5. Transfer of radioactive materials from the State License (356-1) to the UFTR License (R-56) and the consideration that all the radioactive material in the .

resultant sample after irradiation is considered to be on the R-56 License until removed.

The two new Standard Operating Procedures generated during the current reporting year include UFTR SOP-A.8, " Pneumatic Rapid Sample Transfer (Rabbit) System" and UFTR SOP-D.6, " Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers." UFTR SOP-A.8 was generated from existing documents and guidelines to provide detailed instructions for operation of the Pneumatic Rapid Sample Transfer (Rabbit) system to assure proper reactor and radiological controls and documentation are

, .. - implemented when the Rabbit System is used for irradiations and also to assure that, j' when the Rabbit System is used to support experimental irradiations in the UFTR, E the requirements of UFTR SOP-A.5, " Experiments" and UFTR SOP-D.6, " Control of Radioactive Material Transfers," are met and properly documented.

UFTR SOP-D.6 was generated to consolidate and simplify the requirements for control of radioactive material transfers which were present in a number of documents and not always consistent. Therefore, UFTR SOP-D.6 was generated to assure proper control of transfers of radioactive materials between the UFTR l VI-4

I I

N License (R-56) and the University of Florida State IJeense (356-1) and so assure --

: compliance with-the conditions of both licenses. The procedure is also used to assure records are maintained of changes in location of radioactive material at the UFTR site but on the 356-1 license and not intended for irradiation.

Since these two procedures are newly generated, approved and implemented during the latest reporting year, the full text of SOP-A.8, " Pneumatic Rapid Sample Transfer -

(Rabbit) System," and of SOP-D.6, " Control of UFTR Radioactive Material i Transfers," is contained as currently implemented in Appendix E for reference purposes and to meet Tech Spec requirements for such submissions.

It is expected that continued procedure review and upgrading will result in at least one new maintenance / surveillance procedure to control the annual' nuclear -

instrumentation calibration check during the upcoming year. This procedure is

'i nearing final form after several internal reviews by facility personnel during the current reporting year.

D. Revisions to Standard Operating Procedures All existing UFTR Standard Operating Procedures were reviewed and rewritten into

.; a standard format during the 1982-1983 reporting period as required- by a commitment to NRC following an inspection during that year. As committed to NRC, the final approved version of each SOP (except certain security response procedures which are handled separately) is permanently stored in a word processor to facilitate revisions and updates which are incorporated on a continuing basis in the standard format.

I; Table VI 1 contains a complete list of the approved UFTR Standard Operating Procedures as they existed at the end of the previous (1987-1988) reporting year exclusive of applicable temporary change notices (TCNs) since these do not change h' procedure intent. Table VI-2 contains a similar complete up-to-date list of> the approved Standard Operating Procedures as they exist at the end of the current reporting year. The latest revision number and date for each non-security (not

(- withheld from public disclosure) related procedure is listed in Table VI-2. The latest revision number and date is in parentheses for each SOP; temporary change notices

(TCNs) refer to minor change's made to an SOP in lieu of a full revision and are not noted on the two tables to simplify the presentation. A comparison-of Tables VI-

,. I and VI-2 indicates that there were five (5) revisions to SOPS generated during this j reporting year in addition to the two new procedures (UFTR SOP-A.8 and UFTR SOP-D.6) as discussed in Section C of this Chapter. The total of five (5) revisions represents a significant administrative effort on behalf of the UFTR facility staff.

g Basically the reasons for the revisions fall into two categories.

First, Revision 14 for UFTR SOP-A.1 " Pre-Operational Checks," Revision 10 for UFTR SOP-A.4 " Reactor Shutdown," and Revision 4 for UFTR SOP-B.1 I. -

" Radiological Emergency," were all generated primarily to implement Amendment 17 to the Technical specifications as discussed in Section A of this Chapter.

Basically, SOP-A.1 and SOP-A.4 were revised to incorporate the conditions under I- . which the core vent system is allowed to be secured while the stack count rate VI-5

I .

exceeds 10 cps. Similarly SOP B.1 was revised to incorporate the conditions under (i which the core vent system is allowed to be secured while the stack count rate exceeds 10 cps and'to require implementation of the second key requirement delineated in Tech Spec Amendment 17, namely that the cell atmosphere shall be I sampled and the radionuclide concentration verified to be within limits of release to unrestricted areas prior to initiating of venting of the reactor cell. With training completed on these SOP revisions in January,1989, implementation of Tech Spec '

Amendment 17 was completed.

Secondly, Revision 4 for UFTR SOP-A.5 " Experiments," and Revision 4 for UFTR E SOP-D.4 " Removing Irradiated Samples from UFTR Experimental Ports," were 15; generated to complete the facility response to the NRC Radiation Safety Inspection of March,1988 to assure proper control of UFTR radioactive material transfers,' to

, control utilization of the rabbit system and to control and document review of experiments run in the UFTR, especially relative to the generation and release of .

l radioactive material and associated radiation levels. The " Policy for Transfer of l (31 Radioactive Materials Between the UFTR R 56 License and the University of iEl Florida 356-1 State License" outlines the key requirements in assuring proper control {

of radiation safety-related conditions and transfers and the two new SOPS (SOP-A.8 i for the Rabbit system and SOP-D.6 for controlling radioactive material transfers) provide mos_t of the new procedural requirements to assure implementation of the intent of the UFTR facility management to upgrade documentation of radiation H safety and radioactive material controls. Revision 4 of SOP-A.5 is a large scale

( revision of the necessary documentation required for experiment review to assure l radiation safety and other safety-related issues are adequately addressed, especially

- g- relative to material control and the policy statement. Similarly Revision 4 of SOP-lE ~

~

D.4 simply updates the procedure to assure its controls on removal of samples from UFTR experimental ports are compatible with the two new SOPS and the other g' revisions in controlling and documenting radioactive material controls. Since these

'i g' five (5) revisions for SOP-A.1, SOP-A.4,' SOP-A.5, SOP D.4 and SOP-D.6 are !

significant changes which were approved and implemented during the latest reporting year, the full text of these SOPS, as currently implemented,is contained for reference

!I in~ Appendix F. ,

I Following an NRC Inspection of the Radiation Protection Program conducted on '

i February 27-March 2,1989 and as part of NRC Inspection Report No. 50-83/89-01 dated April 7,1989, the facility licensee was cited for the Severity Level IV violations

. for failure to conduct adequate surveys to evaluate radiation hazards associated with tl-selected reactor vertical ports and " rabbit" facility operations and for failure to maintain unrestricted radiation exposure levels, which could result in an individual

receiving a dose, to less than two millirems in any one hour. As a result, Radiation

': Control Technique #31, " Instructions for Performing UFTR Environmental Radiation Surveys," was completely revised with the surveillance data sheets only incorporated into UFTR SOP 0.5, " Quality Assurance Program," as a Temporary Change Notice. Although this technique is not considered a UFTR standard sl l

operating procedure, the complete revision of RCT #31, except unrestricted area maps, is also contained in Appendix F because of its role in the violations cited by

( NRC.

VI-6

~

During the 1988-1989 reporting year, a number of minor changes were incorporated ~

into the UFTR Standard Operating Procedures as needs and/or errors were

' identified. ' Temporary Change Notices" were issued to correct minor discrepancies or better express the unchanged intent of six (6) different procedures, some several ' -

times to include SOP 0,1, SOP-0.2, SOP-O.5, SOP A.3, SOP-D.6, and SOP E.6. It should be noted that the temporary change notices for SOP-O.5 implemented, among other things, improvements for several surveillances to assure the emergency call lists a3 are checked semiannually (S-10), to assure the quarterly scram checks (Q-1) are g properly performed, including some preventive maintenance on the temperature recorder, to assure the stack monitor calibration (Q-2) is performed for a high count 4m' rate and to assure the unrestricted area smvey (0-4) and the restricted area survey, ,

E. (o-5) address the need for measurements to assure proper monitoring of potential problem areas.

The remaining Temporary Change Notices all involved relatively minor changes affecting one or a few sections of the respective SOPS. All were fully reviewed by

g, UFTR facility management and approved by the RSRS. Because of the quantity of i ig

' - paper involved and the relatively minor nature of Temporary Change Notices, copies -

of these SOP changes or the SOPS as currently revised and implemented are not included in this report. A copy of each may, however, be obtained directly from the

i. UFTR facilhy if desired.

I E. Revisions to UFTR Emergency Plan Two revisions to the approved UFTR Emergency Plan were submitted to the NRC l

L

( during this reporting year. With a letter dated October 17, 1988, Revision 3 was submitted to the NRC to consist simply of a correction to Page 8-5 of t_he Plan to j account for the fact that other hospitals than Shands Teaching Hospital are now i designated to handle Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant radiation accident victims though the Shands facility maintains the capability to handle such cases in the event l of a large accident and remains a regional resource for handling radiation accident j I- cases. The change was reviewed by UFTR management and the RSRS to assure no decrease in effectiveness of the Plan and was supplied to all Plan holders with an l explanatory memorandum dated October 21,1988. In a letter dated January 18, I 1989, the NRC notified the facility of their evaluation that the changes do not i decrease the effectiveness of the Plan. Revision 3 is contained in Appendix B. ;

/

Revision 4 to the UFTR Emergency Plan was submitted to the NRC with a letter dated February 1,1989 and consists of two changes. The first change is the latest i revision to the "Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. Plan for Emergency j Lg- Handling of Radiation Accident Cases" which was reviewed by UFTR management '

lu-.

and the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee and then implemented in the annual UFTR radiological emergency drill held on December 20,1988. This Shands Plan is essentially equivalent to the previous Shands Plan. The second part of the change I is the latest revision of the Emergency Implementing Procedure UFTR SOP-B.1, ;

" Radiological Emergency." This procedure change primarily implements changes !

! approved as Amendment 17 of the UFTR Technical Specifications along with several

. other changes to update how individuals are qualified as knowledgeable of the i g VI-7 u

1 ,

w UFTR emergency procedures and to correct various typographical errors and clarify

,l procedural content at several points.

Revision 4 of the Plan was reviewed by UFTR management and the RSRS to assure ' {

l the Plan continues to meet the needs for responding to emergencies related to the y

University of Florida Training Reactor with no decrease in effectiveness of the Plan- ;

and was supplied to all Plan holders with a memorandum dated February 2,1989 to assure implementation. In a letter dated June 9,1989, the NRC notified the <

facility of their evaluation agreeing that the changes do not decrease the effectiveness

[ of the UFTR Emergency Plan. Revision 4 is contained in Appendix C of this report.

l As the Emergency Plan continues to be evaluated, it is likely that additional changes will be. implemented during the upcoming year, especially as the Emergency

,g l

Procedures are reviewed and updated. It will also be necessary to address new titles for certain parts of the Emergency Response Organization in the next revision. i l u l F. Biennla! Reactor Ooerator Reaunlification and Recertification Program The existing approved biennial reactor operatar Requalification and Recertification !'

Program expired'at the end of June,1989. Therefore, a new program was submitted to NRC with a letter dated May 30,1989, to cover the July,1989 through June,1991 period. The new program has only minor changes (additions) from the previous -l

,g program submitted in May 26,1987 and then updated by a submittal in August 19, 3- 1988 to reflect the new requirements (and NRC's interpretation of these) in 10 CFR ,

55 for a comprehensive examination once every two years and an operations test every year as well as the requirement that all licensed personnel exercise the l 1

RO/SRO license for a minimum of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months of licensed activities during each l calendar quarter which is now being tracked on training forms. The revised program i submitted during this reporting year is contained in Appendix G and-incorporates several minor changes to include annual special equipment training on the rabbit system and the overhead crane as well as explicit biennial requirements for a separate lecture and examination on the Security Plan and the Emergency Plan.

3 L Otherwise the Plan is unchanged. Changes were reviewed by the Reactor Safety and Review Subcommittee and are not considered to require NRC approval since they clearly upgraded the Program. Otherwise the Program remains essentially the same ;

as that previously submitted.

When this program - reaches its conclusion, the existing UFTR Operator Requalification and Recertification Program Plan will be resubmitted for the next two-year cycle. At the end of the reporting year no response has been received to the May 30,1989 submittal as the facility continues to follow the Program Plan as

- upgraded until notified to do otherwise.

G. HEU to LEU Fuel Conversion Documents 4 The original proposal submitted to NRC to meet 10 CFR 50.64 requirements for scheduling UFTR conversion from HEU to LEU fuel was accepted as meeting the

~(- legal requirements for submission in March,1987. However, in a letter dated April 17,1987 and received on April 22, 1987, the NRC claimed the scheduled span of VI-8

.I g

time from receipt of funding to submittal of our application to convert was too long.

The updated (reduced) schedule (Revision 1) showing a reduction of 8 months as I presented in Table VI 3 was then submitted to NRC licensing in Washington with a cover letter dated May 14,1987. No further response was received to this submittal

g which was considered acceptable. During the next reporting year, a new proposal g updating the UFTR conversion schedule and work status per 10 CFR 50.64(b)(2) requirements was submitted to NRC with a letter dated March 22,1988 to meet the annual March 27,1988 deadline for such submission with no subsequent response from NRC during the remainder of the year. This new schedule (Revision 2) is presented as Table VI-4 and shows the schedule lengthened approximately two (2) months compared with Revision 1 which assumed receipt of funding on September,

.I 1987.

The proposal for financial support of UFTR conversion from HEU to LEU fuel was

-l submitted to the Department of Energy with a letter dated August 7,1987. Cfficial notice of funding for the first two years to support submission to NRC of the license amendment documentation for conversion was received on November 24 and

-l effective November 15,1987; however, the description of work was incorrect. A new grant description of work was finally received on December 29,1987 when the grant document was signed for record purposes.

Since receiving funding, work has been proceeding as quickly as possible though a shortage of graduate students to perform the neutronic and other analyses have caused this work to lag. In addition, because of extensive efferts to decontaminate and remodel a room in which to store the SPERT LEU fuel, to change the license description of the SPERT storage facility, to move the fuel to the new facility, to release the previous storage room to unrestricted usage, to revisc the facility security plan (SNM-1050) and then to perform a detailed pin by pin visual inspection and verification of serial numbers, the conversion analysis has been lagging.

i W The required visual inspection and identification of SPERT fuel pins was completed

, early in the current reporting year on September, 19,1988. Similarly, X-radiography

'I was scheduled to be performed early in the reporting year so a decision could be made on whether to proceed with the HEU to LEU conversion analyses for the UFTR using SPERT 4.8% enriched UO fuel pins or 19.8% enriched aluminum silicide plates. As expected, the delays in radiography necessitated obtaining an extension to the applicable SNM-1050 license. A copy of the relicensing letter dated October 14 was received on October 21,1988 along with a copy of 10 CFR 70 and

-g the one page Safety Evaluation Report (SER). Basically Condition 4 of the license B was revised to an Expiration Date of March 31,1989 with all other license conditions unchanged. No further renewals of the current license were to be granted with the relicense application for " storage only" to be submitted by March 1,1989.

d As committed, a sufficient number of SPERT fuel pins was radiographed to provide an LEU core and replacement pins tor the UFTR by March 31,1989, when the

_d 3

-3 SPERT usage license was to expire. As for the SNM-1050 license, a significant effort was involved as the renewal license application for renewal under " storage only" ,

- conditions was submitted with a letter on March 1,1989 as required. A letter dated March 20,1989 ac! nowledging receipt of the application was received on April 4, Il VI-9

\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I i I: 1989. IJcense No. SNM 1050, as renewed, is dated June 23,1989 and was received on June 19,1989. The renewed license authorizes " storage only" conditions and has

i an expiration date of June 30,1994. The cover letter also specifies that any request i for amendment to the SNM 1050 license should- be submitted-in the form of

L replacement pages to the renewal application submitted on March 1,1989 with changes or new items clearly identified. Subsequently, in June,1989, a decision was L~ finally made not to use the SPERT fuel but rather to use the alternate low enriched silicide plate type fuel. At years end plans are still on hold for shipping some or all of the SPERT fuel to various locations such as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Washington which may use the LEU fuel in a suberitical configuration in place of its Argonaut reactor.

.I Throughout the current reporting year, the neutronics analysis to support the j-

, _ conversion has been progressing at a slow pace with the graduate student involved deciding to leave for another university when not t.pproved to pursue a doctoral degree. This loss greatly hindered analysis work at year's end. As a result of the .,

overall slow progress on this work related to UFTR HEU to LEU conversion and :l

,l:

}

funded by DOE, the new proposal submitted to NRC with a letter dated March 22, 1989 to meet the annual March 27 deadline per 10 CFR 50.64(b)(2) shows a further l

j lengthening of the schedule (Revision 3) by six months as presented in Table VI-5. t

( -

With the loss'of a key student who had been trained in proper neutronics analysis ;

methodologies and with the DOE grant due to expire in November,1989 but renewal expected,'it is likely that the Revision 3 schedule presented in Table VI 5 will be

. g-i further impacted negatively. As a result the schedule submittal required by March l 27,1990 per 10 CFR 50.64(b)(2) as Revision 4 will likely show a further schedule l slippage from Revision 3. '

l H. Quality Assurance Program Aporoval For Radioactive Material Package During the middle of the previous reporting year, plans were being made by the l 1 University of Florida to ship ~1200 SPERT fuel pins held under the SNM 1050 license to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)._ Since ORNL wanted the l

' I 1 University of Florida to'be the shipper of record, an approved Quality Assurance l Program was needed with the University to be responsible to see that the shipment a would meet all .10 CFR 71 requirements. ORNL was planning to have these pins !

f. shipped in 6M Type drums on which they will have performed the necessary 1

-: criticality calculations. The initial request for QA Program approval to ship SPERT F-1 LEU fuel pins was submitted to NRC with a letter dated September 2,1987; a j Lg resubmittal deleting the requirement that it be withheld from public disclosure was

3 transmitted with a letter dated September 17,1987. NRC Quality Assurance Program L Approval for Radioactive Materials Packages No. 0578, Revi.sion No I with an L expiration date of October 31,1992 and dated November 5,1987 was received on November 9,1987 and remains in effect (See Appendix H).

Because of a forced shutdown of the Oa~k Ridge reactor in which the SPERT pins

, ; were to be used for an experiment, plans to ship this fuel were in abeyance until e January,1989 when a proposal was requested by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

,g- This proposal to supply 1200 fuel pins in 6M Type drum was suoplied in January, ig, 1989 but at year's end ORNL had not yet responded and the proposal has been j VI-10

l l!$ '

cancelled. .

Nevertheless, there is a high likelihood!that Oak Ridge: National:

laboratory will want to reclaim these ? ins upon restart of their reactor facility now.

lI) -

expected in late 1989. Even if some of the pins are not wanted by ORNL, the QA-Program approval will also allow transfer shipment of the SPERT fuel to other secure facilities such as the planned suberitical. assembly planned to be licensed at the University of Washington in place of their 100 kW Argonaut' reactor that contained HEU fuel. .

g g:

I:

y I

3:

I I

I '

g .

I: VI-11

m ,

TABLE VI-1

, IJSTING OF APPROVED UFFR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES I (August 31,1988)_ 'j O. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL PROCEDURES i O.1 Operating Document Controls (REV 1,5/87) i

! O.2 ~ Control of Maintenance (REV 4, S/87) j O.3 Control and Documentation of UFTR Modifications (REV 0,10/85) ~l O.4 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation and Determination (REV 1,5/86)

O.5 UFTR Ouality Assurance Program (REV 1,2/86)

O.6 Reactor Trip and Unscheduled Shutdown Review and Evaluation (REV 0, ,

5/87)

J- O.7 Control of NRC 10 CFR 50 Written Communications Requirements (REV W 0, 7/87) 0.8 Operator Licensing Requalification Examination Controls (REV 0,8/87) 1

'A. ROUTINE OPERATING PROCEDURES I l

3- A.1 Pre-Operational Checks (REV 13, 6/85) 5 A.2~ Reactor Startup (REV 12,5/87)

A.3 Reactor Operation at Power (REV 11,5/87)

A.4 Reactor Shutdown (MEV 9,6/85)

A.5 Experiments (REV 3, 4/83)

A.6 Operation of Secondary Cooling Water (REV 1,10/83)

' l lE- A.7 Determination of Control Blade Integral or Differential Reactivity Worth 1 E (REV 1, 6/85)

as B. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES l l' B.1- Radiological Emergency (REV 3, 5/83) l B.2 Fire (REV 5,5/85) !

B.3 Threat to the Reactor Facility (Superseded by F-Series Procedures) !

B.4 Flood (REV 1,4/83) l f C. FUEL HANDLING PROCEDURES C.1 Irradiated Fuel Handling (REV 4,2/85)

C.2 Fuel Loading (REV 4,4/83) 1 C.3 Fuel Inventory Procedure (REV 3,2/85)

C.4 Assembly and Disassembly of Irradiated Fuel Elements (REV 0,9/84) j l

l VI-12 I l

d

' TABLE VI-1 (CONTINUED) c' IlSTING OF APPROVED UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

. . (August 31,1988)

D.

RADIATION CONTROL PROCEDURES D.1 UFTR Radiation Protection and Control (REV 3,1/83)

D.2 Radiation Work Permit (REV 10,3/87)

D.3 Primary Equipment Pit Entry (REV 2,5/85)

a_ D.4 Removing Irradiated Samples From UFTR Experimental Ports (REV 3,5/85) -

g D.5 UFTR Reactor Waste Shipments: Preparations and Transfer (REV.0,5/87)'

E. MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES i

E.I' _ Changing Primary Purification Demineralizer Resins (REV 3,6/85)

?g. E.2 Alterations to Reactor Shielding and Graphite Configuration (REV 3,5/87) g E.3 Shield Tank and Shield Tank Recirculation System Maintenance (REV 2, 4/83)~

E.4 - Superceded E.5 Superceded l

E.6 Argon-41 Concentration Measurement (REV 0,1/84)

E.7 Measurement of Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity (REV 0,5/85)

(

E.8 Verification of UFTR Negative Void Coefficient of Reactivity (REV 0,12/85) l F. . , SECURITY PLAN RESPONSE PROCEDURES (Reactor Safeguards Material,

' Disposition Restricted)

F.1 - Physical Security Controls (Confidential, except for UFTR Form SOP-F.1A) i F.2 Bomb Threat (Confidential, except for UFTR Form SOP-F.2A)

!l-_

[ F.3 Theft of (or Threat of the Theft of) Special Nuclear Material (Confidential, L except for UFFR Form SOP F.3A) ,

lg F.4 -

F.5 Civil Disorder (Confidential)

Fire or Explosion (Confidential)

L F.6 Industrial Sabotage (Confidential)

F.7 Security Procedure Controls (REV 1,9/84)

I:' F.8 UFTR Safeguards Reporting Requirements (REV 0,9/87) fl g- .

VI-13

I A

u l

TABLE VI 2 ,

1 USTING OF APPROVED UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES l

- I- .

(August 31,1989) j O. ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL PROCEDURES j O.1 ' Operating Document Controls (REV 1,5/87)

O.2 . Control of Maintenance (REV 4,5/87) "

O.3 Control and Documentation of UFTR Modifications (REV 0,10/85) 0.4 - 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation and Determination (REV 1,5/86)

.( O.$ . UFTR Quality Assurance Program (REV 1,2/86)

O.6 Reactor Trip and Unscheduled Shutdown Review and Evaluation (REV 0, 5/87)

.O.7 Control of NRC 10 CFR 50 Written Communications Requirements (REV l 0,7/87) l O.8 Operator Licensing Requalification Examination Controls (REV 0,8/87) ]

l A. ROUTINE OPERA'HNG PROCEDURES 1 l

A.1 Pre-Operational Checks (REV 14, 12/88) I I

E A.2 Reactor Startup (REV 12,5/87)

A.3 Reactor Operation at Power (REV 11,5/87) q A.4 Reactor Shutdown (REV 10, 12/88) -)

A.5 Experiments (REV 4,12/88) I A.6 Operation of Secondarj Cooling Water (REV 1,10/83)

A.7 Determination of Control Blade Integral or Differential Reactivity Worth --

'(REV 1,6/85). .

A,8 Penumatic Rapid Sample fransfer (Rabbit) System (REV 0,12/88) n B. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES '

B.1. Radiological Emergency (REV 4,12/88) -

B.2 Fire (REV 5,5/85) i B.3 Threat to the Reactor Facility (Superseded by F-Series Procedures)

B.4 Flood (REV 1,4/83)

C. FUEL HANDLING PROCEDURES C.1 Irradiated Fuel Handling (REV 4,2/85) l C.2 Fuel Loading (REV 4,4/83)

a1 C.3 Fuel Inventory Procedure (REV 3,2/85)

-3 C.4 Assembly and Disassembly of Irradiated Fuel Elements (REV 0,9/84) 1 VI-14

TABLE VI 2 (CONTINUED)

IlS'IING OF APPROVED UFIR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES '

(August 31,1989)

D. RADIATION CONTROL PROCEDURES D.1 UFTR Radiation Protection and Control (REV 3,1/83) l D.2 D3 Radiation Work Permit (REV 10,3/87)

Primary Equipment Pit Entry (REV 2,5/85)

D.4 Removing Irradiated Samples From UFTR Experimental Ports (REV 4, 12/88)

D.5 UFTR Reactor Waste Shipments: Preparations and Transfer (REV 0,5/87) ,

D.6 Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers (REV 0,12/88) i E. MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES ?

E.1 Changing Primary Purification Demineralizer Resins (REV 3,6/85) ,

E.2 Alterations to Reactor Shielding and Graphite Configuration (REV 3,5/87)

E.3 Shield Tank and Shield Tank Recirculation System Maintenance (REV 2, 4/83)

EA Superceded E.5 Superceded i E.6 ' Argon-41 Concentration Measurement (REV 0,1/84) l E.7 -Measurement of Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity (REV 0,5/85)

E.8 . Verification of UFTR Negative Void Coefficient of Reactivity (REV 0.12/85) - .

F. SECURITY PLAN RESPONSE PROCEDURES (Reactor Safeguards Material, Disposition Restricted)

F.1 Physical Security Controls (Confidential, execpt for UFTR Form SOP-F.1A) ;

u F.2 Bomb Threat (Confidential, except for UFTR Form SOP-F.2A)

F.3 Theft of (or Threat of the 'Iheft of) Special Nuclear Material (Confidential, ,

except for UFTR Form SOP-F3A) !

, F.4 Civil Disorder (Confidential)

F.5 _ Fire or Explosion (Confidential) .

F.6 Industrial Sabotage (Confidential)

F.7 . Security Procedure Controls (REV 1,9/S4)

F.8 UFTR Safeguards Reporting Requirements (REV 0,9/87) i'

. VI 15 m_____--____________.__e r _.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- ' y - s--N -

tm- a"~*

, TABG VI-3 ,

I ,

TAB 2 H g - (Revision 1)

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING RFJCI1OR' TENTA'ITVE MHRFIONE SCHEDUm FOR HEU TO LEU FUEL CONVERSION -

o ;

I. Date of Receipt of Funding (expected) September 30,1987 ;

II. Date of Full Submittal to NRC of Application to i Convert (including'all necessary documents) October,1989 1 III. Date of NRC Order to Convert

' February,1990 :

A. Date of Completion of All Plans to Convert September,1990 ;

B. Date of Receipt of LEU Fuel November,1990

. 1

-g C. Date of Completion of Any Final Tests

E With HEU Fuel January,19ol' [

D. Date'of Removal of HEU Fuel March, -1991 2 I E. . Date of Shipment of HEU Fuel June,1991 3

ll F. Date of Loading of LEU Fuel August,1991 G. .Date of Completion of Determination ofInitial Operational Parameters With LEU (Sta-tup and-

.- Power Operations Testing) October,1991

^

~ H. Date of Submittal of Report to NRC/ DOE Summarizing New Operational Characteristics and Comparing With Predictions of Safety Aitalysis January,1992 3- .

VI-16

- +-S=+ +n- - * , - -

...m. ,- ;

VII. RADIOACITVERRIRASES AND ENVIRONMENTALSURVRIH ANCE This chapter summarizes the gaseous, liquid and solid radioactive releases from the UFTR facility for this re x>rting year. Argon-41 is the primary gaseous release while there were several low level 1: quid releases and no solid releases at all. Finally, this chapter includes a summary of personnel exposures at the UFTR facility. !

A. Gaseous (Argon-41)

The gaseous releases from the UFTR Facility for this reporting year are summarized -

in Table VII-1. The basis for the gaseous activity release values is indicated in Table VII-l

2. These values are obtained by periodic measurements of stack concentrations as required I by Technical Specifications following UFTR SOP E.6, " Argon-41 Concentration Measure-men 6' I -

l TABLE VII-1 UFTR GASEOUS RELEASE

SUMMARY

I Month Release Monthlv Average Concentration September,1988 5.952 x 10* gCi/ Month 1.833 x 10gCi/ml October,1988 4.743 x 108 pCi/ Month 1.461 x 10'*pCi/mi

. November,1988 16.28 x 108 pCl/ Month '4.998 x 10gCi/ml December,1988 15.93 x 10'gCi/ Month 4.9% x 10pCi/ml L January,1989 13.02 x 10e gCi/ Month 3.934 x 10gCi/ml February,1980 10.48 x 108 pCi/ Month 3.167 x 10gCi/ml 8

March,1989 12.78 x 10 gCi/ Month 3.862 x 10yCi/ml April,1989. 1430 x 10* gCi/ Month 4.326 x 10pCi/ml May,1989 3.576 x 108 gCi/ Month 1.082 x 10gCi/mi June,1989 8.978 x 108 pCl/ Month 2.715 x 10gCi/mi l July,1989 10.78 x 108 gCi/ Month 3.261 x 10gCi/ml August,1989 23.32 x 10'gCi/ Month 7.459 x 15'gCi/ml TOTAL ARGON-41 Releases for the Reporting Year: 140.14 Ci ig YEAkLY AVERAGE ARGON-41 Release Concentration: 3.584 x 10yCi/ml

u . .

VII-1

1 I '

UFTR Technical Specifications require avera e Argon-41 release concentration l averaged over a month to be less than 4.0 x 10 pCifml. All such monthly values are w below this limiting release concentration and the average monthly release concentration of 3.584 x W Ci/ml is more than an order of magnitude below the limiting value.

,l Total releases and average monthly concentrations are based upon periodic Argon-41 i release concentration measurements made at equilibrium full power (100 kw) conditions. l I The results for these experimental measurements used in calculating the gaseous Ar-41 release data are summarized in Table VII 2. Entries in Table VII 2 represent the average i

results of analyses of a minimum of three (3) samples per UFTR SOP E.6 using a new gas l

,g I

standard obtamed in response to NRC Inspection Report No. 88 01.

i

! TABLE VII 2 1

I UFTR GASEOUS RELEASE DATA BASE l Releases Per Unit Instantaneous Argon-41 Month Enercy Generation Concentration at Full Power!

Sept.1988 - Dec.1988 5005.21 uCi/kw.hr 11.1 x 10 Ci/mi j Jan.1989 - Jul.1989 4735.48 uCi/kw hr 10.3 x 10 pCi/ml j August,1989 4689.38 uCl/kw.hr 10.8 x 10 pCi/ml '

1. Valuca wed to auure average release concentration meets 10 CFR 20 limits.

B. Liould Waste From the UFTR/ Nuclear Sciences Comolex There were approximately 305,700 liters discharged from the liquid waste holdup tanks to the campus sanitary sewage system during this reporting period. For this period there '

were batch discharges as summarized in Table VII 3.

The effluent discharged into the holding tanks comes from twenty laboratories within the Nuclear Sciences Center, the Univerdty Radiation Control Office as well as the UFTR complex. The UFTR normally releases approximately 1 hier of primary coolant per week to the holdup tanks as waste from primary coolant sampling. A total of 52 weekly sampes were taken during this reporting year; the average activity for these coolant samples was 2.55 x 10 pCi/ml (e) and 8.23 x 10 uCi/ml (a) for this 1988-1989 reporting period.

The only other primary coolant samples released to the holding tanks during the

,l reporting year included approximately 189 liters (50 gallons) on 21 September 1988 and 151 lu liters (40 gaHans) on 12 June 1989 as the result of rupture disk breakages. The activity of ll VII 2

1 I the released material was 3.0 x 10 pCi/ml(#n) and 1.% x 10 pCi/ml .(a) on 21 ;

. September 1988 and 3.0 x 10 pCi/ml(#1) and 6.94 x 10 Ci/ml (a) on 21 June 1989. !

.I -

1 There were no other primary coolant samples removed for analysis or as a result of j maintenance during the 19881989 reporting period, i I

, TABLE VII-3 I I

8 L10UID WASTE RELEASES FROM HOL. DUP TANKS Volume Concentration 2 Total Release

-I- Date (liters) (uCi/ml) Activity (uCl) R 1

December 30,1988 78,900 3.03 x 10 2.4 8

February 7,1989 69,000 < LLD(1,12 x 10) 0.13 'i June 16,1989 78,900 < LLD(3.30 x 10'2') 0.148 8

August 15,1989 78.900 <LLD(1.20 x 10 20) 0.15 8

1.- T1.c reported activity concentrations are based on gross beta activity determinations. Activity levels for tritium 3 and carbon.14 are not included in the gross beta values; however, these concentrations were determined i J - separately to be less than 0.2% of the allowable MPC for release to the sanitary sewer system for all releases.

2. The activity was determined for these entries using the LLD, Actual activity released in these cases is less than this value.

C. SoHd Waste Shinned Offsite f

The UFTR facility made no shipments of solid waste during this reporting year. The last shipment was made on Dacember 10,1985 through ADCO Services, Inc. and consisted on one 55 gallon drum containing radioactive scrap metal parts as well as paper, plastic

- and other reactor-related waste materials associated primarily with the work to restore proper functioning of the UFTR control blade ririve systems. The activity of the shipment -

. was approximately 3.125 curies with the activity primarily attributed to Cobalt 60. Though a similar shipment of two drums was planned for the last reporting year and again this .

reporting year to remove all the products resulting from the control blade restoration and

-E ;

E maintenance project of 19851986, this shipment has not occurred to date. No date has been ,

- set for this next shipment though it is expected to occur sometime during the next reporting

; year as waste from several other small maintenance projects is consolidated for shipment to clear space for waste expected to be generated during the UFTR conversion from HEU-to-LEU fuel expected within 3-4 years. The new Standard Operating Procedure UFTR SOP-D.5, "UFTR Reactor Waste Shipments: Preparations and Transfer" generated in the 1986-

. 1987 reporting year will be used to assure proper control of the waste for shipment as will guidance provided in several NRC Information Notices published in the last several years. '

VII 3 ,

__m.m._ --- __i__________i_________________.___________-_. _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - - - - - - -.-.w.w-' ce-- , . - - - - , - - - - - - +4

I

'I D. Environ =ntal Monitoring ,

The UFTR inaintains continuous film badge as well as thermoluminescent dosimeter !

l_ monitoring (new for the 19821983 reporting period)in areas adjacent to and in the vicinity !

of the UFTR complex. The badge and TLD cumulative total 6 for this reporting period l from September,1988 through August,1989 are summarized in Table VII-4. As can be j noted, the values for the 12 months of the reporting period are either minimal or very low j

~

in all cases. Overall, the values in Table VII-4 show minimal environmental radiation dose L

from UFTR operations. All but one of the yearly exposures recorded via TLD's are zero I while those recorded via film badges are also essentially background to within the accuracy of the monitoring instruments.

TABLE VII 4 1

! CUMULATIVE RESULE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONrrORING FOR THE 1988 - 1989 REPORTING YEAR Film Badge Total Yearly Total Yearly Designation Exoosure (mrem)2 TLD's8 Exoosure (mrem)8 I A1 A2 4 60 80 2 1

4 M

90 I

l I

i M M 3 M !

A4 M 4 M AS M 5 M i A6 M l

60 6 A7 50 7 M ]

8 M 1 9 M i 10 M '

11 M l 12 M l l

I

1. Film badge yearly exposures include contributicca from September,1988 as well as March, July and August, 1989 as indicated in Table VII.5.

2. The first seven TLD's are attached adjacent to the corresponding numbered film badge monitors.

1

3. M denotes minimal (<10 mrem) exposure; film badges normally receive about 30 mrem d -ing film badge i handling and processing.

4. Located at the top of the UITR stack.

Film badge yearly exposures include contributions from September,1988 and from March, l July and August,1989. The accummulation of exposure recorded by month of exposure on the film badges is presented in Table VII 5. Film badges normally receive about 30 mrem during film badge handling and processing which makes readings of 10-30 mrem relatively uncertain and probably close to minimal in all cases. As a result the values recorded in VII-4

I

.I Table VII.5 as well as all the minimal values are considered to support the conclusion of I minimal environmental exposures from UFTR operation, especially since the four montns !

with exposure as recorded in Table VII 5 represent the full spectrum of monthly UFTR I energy generation running from September,1988 with 1486.6 kw-brs generated at the low '

end to August,1989 with 4972.8 kw hrs generated with the sixth and seventh highest values of energy generation being recorded in March and July,1989 respectively. Clearly the l occasional exposures registered above minimal are not correlated with UFTR energy generation.

Based on Revision 3 of the UFTR Safety Analysis Report submitted to the NRC on

-a May 29,1987, plans are to eliminate some of the film badges currently used since the l thermoluminescent dosimeters are preferred and were intended to replace the film badges l previously referenced in the Safety Analysis Report. No action has been taken on this !

change to date; current plans are to implement this change beginning in January,1990. .

TABLE VII-5 i l ENVIRONMENTALBADGE EXPOSURE RECORD BY MONTH OF EXPOSURE Film Badge Total Sept,1988 March,1989 July,1989 August,1989 Designation2 Exnosure Exoosure Exoosure Exoosure Exoosure I A1 A2 60 80 M

10 30 30 30 20 10 10 A3 M M M M M I A4 AS M

M M

M A6 60 M 20 30 10 g- A7 50 M 20 20 10

1. TLD #2 recorded 90 mR for the year; 30 mR in November 1988,30 mR in April,1989 and 30 mR in July.

E. Personal Radiation Exoosure Maintenance and experimental work requiring significant exposure commitment was I minimized during this 1988-1989 reporting year as in the 19871988 reporting year following previous years when major maintenance in the core area involved relatively large dose commitments. UFTR-associated personnel exposures greater than minimum detectable during the reporting period are summarized in Table VII-6.

Table VII 6 lists the permanent badge exposures recorded above background for the reporting year for personnel employed directly at the UFTR. These exposures are summarized for all badged UFTR personnel on an annual basis with no further breakdown because all exposures with one exception are well below 100 mrem. In addition, the largest i

l VII 5

.4

]

l 4

l I '

exposures are generally spread over several months primarily for support of experimental, research and educational projects as well as maintenance and surveillance projects.

TABW VII4 l 1

ANNUAL UFTR PERSONNEL EXPOSURE 1 Permanent Exposure !

Name Position (mrem)8 8 W.G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities /SRO M !

P.M. Whaley Senior Reactor Operator / Acting Reactor Manager 130 !

H. Gogun Senior Reactor Operator / Technician M G.W. Fogle Reactor Operator 70 l

J R. Piciullo Senior Reactor Operator M J. McClain Student Reactor Operator Trainee / Technician M M. Wachtel Student Reactor Operator Trainee /RO 30 l l

J. Godfrey Student Radiation Control / Facility Technician M

I 1. Severalindividuals from the Radiation Control Office personnel periodically assigned to support UFTR.

related activitics and receiving a non. minimal dose for the year are listed in Table VII 7.

2. M denotes minimal (<10 mrem) meaning background only.

3. All exposures reported here are for l'im badge readings for deep /whole body exposure.

Exposures for University of Florida personnel employed by the Radiation Co.itrol Office where the exposure is attributed to radiation control work associated with UFTR activities was mimmal with no individual receiving a recorded exposure above background in excess of 11 mrem whole body dose. Several individuals from the )

l, Radiation Control Office periodically assigned to support UFTR-related activities and special projects received a non minimal dose for the year as listed in Table VII 7.

l i

1 Finally one other small project included in Table VII-7 accounts for small additional l exposures. One individual from the Radiation Control Office received ~7 mR whole body dose during a semiannual leak check (S 8) surveillance of the Sb Be neutron

~g source on March 4,1989. As delineated in Table VII 7, several individuals from .

Radiation Control Office personnel received a non minimal dose due to involvement in I supporting UFTR reluted activities but all are at a very low dose level.

Vil 6 )

r i

TABW VH-7 EXPOSURE RECORDS FOR RADIATION CONTROL PERSONNEL m

3 _ Personnel Date Fmosure Comments 9

John McClain 3/14/89 7 mR Radiation Control, I.eak Check Sb Be Source Under RWP 89-2-1 William Wabbersen 3/21/89 7 mR Radiation Control Activity

=

_! William Wabbersen 6/30/89 11 mR Radiation Control Activity Michelle Hazelden 6/30/89 5 mR Radiation Control Activity Louis Nichols 7/6/89 5 mR Radiation Control Activity ag For visitors, students, or other non permanent UFTR personnel, a few individuals had a non zero dosimeter exposure measurement above 0.5% of the allowable quarterly

limit for 6 the entire reporting period as indicated on Table VII 8. In most cases, the 3 values of one up to ten mrem exposures recorded for self reading pocket dosimeters are g attributed to uncertainty in reading the devices or having dropped the dosimeter as noted in Table Vll-8. In all cases in Table VII-8, dosimeters monitoring other students g participating in the same exercise or project indicated no exposure. Additionally, in all y- cases except for radiation control support activities, and Mr. Won Choi's experimental work on March 15, 1989, the projects did not involve any activities that would be expected to generate significant radiation exposure.

-I Table VII-9 is a summary of film badge exposures recorded for non permanent UFTR personnel during the reporting year. Most of the personnel are students or cooperative work student trainees from Central Florida Community College. The five personnel labeled with asterisks are the only personnel who would have been employed as workers in activities expected to resulted in a measureable exposure. The four CFCC

l cooperative work trainees could receive a small exposure so these readings are probably legitimate. Similarly the one student engaged in the reactor operations laboratory course could have received asmall exposure. However, the last exposure recorded for

,f the FFFS summer student has been evaluated as 0 mR since the badge was read with a two month delay and no appropriate control badge; in addition the individual, 4 activities were strictly controlled to assure no exposure.

i it should be noted that tours of reactor facilities are strictly controlled and limited during periods when the reactor is running or ports are open or other opportunities for significant radiation fields are present. Therefore, the lack of

_]-

significant visitor exposure is expected and in agreement with ALARA guidelines.

VII-7

I I TABLEVH4 i

)

EXPOSURE RECORDS FOR NON-PERMANENT UFTR PERSONNEL AS RECORDEDON PROMPT-READINGDOSIME'IERS i Personnell Date F m nenre Comments I Patricia Yawn' 9/15/88 3/10 mR Evaluated as O mR, since rest of group (7) had 0 mR with no work activity to support exposure since this activity involved cleaning a C-14 s!!ghtly I contaminated glove box in the Nuclear i Science Center. 1 l

Ed Styre* 9/22/88 OFFSCALE Evaluated as 0 mR, since rest of group {

(7) had O mR with no activity to support i exposure. The September film badge !

report indicated no dose. j l

Mike Ashby 2/14/89 13 mR Dropped dosimeter; evaluated as 0 tI mR, since Lab partner had 0 mR.

Won Choi 3/15/89 8 raR Experimeter conducting plasma kinetics measurements; March film badge report j l

indicates no dose, j 1

l John Houck 4/24/89 14 mR Evaluated as 0 mR, since dosimeter l

was dropped prior to reactor operation; April film b dge report indicates no ,

dose, j i .

Carrol Gibson* 5/30/89 6/2 mR Readings for rest ofgroup(5 had 0 mR, i(.

i 3 had 1 mR and I had 2 mR); evaluated as 0 mR since June film badge report 1

I indicates no dose.

Robert Rosselet* 6/12/89 - 7 mR One other of group had 7 mR,8 others i L had 0. The June film badge report l L indicates no dose and there 1 was no activity to support receiving a dose. 1 i

Earl Reeds' 6/12/89 7 mR Rest of group (8) had 0 mR except R. 1 Rosselet; the June film badge report !

indicates no dose.

1. The Gve persons labeled with asterisks were involved in cooperative work tralaing exercises at the UFTR as part of their depee requirements for Central Florida Community College. All were issued film !

bedges which hdicated mmimal (zero) exposure for their stay at the facility. l l

VII-8 !

I d TABLE VII-9 I FILM BADGE EXPOSURE RECORDS OF NON-PERMANENT UFTR PERSONNEL I .

-- Name! Exposure Month of Fmosure Activity

John Houck 10 mR 9/88 Spent Fuel Pit Liner Materials Testing

- Brian Schoxnayder 10 mR - 9/88 CFCC CoopTraining Patty White 10 mR 9/88 CFCC Coop Training r -

Patricia Yawn 10 mR 9/88 CFCCCoop Training l M.A. Miller 10 mR 1/89 CFCCCoop Training John McClain* 10 mR 2/89 UFTR Support Work Richard Ratner

10 mR 2/89 NAA Lab Personnel Glen Kalber 10 mR 3/89 Reactor Operations Laboratory Student i

l- John M41ain* 30 mR 3/89 Radiation Control Work Robert Hanrahan* 30 mR 4/89 NAA Lab Personnel Adrian Carli 20 mR 7/89 FFFS Summer I Program Student (Evaluated as 0 mR)

1. The four different rsons labeled with asterisks are the only personnel in this list who would have been

' involved in work oc vities expected possibly to result in a measurable exposure.

j t lI l .

VII 9

I VIII. EDUCA'I1ON, RESEARCH AND 'IRAINING UTILIZATION 1

NOTE: The participating students are indicated with an *. Other participants are faculty .

or staff members of the University of Florida, unless specifically designated )

otherwise. A " indicates those students working on theses, projects or i dissertations.

1

I'

Radiation Protection Training - Reactor Operations Based Radiation Protection Health Physics Cooperative Work Training Program, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Rawls (CFCC), S.

MacKenzie (CFCC), D.L Munroe, H. Norton, J. McClain, H. Hicks *, R. Hanrahan*, R.

Ratner, Reactor Staff. ,

l l A set of reactor operations based radiation protection health physics cooperative work l l training exercises have been developed to meet the cooperative work needs of Radiation l l Protection Technology students at Central Florida Community College (CFCC). Three (3) l l3 of these courses were conducted during this reporting year for a total of 13 students with l

3 great success. Students who take these courses are well suited to work as radiation control l l technicians and health physics assistants at nuclear power plants. The exercises are also l

'3 extremely adaptable and some of them have been upgraded and used in the undergraduate 1

3 and graduate health physics laboratory and other courses at the University of Florida. The L

development of this course and its subsequent presentation to CFCC students has been partially supported under the UFTR DOE Reactor Sharing Program and has been a valuable resource in the continuing effort to sustain and even increase reactor utilization. '

During thic reporting year considerable staff effort was devoted to improving the materials used for metal of the exercises. I

! j l

UFTR Reactor Ooerations With NAA and Neutron Radiocraohic Lab Exercises - Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, Dr. B. Abbott, P.M. Whaley, R. Rawls/S. MacKenzie (CFCC), Dr. M. Lombardi l (HCC), Dr. R. Mitchell (FSC), S. Buell (SAHS), R. Gorson (SAHS), E. MacMillan (HHS),

R. Allen (UCHS), J. Owen (FAU), R. Ratner *, A. Caril", R. Hanrahan*, H. Hicks", 1 M. Stanley", Reactor Staff.

I l- Mini-courses (including lectures, tours, demonstrations, reactor operations, NAA of unknown and standard samples, demonstrations of neutron radiography, etc.) have been 1 Ll developed and presented as part of the UFTR DOE Reactor Sharing Program to provide practical reactor operations, radiation protection and health physics training as well as NAA I

laboratory experience and neutron radiography for groups of students from Central Florida

'l Community College Radiation Protection Technology Program, Santa Fe Community College Nuclear Medicine Technology / Radiologic Programs, the Hillsborough Community College Nuclear Medicine / Allied Health Technology programs, the Florida Atlantic University's Society of Physics Students, and the Florida Southern College Society of Physics Students. Other participants in all or part of such mini courses this year include a Hilliard !

High School Physics class, two Union County High School Science students, a St. Augustine !

High School Physics class, as well as individual students from Hilliard High School and I. Boca Raton Community High School.

VIII-1

I !

I Reactor Operations bhorntory (ENU 5176L) - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, P.M. Whaley, Reactor ,

Staff I Students in the reactor operations course spend about two and a half hours weekly at the i controls of the UFTR performing reactor operations exercises under supervision oflicensed !

reactor operators. The lab encompasses training in reactivity manipulations, reactor checkouts, operating procedures, standard and abnormal operations and applicable regulations. Specific exercises directed toward development of understanding of light water ]

power reactor behavior are included as this laboratory course serves as basic preparation l for students entering the utility industry in the test and startup area as well as plant operations. When this course is not interrupted by outages, students usually perform a series of exercises designed to assure them of conducting 10 meaningful startups and 10 shutdowns l along with a broad usage of reactivity manipulations. A special effort is made to correlate i UFTR exercises with the classroom lectures on various aspects of LWR operations. This !

stand alone lab course was offered three (3) times during the current reporting year as a l separately approved course, l 1

Basic Physics Research Development of Pulsed Ionization Chamber Plasma Kinetics l Diagnostics Capabilities - Dr. W.H. Ellis, Dr. E.T. Dugan, Dr. I. Maya, Dr. J. Appelbaum, l W.Y. Choi*, J.S. Parks *, J. Monroe *, A. Ferrari'.

Experimental measurements have been made with several pulsed ionization chamber designs to determine plasma kinetic properties including first and second order recombina-tion coefficients as well as ion number densities in a fissioning plasma. Earlier work was confined to helium plasmas. During the current year work was extended to heated chambers ;

containing higher pressures of UFcHe mixtures and then with redesigned chambers

~

j containing only helium. During the upcoming year, a series of more advanced experiments

!u are planned to support development of a multiprobe plasma diagnostic system which will allow the generation of plasmas in UFrHe gas /MHD working fluids and facilitate measurement of various temperature dependent design parameters as functions of gas

pressure and temperature for nuclear-generated plasmas. This work is ongoing as part of the Innovative Nuclear Space Power Institute (INSPI) research efforts in the Strategic Defense Initiative for supporting the development of space nuclear power generation lg sources.

Service to Florida Foundation of Future Scientists - Lectures, Tours and Demonstrations l of Reactor Operations - Dr. B. Abbott, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. G. R. E Aon, Prof. J. S.

Tulenko, R. Hanrahan*, D. Roberts', M. Jara*, J. Houck', UFFR Staff.

A series of lectures, tours and demonstrations of reactor operations and nuclear facility capabilities are conducted for a large number of student and faculty participants in the

!E annual Junior Science, Engineering and Humanities Symposium jointly sponsored each

E winter by the Florida Foundation of Future Scientists and the University of Florida for promising high school juniors and their teachers. This year the same service was extended for participant groups of high school students in the FFFS Summer Research Program.

Reactor Operations Demonstrations - Reactor Operations Instruction and Demonstrations for Various Courses Within the University of Florida - Dr. W G. Vernetson, Reactor Staff.

4 VIII-2

. - . , - . n .~n au--- --,-.s -- - -.a -a .- _. . ,

'Ihe following courses are identified where one or in many cases as many as four or five i classes or labs in a course would be conducted using the UFTR facilito. All would begin with the lecture, tour and reactor operations and facility capabilities demonstration with later classes, where needed, devoted to more detailed lab instruction in one or more areas !

3 of UFTR facility operations such as instrumentation demonstrations, radiation surveys, !

ia neutron activation analysis using the rabbit system for short irradiations or the vertical ports for longer irradiations as well as neutron radiography applications and methodology ,

evaluation. Courses include:

Course Imtructor(s) j ENU-3002 Dr. G.S. Roessler/Dr. W.G. Vernetson j ENU-4103 Dr. A.M. Jacobs i ENV-4201/5206 Dr. C.E. Roessler I a ENU 4505L Dr. W.H. Ellis/Dr. G.R. Dalton /Dr. W.G. Vernetson )

ll ENU-4612L Dr. W.H. Ellis )

i ENU-4905 Dr. W.G. Vernetson i ENU-4932 Dr. W.S. Properzio/Dr. W.E. Bolch I ENU 5005 CHS-5110 Dr. G.R. Dalton Dr. M.L Muga

, CHS 5110L Dr. K. Williams l ENU 5615L Dr. W.H. Ellis

! FAS 6128 Dr. B. Purdy ENV-6211 Dr. C.E. Roessler

!l l

ENV-6211L ENV-6932 Dr. C.E. Roessler/Dr. W.E. Bolch Dr. W.S. Properzio/Dr. W.E. Bolch ENU 6935 Prof. J.S. Tulenko/Dr. W.G. Vernetson ENU-6936 Dr. E.E. Carroll /Dr. W.G. Vernetson Radiation Protection and Control Health Physics Practice (ENV-4932/6932) - Dr. W.E.

,l Bolch, Dr. W.S. Properzio, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D.L Munroe, H. Norton, J. McClain, W.

Wabbersen*, Reactor Staff.

l This course provides students in various disciplines with practical experience in radiation protection and control such as performing radiation surveys in and around the UFTR cell and environs, calibrating area radiation monitors, determining effluent levels, setting up emergency exercises, etc. These exercises also serve as training for potential radiation control technicians, most of whom are students in Nuclear or Environmental Engineering Sciences. Much of the utivity occurred in this category during this reporting period.

Nuclear Engineering Imboratorv I (ENU-4505L) - Dr. W.H. Ellis, Dr. G.R. Dalton, Dr.

W.G. Vernetson, P.M. Whaley, J. Monroe *, K. Basu', Reactor Staff.

ENU-4505L is the nuclear engineering laboratory course for undergraduate senior level students in Nuclear Engineering Sciences. The UFTR is used for a variety of exercises and experiments, including NAA exercises, radiation dose measurements, measurement of induced. radioactivity, fod irradiations, flux mapping, evaluation of hot channel factors, calorimetry, blade worth reactivity calibration, determination of diffusion length in graphite and 1/M approach to-critical as well as a variety of other reactor physics parameter

. determinations and operational measurements.

VIII 3

L 1

[ :

Nuclear Nineerino imhorntorv II (ENU-6516L) - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. W.H. Ellis, c P.M. Whaley, Reactor Staff. i ENU 6516L is the nuclear engineering laboratory course for graduate students in Nuclear Engineering Sciences. The UFTR is used for a variety of exercises and experiments including foil irradiations for coincidence counting,1/M approach to-critical, neutron / gam- i ma flux and energy mapping, neutron activation analysis, inverse reactor kinetics 1 measurements, control blade reactivity worth measurements and demonstration of the ,

J 3

neutron radiography methodology and comparison with x ray radiography methodology for r comparison of capabilities and neutron activation analysis for trace element identification L as well as evaluation and generation of in house standards used for NAA. :

1 NAA Research Neutron Activation Analysis of Seagrass Community Components Dr.

F L G. Chiu (UWF), Dr. Ranga Rao (UWF), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D. Morton" (UWF), V.

Venkataktishnan*, R. Hanrahan*, Reactor Staff. j

~-

L Various seagrass communities have been exposed to used drilling fluids off the gulf coast of northwest Florida.The components of one of these communities consisting of sediments, r

water sampler grasses, shells and shellfish meats have been subjected to long and short irradiations to monitor the uptake of certain heavy metals, principally barium and I

chromium, suitable for detection using neutron activation analysis. Reactor time for this work was supported under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program. Results to date are encouraging with work concluded except for a possibility that some samples will need to be g reirradiated to support a paper and/or proposal submittal.

! NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of a Seagrass Bed Exposed to Drilling Fluids l Dr. C.N. D'Asaro (UWF), Dr. T. Duke (UWF), Dr. D. Weber (EPA), R. Montgomery"

,I (UWF), S. Macauley* (UWF), D. Morton* (UWF), V. Venkatakrishnan*, R. Hanrahan*,

)

l l H. Hicks *, M. Jara*, R. Ratner *, Reactor Staff. I This project has involved moving cores from a seagra bed to the laboratory where they l are exposed to various drilling fluids to determine possible effects on seagrass community structure and biomass. Barium, chromium and scandium are present in the drilling fluids and are known to impact negatively on animals and plants. However, knowing the correct l_ concentrations of these metals is critical in order to correlate observed effects with metal ,

concentrations to explain the phenomena involved. Use of the UFTR facility for the irradiation and subsequent NAA provides an effective means of performing the chemical l analyses. Reactor time for this work was partially supported by the University of West Florida through a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency in the 1986-87 reporting year with the remainder supported under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program and the UFTR facility. The external support was provided as an outgrowth of research during the 1985-1986 year supported as a seed project under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program with all subsequent work supported by Reactor Sharing and the UFTR for completion of the work during the current reporting year. A number of publications have derived from this work already.

NAA Resench - Neutron Activation Analysis of Archeological Seashells - Dr. T. Stocker (UWF), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Hanrahan*, UFTR Staff.

,I.

VIII-4

(;

l

)

Under the Reactor Sharing Program, neutron activation antlysis is being applied to various l archeological seashell specimens ranging up to nearly 1800 years old. Since shells were used as trade items by the American Indians in the Eastern half of the United States, the '

j research is directed toward identifying enough trace element constituents in these seashells l to develop a method for determining Indian trade routes in the Eastera United States. This research is in its early stages on a time available basis with no work performed during the current reporting year. Some information on this type of work may be available from a l European reactor facility which has been requested to supply reprints of their work with no response to date.

I NAA Research - Trace Element Evaluation of Seashells - Dr. Guy Prentice, Dr. G.S.

Roessler, R. Hanrahan*, UFTR Staff. '

Neutron activation analysis is being applied to identify the trace element composition of environmental seashells from various locations in Florida. The purpose of this research is to determine whether a set of key trace elements (nuclides) can be iden:ified as signatures for shells from various locations. The work continues as its purpose is being reevaluated and the work progresses on a time available basis with no irradiations performed during the current reporting year, i

NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of Estuary Sediments - Dr. R. Byrne (USF- ;

St. Petersburg), Dr. G. Smith (USF St. Petersburg), R. Hanrahan*, R. Ratner *, H. Hicks *,

UFTR Staff.

Under the DOE Reactor Sharing Grant, Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) l has been applied to estuary sediments from the Tampa Bay region of Florida to determine i and quantify the spatial distributing of various rare earth metals. Work to date has included i preparato:y work to map the spatial variation of the flux in the UFTR vertical ports and

.g another exercise to determine accurate values for the cadmiurn ratios for ports to be used E in the activations for this research in a special graphite sample hcider manufactured for this

)

project. These are key parameters because of the resonance absorption characteristics of :

g many rare earth metals Virgin te00n tube sample holders were demonstrated to withs: and

3 extended reactor runs and have been analyzed for impurity content using NAA. During the !

current year one extended irradiation and analysis was performed with several relatively }

short irradiations performed to confirm previous results. The final remaining samples in this l project were irradiated and analyzed during the s.irrent reporting year with a proposal to obtain external support to follow W.e are hopeful that external funds will be suppih:d to :

support this work.

Investigation of Properties of Fuel Storage _ Pit Liners Dr. S. Turner, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, 1

g J. Wallis, P.M. Whaley, R. Robinson *, J. Heuck', H. Hicks', M. Jara*, UFTR Staff.

E Power reactor high density spent fuel racks typically are separated by sheet metal enclosed !

boron silicide material. This project is intended to define parameters that may be used to ll 1

gauge radiation damage and incipient failure (including significant absorber lots via teaching ,

as well as mechanical failure) in boraflex. Specific procedures applied to date involve relative density measurements, modulus of rupture tests, neutron transmissica coefilcient 1

)l- measurements and neutron radiography of used as well as unused liner scmph frotn utility spent fuel pools with consistent results obtained to date. Sensitivity analyses conducted on

)

I VIII-5 I

I !

I graded thickness boraflex samples demonstrated clearly that the radiographic analysis of these samples is both generally consistent and sufficiently sensitive to support additional long term utilization of the UFTR radiography facility for this work.

I NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of Volcanic Rock Samples - Dr. M. DeFant (USF Tampa), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, H. Hicks *, R. Hanrahan*, UFTR Staff.

Under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program Neutron Activation Analysis is being applied to various volcanic rock samples from widely dispersed geographic locations rangmg from I Central America to both North and South America. The research is directed toward !

I identifying the proper standards as well as effective irradiation and decay schemes to facilitate trace element identification of sufficient numbers of different rare earth nuclides including uranium and thorium in the volcanic rock samples. During the last reporting year l

I i

this project involved expanded investigations of irradiation and decay schemes to provide l a larger data base of identifiable rare earth nuclides to support a proposal for future l funding. Eventually, information on geologic origins and rare earth mineral deposits is expected as NAA on such samples continues periodically. During the current reporting year I this work has been in a hiatus awaiting further input with some evaluative analysis i I performed on standards for this work as efforts are underway to certify certain USGS i l Standards in house to facilitate this work.

l Optical Physics Research Analysis of Radiation Induced Lattice Disturbances in Dielectric I

Materials - Dr. H. Plendl (FSU), Dr. P. Gielisse (FSU/FAMU), J. Rink * (FSU), R. '

Hanrahan*, H. Hicks *, R. Ratner *, Reactor Staff.

l Various types and cuts of dielectric materials, primarily topaz, have been subjected to various thermal and fast neutron fluences in the UFTR as well as gamma ray fluences in the UFTR shield tank facility using a specially designed container. Similar irradiations with 3 MeV electrons are being performed at Florida State University. The objective of this work is to analyze the response of the material lattice to the disturbances caused by the various components of the radiation field to include thermal neutrons, fast neutrons and gamma rays. Comparisons are being made with previous results of irradiations with X rays I. and electrons and with thermal neutrons, all in isolation. The purpose of the work is to gain a comprehensive understanding of how certain dielectrics such as Al (SO4 )(OH) and similar lattices response to different types of radiation in the generation and destruction of color

I p

sites. During this reporting year the work has involved extensive large sample and small sample irradiations in a cadmium covered experimental facility developed and characterized l . specifically for insertion in the UFTR shield tank. Subsequently, there have been further L small sample irradiations in the shield tank as well as extensive fast neutron irradiation of l

cadmium-covered samples in the UFTR vertical ports after removal from the shield tank facility. This work is expected to continue during the upcoming year.

i I Cutakov Noise Detector Development - Development of a Detector of Reactor Core PeGurbations - Dr. E.E. Carroll, Prof. GJ. Schoessow, Reactor Staff.

I i A mw tesign Cerenkov detector is being developed and tested using the prompt gamma radiation deriving from the reactor core. The detector is being located in the thermal l .

column entrance port with shielding plugs removed and substitut:d by lithiated paraffin plugs made for the purpose of reducing the neutron flux to acceptable values when the l

Vill 6

I reactor is running at power. Samples of the lithiated paraffin plugs were irradiated to assure that no unexpected activation products would be formed were the plugs to see a large flux. Other work has involved spectroscopic analysis of the gamma energies emitted from the thermal column where the detector will be placed. 'Ibe Cerenkov detector has

!E been moved at various angles for various power levels with the ultimate objective to j3 develop a detector system that is able to detect reactor perturbations at various power levels through large thicknesses of material by means of high-energy, penetrating, fission-

g. produced gamma rays. The work to date has produced a doctoral dissertation and results 3 are encouragmg. This project has been in abeyance during the last two years but is expected to be restarted in the upcoming year, as part of the design element in the graduate level

a nuclear engineering laboratory course,

,g UFTR Core Redesign O FU Pronram) - Thermal hydraulic Analysis for Core Redesign -

Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. E.T. Dugan, Professor GJ. Schoessow, P.M. Whaley, M. Salih",

Reactor Staff..

g As part of the DOE LEU Conversion Program, thermal hydraulle analysis related to ig' redesign of the UFTR core using SPERT fuel rods has been performed. Computer analysis has been undertaken to evaluate the UFTR/SPERT design for steady-state conditions as ,

well as transients arising in response to a step insertion of reactivity, a loss of coolant flow, ;

and a loss-of-coolant accident. Results to date indicate required safety margins and transient I

response conditions can be maintained with the UFTR/SPERT core design. Subsequently, using support provided by DOE to analyze conversion alternatives, the decision has been

l l

i made to go with SPERT fuel because of load considerations with thermal hydraulic related conversion analysis expected to be much simpler. Analysis in this area is expected to l continue in the next year to provide mput to support the license amendment for the HEU l

I to LEU conversion. l N AA Research - Determination of Sodium Concentrations in DNA Samples - Dr. Randolph I Rill (FSU - Chemistry Dept.), T. Streclecl!a" (FSU), P.M. Whaley, R. Hanrahan*, UFTR Staff.

l NAA is bein;; used to characterize and quantify the uptake of sodium by DNA to investigate phase transitions in concentrated solutions that use sodium as a counter-ion.

Since the concentration of sodium is the major determinant of phase transition behavior, the determination of sodium concentration in DNA samples is being used to describe the liquid crystalline phases of DNA and the anomalous behavior of DNA phase transitions at l low ionic strengths. The high purity of the sample as well as the element of interest (sodium) makes the determination of sodium concentration in these samples ideal candidates for NAA using short term irradiations via the rabbit system. This work has been l

supported by a federal research grant and has been completed. There is expectation of continued research support in this area subject to approval of a new proposal as several l c,aality publications are in progress or already published.

g UFTR Risk Assessment - Dr. W.G. Vernetson.

A preliminary probabilistic risk assessment of the University of Florida Training Reactor

'E has been conducted. This project has determined an estimate of the probability of 5 . occurrence of a set of postulated maximum credible UFTR accidents. The results will be

i I

used to show that the UFTR poses no significant risk to the general population and environment around the UFTR and has demonstrated proficiency in PRA analyses as addition 91 PRA projects are undertaken. Specifically, research is continuing to obtain better data for the maximum credible accidents and extend the methodology to examine risk I associated with less serious but higher probability UFTR related accidents or failures of key systems such as safety channels. This project is relatively inactive at present awaiting further student interest; it should be noted that NRC has shown some interest in this area which l may lead to its reactivation. j NAA Research - Trace Elements in Coal Slurry Samples - Dr. R.A. Llewellyn (UCF, Dept. !

of Physics), R. Vargas* (UCF), R. Hanrahan*, Reactor Staff, i This project involves determining the concentrations of trace metals and uranium decay )

l products taken from coal slurry settling ponds. The specific elements of interest are routinely mined from coal deposits; the potential for increased yields per energy used in I l

recovery is being tested, with NAA providing an assessment of the trace element concentration for specified settling pond sites. The first stage of this project has been

.I completed with the potential for future commercial studies well established. Reactor time for this work was supported under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program; it is hoped that external support will be available during the upcoming year.

NAA Research - Determination of Chlorine and Titanium Concentrations in Quartz - G.P. l LaTorre (GelTech), Dr. C. Balaban (Advanced Materials Research Company), R. !

Hanrahan*, R. Ratner *, Reactor Staff. )

Different manufacturing techriques and parameters are used to reduce the concentration I of chlorine, titanium and fluorine in quartz glass (silica) produced for optical uses. I Compositional characterization of the glass is based on the titanium / silicon ratio. The high '

l purity of the sample matrix and the elements of interest (Cl. Ti, F) for this project mal.e NAA ideally suited to determine the concentrations of chlorine, titanium and more recently l fluorine remaining after various processing stages. The fluorine concentration determination is especially important since the facility expects to be able to perform this analysis despite the short half-life (11 seconds) of the activated product (F-20). Funding for this service work is supplied through the Advanced Materials Research Center. 1 NAA Research - Trial Irradiation of Phosphate for Rare Earth Element and Other Element Characterization - Dr. P. Gielisse (FAMU/FSU, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering), Dr. R.

Clark (FSU, Chemistry Dept.), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Hanrahan*, R. Ratner *, H. Hicks *,

I Reactor Staff.

Various phosphate ore samples are being assessed using NAA to identify significant concentrations of rare earth elements for potential mining applications. Interest in this project is spurred by the large mined phosphate deposits in Florida as well as the recent advances in superconductors involving various composite materials containing rare earth elements. Analysis is in progress for short and long duration irradiations. Reactor time for this work has primarily been supported under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program along with one small external grant as data is being generated to support a proposal for more external funding.

I.

VIII-8

NAA Research - Biogeochemical Assessment of the Pollard, Alabama Oil Field Dr. G.

I Cwick (UWF/SEMSU), Dr. M. Bishop (UWEC), D. Boudreau* (UWF), R. Hanrahan*, II.

Hicks', R. Ratner *, M. Jara*, Reactor Staff.

The biogehhemical analysis of soil and vegetation samples is the first phase of a three-phase study to determine if hypothesized biogeochemical anomalies occur in the Pollard, Alabama oil field and can be correlated to tonal anomalies in satellite imaging that corresponds to hydrocarbon deposits. Potentially abnormal concentrations of selected elements characteristic of hydrocarbon seepage from underground deposits could produce identifiable stress. type conditions or growth reactions in the vegetation. These environmen-tal characteristics may be correlated to satellite mapping of hydrocarbon production

potential. Environmental vegetative anomalies detected by neutron activation analysis will be correlated to image anomalies. This work is initially supported under the DOE Reactor I Sharing Program as data is being generated to support a proposal for external funding. At year's end we are nearing completion of analysis on Phase 1 samples with Phase 2 samples beginning to be prepared for irradiation and analysis with a small amount of external support to support sample processing promised but not yet received.

Plasma Physics Studies - High Temperature Pulsed Ion Chamber Plasma Diagnostic Reactor Shield Tank Irradiation Facility Design - Dr. W.H. Ellis, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. I. Maya, Dr. J. Appelbaum, Prof. G.J. Schoessow, P.M. Whaley, W.Y. Choi', A. Ferrari*, Reactor Staff.

In support of the design of a high temperature irradiation facility for pulsed ion chamber diagnostic experiments to be performed in the shield tank of the UFTR, flux mapping was y carried out to determine the general radiation flux profile in the shield tank, both gamma J and neutron, and locate the highest usable flux field therein, a determining factor for placement of the irradiation facility.. Gold foils and thermoluminescent dosimeters were used for neutron and gamma field flux mapping with additional measurements in progress to better define the flux distribution. When completed, the shield tank facility will provide a more flexible pulsed ion chamber plasma diagnostic experimental arrangement to facilitate loading and unloading of experimental chambers to allow non-disruptive temporary storage without complete removal between experiments. This arrangement will promote multiple simultaneous usages of the UFTR and reduce personnel exposure. The design and

. operation of the facility is in support of plasma diagnostic studies asscciated with establishing the engineering design parameters for gaseous core reactor /MHD converter space power systems currently under study by the Innovative Nuclear Space Power Institute (INSPI) and remains in the design stage.

- I_ Plasma Physics Studies Multiprobe PIC Diagnostic Studies of Nuclear Enhanced MHD Plasmas - Dr. W.H. Ellis, Dr. I. Maya, Dr. J. Appelbaum, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, W.Y.

Chol", J. Monroe *, A. Ferrari*, J.S. Park *,

The objective of this research is to investigate those characteristics of nuclear generated plasmas that are related to critical engineering design parameters for gas-core reac-tor /MHD converter systems. The work will be directed toward the development of n experimental system to measure the various design parameters as functions of temperature

j. .

and pressure for nuclear generated plasmas to include the nuclear ionization source rate, plasma loss coefficients, and electrical conductivity. Ionization chambers filled with VIII 9

I candidate reactor fuel gas /MHD working fluids will be pinced into the UFTR equipped with a high temperature heater system, with gas purge, plasma diagnostics, power, control and environmental monitoring systems. Measurements will be performed over a range of temperature and pressure conditions and for a range of reactor power levels (and nuclear ionization source intensities) and gas compositions in support of the University of Florida I INSPI space power research program and a doctoral dissertation.

Gaseous Release Determinatiam - Evaluation of UFTR Gaseous Release Determination I Methodology Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. W.E. Bolch, P.M. Whaley, B. Murray", R.

Hanrahan*, Reactor Staff.

l In response to USNRC Region II Inspection Report No. 50-83/88-01, the methodology for determining Argon-41 concentrations in UFTR stack effluent has been evaluated and modified as necessary to assure accuracy of the measurement. The evaluation and I modifications have been addressed as part of a graduate student masters thesis project completed this year. The principle modification involves the use of a low density (simulated gas geometry), multiple nuclide source to provide calibration data for the concentration I determination procedure. Work completed during the previous reporting year included obtaining a properly sized source for usage in the semiannual gaseous release surveillance measurement of the Argon-41 stack concentration. Evaluations of the concentration l determination using the new source as compared to the concentration determination using the previously utilized resin cast Cobalt-60 source were made to show consistency; in addition, extensive measurements were made on the effects of variation of sample geometry, l density and volume in the concentration determination. This work has now been completed to provide a better confidence in the accuracy of Argon-41 stack release measurements and the methodology used. Results of this work were used to recalculate the reported results l of Argon-41 concentrations made in August,1988 of the last reporting year (See Appendix J for corrected page of 19871988 Annual Report).

UFTR Core Redesign (LEU Program) Neutronics Analysis for UFTR Core Redesign -

'I Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. E.T. Dugan, P.M. Whaley, M. Salih", R. DeMartino".

I As part of the DOE Low Enriched Uranium Conversion Program, investigations have been performed on the UFTR to determine the feasibility and desirability of replacing the 93%

enriched MTR plate type fuel with 4.8% enriched, cylindrical SPERT fuel pins. For this redesign, the only permanent structural modification had been hoped to be the insertion of new grid assemblies into existing fuel boxes. Acceptable neutronic criteria (possible k.tr range, maximum flux and degree of undermoderation) have been determined using industry.

I accepted, 4 group cross sections in one, two and three-dimensional diffusion theory calculations of k.rr, flux profiles, power peaking factors and coefficients of reactivity. First order perturbation calculations have been used to determine key kinetic parameters.

I Neutronic results to date indicate that the UFTR/SPERT core redesign can be accommodated to meet requisite neutonic criteria with an actual increase in peak thermal flux levels which would be very useful. The UFTR received a DOE grant to support this analysis in December,1987 to begin with a decision on whether to go with SPERT or plate-I- type fuel. After the necessary nondestructive examination of the pins, other mechanical factors as well as required large core structural changes influenced the design. Therefore, during this year the decision has been made to use plate fuel based on other considerations, I, especially core physical loading and minimization of core changes. Neutronics analysis to Vill 10

s k

~ ~

date on this project has involved obtaining and setting up the code methodology to be

utilized in producing the licensing package for submission to USNRC.

~

UFTR Operator Training and Reaunlifiention . Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Reactor Staff.

Lectures and hands-on operations on the reactor are necessary to license operators for the UFTR. the requalification program establishes a required number of startups, weekly checks, daily checks, drills, practical exercises and lectures for each operator. Operator I participation is mandatory in order to maintain assurance of proficiency levels and to be able to demonstrate the requisite. operator skills. Operational proficiency is assured by written and oral tests as well as observed practical exercises. The same program in an I accelerated mode is used to train UFTR reactor operator license candidates. Current 10 CFR Part 55 (Operator Licenses) requirements have been considered in continuing the a UFTR Operator Requalification and Recertification Training Program. Two trainees were involved m the initial training this year; one dropped out to take a position elsewhere, while l

the other sat for the RO License last year but failed one section of the exam which required further training this year; the failed section was retaken and passed early in the j reporting year. This individual was cerrified as an RO from December 20,1988. Since at least one and probably two part time operators will be lost during the next year, one or more part t!me operators will need to be trained during the upcoming reporting year.

I Reactor Operations - Utility SRO Certification Operations - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, P.M.

Whaley, J. Smith (FPC), Greg Halnon (FPC), Reactor Staff.

I Periodically, utilities with nuclear power plants require certification operations to be performed by management personnel for SRO certification. This operations usage involves j the performance of a set of meaningful reactor operations exercises involving significant reactivity manipulations plus a minimum of 10 startups and 10 shutdowns. This usap was provided for one Florida Power Corporation (FPC) Crystal River Plant Operations supervisor SRO candidate during this reporting year.

Gaseous Release Determinations Argon-41 Stack Measurements - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. W.E. Bolch, P.M. Whaley, D.L Munroe, B. Murray*, R. Hanrahan*, W. Wabbersen",

R. Reynolds', Reactor Staff.

A Cobalt 60 resin cast Standard Sample matrix had been applied in standardized controlled measurements of radioactivity (Ar-41) in stack effluent using a detailed standard operating procedure (UFTR SOP E.6: Argon-41 Concentration measurement) developed and approved as the best practicable method of evaluation of Ar-41 releases from the UFTR facility as required by UFTR Technical Specifications on Effluents Surveillance in Section 4.2.4, Paragraph (2). During the previous year a low density simulated gas geometry source was incorporated to replace the Cobalt 60 standard. Application of this SOP has continued to obtain a statistically significant number of data points and eventually to investigate the effect of variable core vent flow on total Ar-41 releases. Other commitments during this reporting year have limited progress on this project; nevertheless, a source well has been installed in the stack to facilitate better calibration of the stack monitor detector at levels up to the 4000 eps limit of the monitor with another project in progress at year's end to design and install a variable position calibration control device, along with revising the stack monitor calibrat!on methodology, which will further facilitate performance of the quarterly VIII 11

I !

l I

stack monitor calibration and assure the reliability of its results. With the expectation of j eventually raising power levels plus the decreased Ar-41 release limit in the proposed 10 CFR 20 revision, this work to charteterize the variable affecting stack release concentrations will be moved to a higher priority in the next reporting year if a student can ,

~l be found to work on it, especially since other work to characterize the Argon-41 '

measurement methodology was concluded successfully at the end of this reporting year in i response to NRC Inspection Report No. 50-83/88-01.

~

NAA.Research Neutron Activation Arialysis for Characterization of Various NBS and i USGS Standards Dr. W.G. Vernetsen, Dr. W.H. Ellis, P.M. Whaley, H. Hicks *, R.

Hanrahan*, R. Ratner *, M. Jara", Reactor Staff.

Various NBS (now NIST) standard reference source samples in various dilutions are being irradiated for neutron activation analysis to determine the NAA lower limit of detection for ]

the various standards and to identify and benchmark secondary standards based on NBS noncertified concentration values and USGS (US Geological Survey) standards obtained from USGS. This work formed the basis for training a high school student in research methods under the 1986 and again under the 1988 Florida Foundation of Future Scientists Summer High School Student Research Program as we!! as for a student senior project

E during the previous year. Limited results have been obtained to date. Although good

E reports in limited meas have been prepared by the students in each case, the work has t continued to progress slowly as various reliable secondary standards are to be developed I to facilitate NAA on samples where multiple trace element concentrations are to be i determined. This ongoing project provides data on which to base generating irradiation and !

decay schemes targeted to measure concentrations of specific elements in NIST (NBS) ,

3 Standards to assure certified comparisons with unknown samples are available. Werk to l 5 date is progressing well; considerable additional effort is required to benchmark uncertified contents of Mandards. Work on this project was partially supported via the DOE Reactor Sharing Program for a high school student research and science fair project and has l provided a valuable research experience. During the current year, staff work on this project ,

has been slow; however, a very successful senior proSct was accomplished to identify and I I label over two dozen unlabeled standard foils to pnMe more versatility in the laboratory inventory of foils to be used for flux mappig as well as neutron beam energy characterizction.

l NAA Reccarch - Implementation of Upgraded NAA Laboratory Facilities - Dr. W.O.

Vernetson, Dr. W.H. Ellis, Dr. GJ. Schoessow, R. Hanrahan*, R. Ratner *, M. Wachtel",

H. Hicks", P.M. Whalcy.

The implementation of the two PC based ORTEC analyzers with spectrum analysis software in the 1986-1987 reporting year caused the decision to be made not to upgrade an ND66 MCA since the NAA Lab now has state-of-the-art analytical capabilities for performing spectrum analysis and subsequent neutron activation analysis. The new larger standardized size sample holder is for the rabbit system has also worked well to facilitate ease and speed of handling samples for NAA. During the last year manual cell isolation valves were installed to provide a backmp means to assure samples could not be inserted until allowed by the reactor operator. Earlier in the last year a post accident core vent sampling connection was also installed in the rabbit system lines to provide for sampling of cell air l- radioactivity levels prior to venting during abnormal or emergency operating conditions per Vill 12

% UFTR Tech Spec Amendment No.17. In the current year, Improvements have included the full implementation of sample drying and standards controlled em'ironment facilities

- along with a slide presentation on instrumental neutron activation analysis including the L theory of neutron activation analysis, preparation of samples before and after irradiation, control of contamination, use of the rabbit facility and vertical ports for sample activation, and use of the PC based analyzers and ORTEC software package to count samples and

[ perform the analysis for trace element determinations. The most important facility innovation during the present year is the design of an automatic sample counter for one detector system in the NAA 1.aboratory. At year's end, this device is under construction

[ with completion of fabrication and implementation for test experiments expected in Fall, 1989.

~

Neutron Radiography Facility Development Determination of Beam Characteristics and i Optimization of Facility Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. A.M. Jacobs, Dr. S. Nagler, Dr. H. Van Rmsvelt, P.M. Whaley". H. Hicks", L Morales, UFTR Staff.

3 Thermal column and East West throughport facilities were evaluated for radiation beam B characteristics with the thermal column being determined optimal as a neutron radiography facility. A precollimator/collimator and drift tube assembly have been completed, a film cassette and developing facility have been implemented. The beam configuration I modifications have neared completion with certifiable Class I (ANSI Standard E545) neutron radiographs nearly possible. Following final beam configuration development, a shield and shutter assembly will be developed. Checks to determine possibility of producing I real time radiographs in several configurations were unsuccessful in the 19861987 reporting year. One funded and several other repeated applications were performed in the 1987-1987 reporting year. During the 19871988 year extensive work to optimize and characterize 1 the facility parameters was also accomplished along with completion of darkroom facilities for radiograph development including the loan of an autoprocessor which has not been much used. However, this developmental project is ongoing and a major enterprise for I utilizing staff time and design efforts in the past reporting year as we attempt to obtain a reliable and easily implemented system. During the present year, an improved semi-permanent shielding cavity, as well as a movable table to position objects to be radiographed along with movable shield block, have been implemented to facilitate use of the neutron radiography facility with reduced installation time and reliable results for service usages as well as laboratory projects. One service usage clearly demonstrated and documented the sensitivity of the system using graded thicknesses of boraflex material.

Several papers have also been presented on this facility with a thesis nearing completion.

During the upcoming year plans remain in place to improve and characterize beam characteristics and design permanent shielding to allow reduction of time to take radiographs (possibly reaching characteristics necessary for real time radiography).

Basic Physics Research - Neutron Irradiation of Geologic Quartz Dr. A. Odom (FSU), Dr.

W.G. Vernetson, J. Rink", R. Hanrahan*, H. Hicks *, UFTR Staff.

The UFTR has been used to provide a source for fission of uranium traces in geologic quartz to produce Frankel defects in the quartz crystal structure. This irradiation simulates the effects of exposure to cosmic radiation. The defects are then being analyzed to provide a calibration for dating techniques. During the current year NAA research has been continued at an active rate to quantify U, Th and other rare earth constituents of the Vill 13

I geologic quartz samples with emphasis on U, Th and Sm because of their long term radioactive effects. This geosynchronometry work has been quite successful with the awarding of a doctorate based on this work which is expected to continue in the next year in somewhat different areas.

NAA Research Characterization of the Trace Element Content in Mt. St. Helen's Ash -

Dr. W.G. Vernetson, P.M. Whaley, R. Hanrahan*, J. Musgrove" (EHS).

Neutron Activation Analysis is being applied to quantify the elemental constituents in ash obtained from the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helen's volcano. The objective of this work is i to identify potentially hazardous elemental constituents and to determine if useful quantities of any elements such as rare earths were emitted. Various irradiation and decay schemes have been implemented to obtain partial, but as yet inconchisive and incomplete, data on I the elemental constituents of the ash. Work on this project was partially supported via the DOE Reactor Sharing Program for a high school student research and science fair project and provided a valuable research experience for the student involved who made several 3 presentations on his work during the year along with several visits to the facility to obtain lu more supporting information and documentation for his presentations.

LEU Conversion Special SNM 1050 SPERT Iww Enriched Fuel Conversion Efforts Dr.

W.G. VErnetson, P.M. Whaley, Reactor Staff.

lE Extensive efforts were conducted to consider qualifying the SPERT fuel for use in the I

.E UFTR Prior work on the SPERT fuel licensed under SNM-1050 has included extensive !

decontamination work, radiation and contamination surveys, property surveys, SNM 1050 l facility modifications, fire alarm system maintenance / upgrade, LEU SPERT fuel movement lI i

to a newly decontaminated room, security system modification and NRC Radiation Safety Inspection. During this reporting year complete pin by pin identification number l verification for fuel inventory and visual inspection was completed along with neutron radiography of sufficient pins to fuel the UFTR for LEU conversion and allow refueling and I relicensing of the SNM 1050 facility for storage only. Efforts in this area have also included .

Ia relicensing the SNM-1050 facility for " storage only" and concluded with a determination not 3 to use the SPERT fuel for conversion with several possibilities available for shipping some or all of the SPERT fuel to other facilities for experimental uses.

l Facility Characterization - Determination of UFTR Beam Ports / Thermal Column Neutron Spectra - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. W.H. Ellis, P.M. Whaley, R. Hanrahan, J. Monroe *, K.

Basu', UFTR Staff.

The neutron spectra at the thermal column, South beam port and South-West beam port are being determined to provide information for irradiation services. When the irradiation and analysis protocol is established, variation in beam parameters will be attempted to determine the viability of beam variations. This project was initiated by a participant in the 1987 Summer Student Research Program and was continued in the next reporting year to provide the basis for a science fair entry. The work to date is progressing well as several

laboratory exercises have contributed to the data base for this project as has the work on designing a prompt gamma analysis facility addressed in the next entry.

VIII-14

l I !

i Facilides Develoomsg - Characterization of UFTR Beam Port ' Neutron Flux for Implementation of a Prompt Gamma Analysis Facility Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *,

A. Carli" (HHS), UFTR Staff.

The potential for installation of a prompt gamma analysis facility at the UFTR is being i evaluated. The irradiation characteristics are being determined for selected beam ports, initially determining the neutron spectrum for the south beam port as part of a special ;

project for a student participating in the Florida Foundation for Future Scientists summer l program. This project also included a preliminary design for the prompt gamma analysis ;

system empSasizmg its complementary features when used with NAA for trace element i analysis of samples. Work is expected to continue in the next reporting period to design l and implement a prompt gamma analysis system to complement the existing Neutron Activation Analysis (Delayed Gamma) facility and capabilities.

1 Electronic Material Irradiation Research - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Prof. J.S. Tulenko, Dr. D.E. l 4

Hintenlang, P.M. Whaley, R. Hanrahan*, UFTR Staff. I j

A series of measurements in the previous year provided evaluation of experimental ports for specific irradiations such as irradiation of electronic components and neutron !

transmission measurements as well as data for future irradiations. Current plans are to subject various hardened electronic components to various neutron and gamma fields to

, characterize their resistance to damage. This applied materials research has been planned to support the University of Ficrida DOE Robotics Program; however, several service usages may be possible when this work is documented as is planned via a student research ;

project in the upcoming year. ;

B CHS 5510/5510L Dr. K. Williams, Dr. M.L Muga, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, P.M. Whaley, R.

!E Hanrahan*, C. Crawford".

Radiochemistry laboratory project exercises of halflife determination, neutron activation analysis of silver and aluminum in metal samples and on identification of chlorine ira chemical samples have been performed using both an Nal scaler system and a HPGe lE spectrum analysis system. Data from this set of class exercises has been used to develop g a standardized UFTR exercise. Extensive work has continued into the present year via a project in the CHS 5510L bboratory to identify the trace element concentrations in powdered milk to provide the basis for a yearly repeatable laboratory experiment. This work was brought to a point during the reporting year so that trace element analysis of milk .

samples using the UFTR and NAA Laboratory constitutes a regular part of the radiochemistry course curriculum.

Detector Calibration - Calibration of Gaseous Detector Counting systems - Dr. I. Maya, Dr.

W.H. Ellis, Dr. R.T. Schneider, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, J. Vitall', W.Y. Choi', D. Miko",

( Reactor Staff.

Two gaseous detectors (He3 and BF ) and associated electronic instrumentation to be used in monitoring gaseous core reactor experiments at the Los Alamos National I.aboratory were checked out and calibrated using the UFTR horizontal ports. Both detector systems

.g were benchmarked and then utilized successfully to perform neutronics measurements at (B ,

the Los Alamos gaseous core experimental facility in New Mexico in support of gaseous i VIII 15

i I

I core research supported by the Innovative Nuclear Space Power Institute at the University of Florida.

NAA Research - Seed Project - NAA of Biological Samples (Fish Tissue, Human Hair and ,

Teeth) for Mercury - Dr. W.H. Ellis, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, J. Monroe *, J. Nefflen".

I Mercury contamination of Florida fish populations at levels of significant conce rn have been i

noted in various areas, especially in and around Lake Okeechobee at the Northern end of I the Everglades. This seed project was undertaken to determine the viability ofinstrumental NAA for determination of mercury content in human and fish tissue samples. Work to date has emphasized fish samples from Lake Okeechobee as well as various human hair and l- several teeth samples. Results to date have confirmed mercury contamination in fish samples and are favorable for further work. This research is expected to continue as interest in quantifying mercury contamination in the Florida ecosystems continues, especially in the Suwanee River Basm in North Florida. A former high school student researcher has also indicated interest in this area and may continue this work as a high school honors ,

project.

NAA Research - Rare Earth and Trace Element Geochemistry of Sedimentary Mineral !

Deposits - Dr. A. Dabous (FSU), Dr. A. Odom (FEU), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Hanrahan*,

R. Ratner *, H. Hicks', M. Jara', Reactor Staff.

Egyptian beach sands and other sedimentary deposits are being cvaluated for their rare I earth element as well as other trace element content. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the potential for commercial extraction of rare earth elements for possible use in advanced superconductor materials. Related objectives are to determine the origin of the I' sedimentary deposits under study and then evaluate the geochemical environment based upon the processes that would lead to the deposition of specific elements. This project is partially supported by the DOE Reactor Sharing Grant with a proposal for further support j expected to be generated in the upcoming year as preliminary results of analysis on some a samples will be available early in the next reporting year.

I NAA Research - Citrus Product Trace Element Analysis for Source Identification - Dr.

W.G. Vernetson, R. Hanrahan', R. Ratner', Mark Wood" (BRCHS). .

The existence of various combinations and concentrations of trace elements has been proposed as a potential means of identifying the source of citrus products. Specifically, trace element analysis using NAA has been applied to several frozen orange juice products I for which the citrus was grown in different locations, some in South America, some in California and some in Florida. Qualitative results to date, as part of a high school science fair project, are encouraging but inconclusive primarily because of sample preparation I problems and unavailability of optimal standards. Therefore, more work is planned to develop a consistent sample preparation methodology as well as NAA protocol to allow generation of reliable quantitative results for possible identification of citrus sources, t

VIII 16

+

Reactor Research Noise Data Acquisition and Autocorrelation Analysis - Dr. E.E. Carroll, l J. Riverola", Reactor Staff.

As part of a special graduate level instrumentation project (ENU-6937), a student j- performed reactor noise experiments in the UFTR. This project was successfully

. completed, with reasor.able measurements of various kinetic parameters made via autocorrelation of neutron noise data obtained using a gaseous detector inserted into the

.g- UFTR vertical portsand associated amplifier and data storage instrumentation, Research Support - Irradiation to Generate Radioactive Source - Dr. L Muga, S. Caldwell*,

Z. Milosevich".

A radioactive low energy gamma and beta emitting source was required to calibrate a coincidence counting instrumentation system to be used for evaluation of a mass

spectrometer being developed and tested as part of Depsrtment of Chemistry doctoral

.- dissertation work. Irra&stion of Iodine 127 was accomplished using the UFTR to generate sufficient ledine 128 to supply the required calibration source. This project was completed in the reporting period.

!g IETR Newsletter Publication of Newsletter for Nonpower Reactor Community - W.G.

E Vetnetson, R. Moser*, R.DeMartino*.

iE Limited financial support was made available beginning Februmy,1989 to support a

E newsletter to be published quarterly or niore often as the need arises to provide better continuing communications among TRTR members and between the regulators and TRTR

3 member:. The newsletter will also provide a forum for discussing key issues affecting the 5 membership of the National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors (TRTR). All NRC regional offices and the main NRC offices in Bethesda are supplying results of inspection reports and othcr documents for newsletter input to assure better communications between the regulators and the TRTR membership. In addition to the original proposal and a letter requesting material for the newsletter ntwo na.wsletters were published during the reporting year with the system working well to produce quarterly !ssues during the upcoming year.

facilities Development - Evaluation of Alternate Vertical Port Shield Plugs - W.G.

I Vernetson, P.N. Whaley, UFTR Staff.

Several sets of shield plugs for the center and east vertical ports were constructed and

.I . tested to reduce the vertical port streaming radiation dose rates. The final design was tested as an experiment and, following proof of adequate performance, was installed in the UFTR center and east vertical ports to reduce streaming radiatiori levels at full power.

I Facilities Support - Identification of Unknown Foil Standards - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, P.M.

Whaley, M. Jara", R Hanrahan*.

A group of neutron activation foils witt.out proper identification had accumulated at tiie UFTR, principally from laboratory exercise usage in the Nuclear Science Center followed fl by return of the decayed foils to the NAA Laboratory without proper labeling and identification. This project was intended to restore the usefulness of the foils by providing VIII 17

t I

I proper identification. This project was conducted as a special design project by a Nuclear

Engineering Scienec studentt in addition to identifying and proprly labeling the foil standards, the project involved establishing a standard methodology for performing such foil L identification which has the potential to be used for further identification of unknowns as the need arises.

Mnintenance Activity - Activities to Correct Failures and Restore the UFTR to Operable y

g Status - Dr. W.G. V Vernetson, P.M. Whaley, K. Fawcett, UFTR Staff.

Routine corrective maintenance on UFTR systems and facilities occupied a considerable

, E amount of time during the reporting period. Although there were no single large E maintenance projects requiring significant effort during the reporting year, there were multiple failures and sigmficant contributions to forced unavailability during the reponing I year due to corrective and preventive maintenance performed on the console two pen recorder and on the radiation monitoring system. Both the two pen recorder and the radiation monitoring and recording system were overhauled extensively with several

[

I preventive maintenance surveillances implemented to prevent the loss of scheduled facility usages, especially educational groups traveling from relatively distant cities. During the upcoming year an effort is planned to obtain funds and replace all or part of these two systems to prevent lost usage opportunities. Overall the facility was well served by I mamtenance from the previous year (especially the extensive outages for control blade drive unit maintenance and Safety Channel 1 power level monitoring following a failure) as

. g availability did reach over 87.6% despite over a week of scheduled unavailability to paint 3 the reactor control room and cell for the first time in over 20 years.

L i

I I

I

[ .

a I VIII 18 i

IX. THESIS, PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS OF -

- WORK RELATED TO THE USE AND OPERATION OF THE UFTR

1. "UFTR Airborne Radioactivity Monitoring,* J.A. Byers, Special Senior Health Physi. ..

Project, ENV-4905 (D.L Munroe), April 18,1988 (omitted from 1987-1988 rept rt).

}

-B 2. " Fall Semester Reactor Operations Laboratory Manual for ENU 5176 L,* W.G Vernetson and P.M. Whaley, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences University of Flodda, September,1988.

3. " Pulsed lonization Chamber Measurement for Fissile Plasma Characterization," W.H.

l Ellis, Oral Presentation to the Directorate, Innovative Nucicar Space Power Institute (INSPI), Gainesville, FL, September,1988.

E I 4. " Development of Neutron Radiography Capabilities at the University of Florida Training Reactor," W.G. Vernetson and P.M. Whaley, presentation on October 5, 1988 at the TRTR Annual Meeting held in Newport, Oregon October 4 6,1988.

I

5. " Status of HEU/ LEU C(mversion for the University of Florida Training Reactor,"

W.G. Vernetson, presentation on October 5,1988 at the TRTR Annual Meeting held in Newport, Oregon, October 4 6, 1988.

g 6. " Emergency Plan for the University of Florida Trainmg Reactor - Revision 3," W.G.

3 Vernetson, official submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October 17,1988

7. " General Resignation of UFTR Core Region Constituents and Oeometry, M. Salih and W.G. Vernetson, report of work related to DOE Grant DE-FG05 8RER75387, supplied to RERTR Group at Argonne National Laboratory, Department of Nuclear I Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl., October 21,1988.

"Pelsed lon Chamber Diagnostic Studies of Nuclear Seeded MHD Plasmas

W.H.

I 8.

Ellis, M.J. Baumgartner, W.Y. Choi, J.l. Monroe and J.S. Park, INSPI FR UF-012.

University of Florida Innovative Nuclear Space Power Institute (INSPI) Final Report I for period September 12, 1985 to September 30, 1988, in preparation to meet reporting requirements of Contract #DNA001-85-C-0329 with the Department of the Air Force, Wright Patterson Air Force Base through the Innovative Science and I Technology Office, Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October,1988.

l 9. " Computer-Based On Line Pulsed Ionization Chamber Diagnostic Systems,' W.Y.

Choi, J.S. Park, M.J. Baumgartner and W.H. Ellis, haps. Amer. Nucl. Soc., 52, p.

306, October,1988

~

I IX-1

. _. . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ R

' 10. " Computer Based On Line Pulsed Ionization Chamber Diagnostic Systems," W.H.

I Ellis, presentation on November 3,1988 at the Winter Meeting of the American Nuclear Society held in Washington, D.C., October 30 November 3,1988.

~

11. " Pulsed Ion Chamber Diagnostic Studies of Nuclear Seeded MHD Plasmas,* W.H.

Ellis, presentation to the First Meeting on Ultrahlgh Temperature Reactor and I Energy Conversion Research Program at INSP1, University of Florida. Washington, D.C., November,1988.

I 12. " Final Report - Temperature Monitoring System Failure,* W.G. Vernetson, official submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, F1, November 14, 1988.

13- " Initial Results of Activation Analysis of Geological Quartz Samples (Set 1) for Uranium, 'Ihorium and Samarium," R. Hanrahan and W.G. _Vernetson, NAA I Laboratory Report to A.L. Odum (FSU) and J. Rink (FSU), Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FI, November 14, 1988.

i I 14. " Final Report Failure to Check Control Blade Interlocks per SOP A.2," W.G.

Vernetson, official submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, F1, November 17,1988, 1

15. " Comparison of NBS (NIST) Standards Using Neutron Activation Analysis," J.C.

Nefflen, abstract submitted for consideration for student speaker's competition at the l 26th Annual Junior Science, Engineering and Humanities Symposium held Febraary 4-6,1989 at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, November,1988. ;

l 16. " Funding to Support a TRTR Community Newsletter," W.G. Vernetson, proposal submitted to EG&G Idaho, Inc.. Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, !

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, November,1988 (funded effective January 1, l 1989). ;

17. " Annual Progress Report of the University of Florida Training Reactor for I. September 1,1937 August 31,1988 Reporting Year," W.G. Vernetson, November, 1988.

18. " Analysis of Trace Elements in Coal Sluny Samples," R. Hanrahan and W.G.

Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Final Report to Dr. R. Llewellyn (UCF), Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FI, December, 1988.

19. " Optimization of the UFTR Neutron Radiography Facility,* H. Hicks, ENU-4905 Special Senior Project Repcrt, Department of Nuclear Engineering %ences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FI, December 1S,1988.

{

IX-2 I

ll u

; 20. Policy for Transfer of Radioactive Materials Between the UFTR-56 Ucense and the .

University. of Florida 356-1 State License," W.G. Vernetson and D.L. Munroe, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 19,1988.

p

21. " Interim Report on Results of Trace Element Analysis Using NAA for Biochemical g Assessment of Samples from Pollard, Alabama Oil Field," R. Han ahan and W.G.

E vernetson, NAA Laboratory Report to G. Cwick (UWF), Department of Nuclear p Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FI, December,20,1985

' 22. " Final Report on the Fall Semester Reactor Operations-Based Health Ptym [

Cooperative - Work Training Program," conducted for . Radiation . Protema

~

Technology Program Students at Central Florida Community College, W.G.

Vernetson, Department'of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, L, Gainesville, FL, December,1988.

I 23. " Gas Core Reams - Neutronics, Energetics and Magnetohydrodynamics," Volumes

!. 1-4, S. Anghale, E.T. Dugan, ALal., Final Report for Sephtmber,1985 - September 1988, submitted to the Department of the Air Force, INSPI-FR-UF-88-001, Innovative Nuclear Space Power Institute (INSPI), University of Florida, December, ,

l 1988.

24. " Gel Silica Optics," L.L Hency, S.H. Wang and J.L Nogues, (Chapter in L Multifunctional Materials), Society for Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers,828, p.76,1988.

w -

25. " Spring Semester Reactor Operations Laboratory Manual for ENU 51761," W.G. l L(, Vernetson -and P.M. Whaley, Department of Fuclear Engineering Sciences, l

4 University of Florida, Guinesville, FL, January,1989.

r

26. '" Final Results of Activation Analysis of Geological Quartz Samples (Set 1) for Uranium, Thorium and Samarium," R. Hanrahan and W.G. Vernetson, NAA-g> Laboratory report to A.L Odum (FSU) and J. Rink (FSU), Department of Nuclear E Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 13, 1989.

27.- " Finding Trace Element Components of Soil in the North Florida Region Using l

Trace Element Analysis," J. M. Stanley, Student Research Paper submitted to the m Florida Junior Academy of Sciences, Union County High School, Lake Butler, FL, January 16,1989.

28. " Reactor Usage Operations Program for Flo-ida Power Corporation Degreed

{5: Engineers," W.G. Vernetson, UFTR SRO Certification Operations Manual for Reactor Usage on January 18-20,1989, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, n University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January,1989. -

I .

4- IX-3 L

l 29.

1

" Reactor Usage ' Operations Program for Florida Power Corporation Degreed I Engineers," W.G. Vernetson, Final Report on SRO Certification Operations, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FI, January 25,1989.

j I 30. " Natural Accumulation of Schottky-Frenkel Defects: Implications for a Quart:

i l

Geochronometer," WJ. Rink and A.L Odum, Geolorv,12, No.1, p. 55, January, . ,

1989.'

/

31. . " Emergency Plan for the University of Florida Training Reactor - Revision 4," W.G.

l Vernetson, official submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, February 2,1989.

f'

' 32. "Information and Description of the University of Florida Training Reactor Facility,"

W.G. Vernetson, presentation on February 6,1989 for participants in The 26th

E; Annual Junior Science, Engineering and Humanities Symposium held at the J University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, February 5-7,1989. j

33. " Neutron Activation Analysis for Trace Elements in Volcanic Ash from Mt. St.

)I; '

- Helens Volcanic Eruption," J.J. Musgrove, Competitive Oral Presentation on FFFS SSTP Summer Research Project made on February 7,- 1989 at The 26th-Annual :

Junior Science, Engineering and Humanities Symposium held at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, February 5-7,1989.

34. "Results and Evaluation of Repeated NAA on Seagrass Communities Samples," R.

,z Hanrahan and W.G. Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Report to Dr, C. D'Asaro (UWF) and Dr. D. Weber (EPA), Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, February 13,1989.

35. " Final Report - Failure to Notify of Significan: Change in Administration," W.G.

Vernetson, official submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, February 24,1989.

l. 36. " Neutron Activation Analysis for Trace Elements in Volcanic Ash from Mt. St.

- Helsns Volcanic Eruption," JJ. Musgrove, Science Fair Project Based Upon 1988 Summer Research Prograra, Escambia High School, Escambia County, FL, February, 1989.

37. " Comparison of NBS Standards Using Neutron Activation Analysis," J.C. Nefflen, ol ' . Glades Central High School Science Fair Project Based Upon 1988 Summer

, Research Program, Glades Central High School, Glades County, FL, February,1989.

38. "SNM-1050 License Renewal (Storage Only) Docket No. 70-1%8," W.G. Vernetson, ,

official license submittal to USNRC requesting SNM-1050 License Renewal, Department of Nuclear Engineering Science, University of Florida Gainesville, FL,

Merch 1,1989 (Approved).

IX-4 I

, _ _ ~ .

g? 39. " Neutron Activation Analysis Presentation Package - An Oral / Visual Instruction -

Ei . Package for NAA Laboratory Visitors and Users," H. Hicks and W.G. Vernetson, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 2,1989.

40. "Results and Evaluation of Repeated NAA on Seagrass Communities Samples," R.

i ; Hanrahan and W.G. Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Report to Dr. C. D'Asaro (UWF) t and Dr. D. Weber (EPA), Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University. 1 of Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 22,1989. l

41. " Final Results of Activation Analysis of Geological Quartz Samples (Set 2) for .

Uranium, Thorium and Samarium," R. Hanrahan and W.G. Vernetson, . NAA-

{ Laboratory Report to A.L Odum (FSU) and J. Rink (FSU), Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, E March 23,1989. ,

!(a

42. " Proposal Submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Meet 10 CRF 50.64 Requirements for Scheduling UFTR Conversion from HEU to LEU Fuel," W.G.

L Vernetson, updated scheduling proposal submitted to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 27,1989.

! 43. "NAA of Local Water Samples for Rare Earth Elements - Tampa Bay Estuarine

. Samples," R. Hanrahan and W.G. Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Final Report to Dr.

L R. Byrne (USF SP) and Dr. G. Smith (USF SP), Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, R March 28,1989. ,

-i

, 44. "NAA Methodology for Performing Trace and Rare Earth Element Geochemistry on . 1

!E; Sedimentation Mineral Deposit Samples," R. Hanrahan, Report to A. Dabous (FSU),

E. Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 29,1989.

45. _" Final Report - Trip on High Primary Coolant Temperature Indication Due to Monitoring System Failure," W.G. Vernetson, official submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 31,1989.

~

l F. " Activation Analysis of Trace Elements in Coal Shrry Pond Wastes," R. Llewellyn

,- and E.R. Vargas, Florida Scientist,52, No. 2, Suppl.1, p. 26, March,1989.

47. " Final Report - Failure to Post Pan of Restricted Area as a Radiation Area," W.G.

-(L Vernetson, official submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 31,1989.

!- 48. " Instrumentation System for Measurement of UFTR Kinetic Parameters," J. Riverola, ENU-6937 Special Topics Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, ll'

( University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, April,1989.

IX-5

I

49. " Microcosm Studies on the Effects of Drilling Fluids on Seagrass Communities," R.D.

I Morton and S.O. Montgomery (Chapter in Drilling Wastes. edited by F.R.

Engelhardt, J. P. Ray and A.H. Gillam), Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., New York,1989.

I 50. " University of Florida Reactor Sharing Program," W.G. Vernetson, proposal g submitted to Department of Energy, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, B University of Florida, Gainesville, FI., April,1989.

" Finding Trace Element Components of Soil in the North Florida Region Using

.I 51.

Trace Element Analysis," J.M. Stanley, Union County High School Student Research Project Presentation at the State Science Fair Convention in Jacksonville, FL, April, 1989.

g

52. " Reply to Notice of Violation, USNRC Inspec' ion Report No. 50-83/89-01," W.G.

Vernetson, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May 4,1989.

52. " Summer Semester Reactor Operations laboratory Manual for ENU-5176L," W.G.

Vernetson, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May,1989.

I

54. " Final Report on the Spring Semester Reactor Operations-Based Health Physics Cooperative Work Training Program," conducted for Radiation Protection Technology Program Students at Central Florida Community College, W.G.

Vernetson, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May,1989.

55. " Preliminary Neutronics Considerations for UFTR HEU to LEU Fuel Conversion,"

M. Salih, ENU-7979 Research Project Report on work related to DOE Grant DE-JI FG05-88ER75387, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May,1989.

56. 'TRTR - National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors Newsletter,"

Volume 1, No.1, W.G. Vernetson, R.L Moser, Depmtment of Nuclear Engineering

Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May,1989.

57. " Summary Report on Prairie Island Boraflex Coupon Evaluation," Report NST 108; Dr. S. Turner, NUSERTEC, Inc., Palm Harbor, FL, May,1989.

g

58. " Summary Report on Oconee 3 Boraflex Coupon Evaluation," Report NST-89-109; Dr. S. Turner, NUSERTEC, Inc., Palm Harbor, FL, May,1989.

59. " Summary Report on Millstone 3 Boraflex Coupon Evaluation, Report NST-89-110;

-l Dr. S. Turner, NUSERTEC, Inc., Palm Harbor, FL, May,1989.

IX-6

I _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I g 60. " University of Florida Training Reactor Operator Requalification and Recertification Program Plan for July,1989 through June,1991," W.G. Vernetson, official submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida,

( 61. .

Gainesville, FL, May 30,1989.

" Neutron Activation Analysis Project for the Identification of Unknown Foil Standards," M.F. Jara, ENU-4905 Special Project, Department of Nuclear

- (-. Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May 31,1989.

h 62. " Development of a Neutron Radiography Facility at the University of Florida," W.G.

Vernetson and P.M. Whaley, Tram. Amer. Nucl. Soc., S, p. 322, June,1989.

63. ." Development of a Neutron Radiography Facility at the University cf Florida," W.G.

_h Vernetson, invited paper presentation on June 6,1989 at the Annual Meeting M the American Nuclear Society held in Atlanta, GA, June 4-8,1989.

64. "Results and Evaluation of Repeated NAA on Seagrass Communities Samples," R.

Hanrahan and W.G. Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Report to Dr. C. D'Asaro (UWF),

-2 and Dr. D. Weber (EPA), Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, June 14,1989.

65. " Topological Evolution and Properties of Sol-Gel Monoliths," W. Vasconcedos, Oral Presentation for Doctoral Degree, Materials Science and Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, June 21,1989.

! 66. " Materials License No. SNM-1050 as Renewed with Safety Evaluation Report," LC.

Rouse, Official USNRC License and Safety Evaluation Report, Washington, D.C.,

June 23,1989.

67.

" Interim Report on Results of Trace Element Analysis Using NAA for Biochemical Assessment of Samples from Pollard, Alabama Oil Field," R. Hanrahan and W.G.

Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Report to G. Cwick (SEMSU) and M. Bishop (UWEC),

- g- Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 24,1989.

68. " Evaluation of Volumetric Variations on the- Measurements of Argon-41 Concentration in UFTR Stack Effluents," B. Murray, Masters' Thesis Project Oral Presentation, Environmental Engineering Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 28,1989. ,

69. " Update of Results of Trace Element Analysis Using NAA for Samples from Pollard, I. Alabama Oil Field," R. Hanrahan and W.G. Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Report to G. Cwick (SEMSU) and M. Bishop (UWEC), Department of Nuclear Engineering a Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 2,1989.

Q

^

. IX-7 I i

g m:

.70. " Preliminary Design of a Prompt Gamma (Analysis) Reactor Experimental Facility,"

. A. Carli, Oral Presentation on FFFS Summer Research Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, E August 3,1989.

71. " Identification of Trace Elements for Determining the Origin of Orange Juice Products Using Neutron Activation Analysis," M. Wood, Oral Presentation on FFFS Summer Research Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, E August 4,1989.

=

1

72. " Preliminary Design of a Prompt Gamma (Analysis) Reactor Experimental Facility,"

j A Carli, Research Project submitted as a participant from Hilliard High School in i h- =

Florida Foundation of Future Scientists 1989 Summer Research Program (prepared also for upgrade as a-High School Science Fair Project), Department of Nuclear

=f Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 4,1989.

- 75. " Identification of Trace. Elements for Determining the Origin of Orange Juice

.: Products Using Neutron Activation Analysis," M. Wood, Research Project submitted as a participant from Boca Raton Community High School in Florida Foundation of-Future Scientists 1989 Summer Research Program (prepared also for upgrade as a High School Science Fair Project), Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of F'orida, Gainesville, E August 4,1989.

.74. " Technical Considerations for Development of Neutron Radiography at the

~ University of Florida," P.M. Whaley and W.G. Vernetson, Trans. Amer. Nud. Soc.,

52. Suppl.1, p. 58, August,1989.

75. "A Maintenance Program to Address Recurrent Safety Channel Failures in a

g= Nonpower Reactor Environment," W.G. Vernetson and P.M. Whaley, Trans. Amer.-

,B. Nucl. Soc. 53, Suppl.1, p. 88, August,1989.

j 76. " Technical Consideraticas for Development of Neutron Radiography -at the

! University of Florida," presentation on August 9,1989 at the ANS 14th Biennial Conference on Reactor Operating Experience Plant Operations: The Human Element held in Charlotte, NC, August 6-9,1989.

-I

77. "A Maintenance Program to Address Recurrent Safety Channel Failures In a Nonpower Reactor Environment," presemation on August 9,1989 at the ANS 14th

Biennial Conference on Reactor Operating Experience Plant Operations: The Human Element held in Charlotte, NC, August 6-9,1989.

~

78. " University of Florida Training Reactor - Reactor Instrumentation Evaluation," W.G.

- Vernetson, solicited submittal to DOE Office of Energy Research, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, E August 15,

.g 1989.

k 79. " Topological Evolution and Properties of Sol-Gel Monoliths," W. Vasconcedos, Doctoral Dissertation, Materials Science and Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, E August,1989.

IX-8

t 80.; " Progress Report on UFTR Reactor Conversion from HEU to LEU Fuel," M. Salih, .

ENU 7979 Research Project Report on Work Related to DOE Grant DE-FG05-88ER75387, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida,

. Gainesville, FL, August,1989. '

81, ' ' " Final Report on the Summer Semester Reactor Operations-Based Health Physics-Cooperative Work Training Program," conducted for Radiation Protection Technology Program Students at Central Florida- Community College, W.G. ,

- Vernetson, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August,1989.

82; " Evaluation of Volumetric Variations on the Measurements of UFTR Stack Effluents i

Argon 41 Concentrations," B. Murray, Masters' Thesis ' Project, Environmental l

L s Engineering Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August,

.;. 1989.

83. 'TRTR - National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors Newsletter,"

Volume 2, No. 2, W.G. Vernetson, R. DeMartino, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August,1989.

(

. 84. "The University of Florida Training Reactor Facilities Description - Master Thesis and Other Research Opportunities," W.G. Vernetson, Oral Presentation to Nuclear l_ : Seminar Course (ENU-6935) graduate students entering the Departrnent of Nuclear l

Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL,' August 28,1989. l l

' 85. " Evaluation of Argon-41 Concentration Measurements," P.M. Whaley and W.G.

Vernetson, Final Evaluation Report on Argon 41 Measurement . Methodology Using _ l Gas Standard (Reference NRC Inspection Report 50-83/88-01), Department of l

Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 30, i 1989.

86. "Results of Neutron Activation Analysis of Synthetic Quartz Glass for Chlorine and/or Titanium Concentrations," R. Hanrahan, R. Ratner, and W.G. Vernetson, Periodic Reports on Sample Analysis to C. Balaban and G. LaTorre, Department of' Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, September 9,,

1988; November 11,1988; December 22,1988; March 7 and 29,1989; May 1,1989 and July 26,1989.

87. "Advancrc Nuclear Space Power Research Program: Task 4, Vapor Core Reactor-MHD Plasma Physics," I. Maya, W.H. Ellis, et. al., Final Report for September,1988 to September,1989 in prepuation for submittal to the Department of the Air Force,

{5 INSPI-FR-UF-89-004, Innovative Nuclear Space Power Institute, ' University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, expected publication in October,1989.

p IX-9 L _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ . _ _ _ - -

88 !" Neutron Activation Analysis of-Dried Milk Samples," Dr. K. Williams, Ulrich-

~

< Bernier (University of Florida Department of Chemistry / Radiochemistry),' Joyce

Gilbert (University of Florida Medical School, Department of Pharmacology); Special Project for CHS 5110L, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, work in progress.-

89. - " Neutron Radiography of Packaged Foods," Dr. K. Williams, . Ulrich Bernier .

(University of Florida . Department of Chemistry / Radiochemistry), M. Saah I (University of Florida Medical School, Department of Pharmacology); Special Project for CHS 5110L, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, work in progress.

90. " Design and Implementation of Improved UFTR Stack Calibration Methodology,"

W. Wabbersen, ENU-4905 Special Senior Project Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, (completion expected'

I in December,1989).

' 91. " Pore Size Effects on the Thermal Stability of Sol-Gel Silica," Masters Thesis in Progress, Materials. Science and Engineering Department, University of Florida,

_I Guinesville, FL, (degree expected December,1989).

B 92. " Coloration in Irradiated Beryl," W.J. Rink, P. I. Gielisse and H.S. Plendl, L .

Gemolorv, accepted for publication in December,1989.

93. " Experimental ar.d Theoretical Investigation of Electron Paramagnetic Resonance-Detected, Radiation Induced Point Defects; Implications for Geochronology," W.J.

l Rink, Doctoral Thesis, Department of Geology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, degree expected in December,1989.

94. " Summary Report on Florida Power and Light Boraflex Coupon Evaluation," Report NST-89-108; Dr. S. Turner, NUSERTEC, Inc., Palm Harbor, FL., Report in progress.

95. ' " Summary Report on Turkey Point 3 Boraflex Coupon Evaluation," Report NST -l 108; Dr. S. Turner, NUSERTEC, Inc., Palm Harbor, FL., Report in progress.

~ 96. "Multiprobe PIC Diagnostic Study of Nuclear Enhanced MHD Plasmas," W.Y. Choi Doctoral Dissertation Research Proposal under preparation for presentation at

_1 Qualifying Examination in Fall,1989.

97. : Neutron-Induced Non Thermal Ionization for Nuclear MHD Power Generation,"

g R.T. Schneider, Paper accepted for presentation at the 7th Symposium on Space B Nuclear Power Systems to be held in Albuquerque, New Mexico in January,1990.

=

I 98. " Mechanisms for Colorcenter Formation in Various Types of Neutron Irradiated

. Beryl," P.I. Gielisse, W.J. Rink and H.S. Plendl, to be submitted in March-April 1990 for publication in Physics and Chemistry of Minerals in 1990.

I IX-10 1

0 .

I

99. " Geochemical Assessment 'of Forest Vegetation Covering the Pollard Oil Field in -e

.I- ,

Southwest Alabama," Dr. Gary J. Cwick,. Dr. Michael P. Bishop, accepted for -

presentation at meeting of American Society of Photogrametry and Sensing, to be held in Denver, CO, March 18-23, 1990.-

~

100. " Effects of Drilling Fluids Macrocenethic Invertebrates in the 1.iboratory and Field,"

. g;

^

D.E. Weber, D.F. Flemer, Charles M. Bundrick, submitted to Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science, work in review for publication in 1990.

3 .

101. " Automatic Mode Control and Switching System Developed for Multielement Plasma 3- Diagnostics,"_W.H. Ellis and W Choi, summary submitted for publication in the Transactions for the 1990 Ameruan Nuclear Society Annual Meeting to be held in Nashville, Tennessee, June 10-15, 1990.

102. _" Development of Neutron Radiography at the University of Florida Training

uJ J: Reactor," P.M.~ Whaley, Masters Thesis Project in Progress, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, F14 (degree expected

. August,1990).

I,: 103. " Phase Transition in Concentrated DNA Solutions in Low Concentration of 1:1 Supporting Electrolytes," T. Strecleclia and R. Rill, paper accepted for publication in Polymers in 1990.

104. " Sodium 23 - NMR Study. af Sodium DNA Interactions in Concentrated DNA -

-(

Solutions at Low Supporting Electrolyte Concentrations," T. Strecleclia and R. Rill,-

paper accepted for publication in Polymers in 1990.

i ~

NOTE: This list of reports and publications does not include the various presentations with visual aids made for the dozens of groups who visit the UFTR cach year for tours and demonstrations.

g I. *:

I

_4 I

^

I IX 11

,! 4 4

-. p g,. J

.)

$ i I! '

If h APPENDIX A l NOTICE OF VIOLATION FROM NRC INSPECTION REPORT

, NUMBER 50-83/89-01 g( WITH UFTR FACILITY LICENSEE RESPONSE-I -

I(

g. ,

g 37

g. .

x q'y a

. 4 I, "'

/g %;7 4

, +

NUCLEAR REG T RY COMMISSION I '

4 ~

e,,,e. -

E pigGlON ll 101 MAAETTA ST. N.W.

ATLANTA. GEOROIA 30323

/}'

8 .: ;1

.l '

lll '

APR 0 71989 1 Docket-No. 50-83 i

~ License No. R .

j j

.3 ! University of. Florida L g:': ' ATTN:--Dr.; J. S. Tulenko ,

l b Chairman, Nucl*ar .

L Engineering-Sciences Department '

l 202-Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville,'FL' 32611 p .l Gentlemen:

[u

SUBJECT:

NOTICE ~0F VIOLATION 'l (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 50-83/89-01).

l This refers to the Nuclear Segulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted by' L .G. 5 B.c Kuzo ^ on . February . 27-March 2,1989 and March = 27,1989. The inspection.

included a review of- activities authorized for your University of.. Florida *-

Trainingi Reactor. At the conclusion 'of the inspection, the findings were '

=l

. discussed; with- those . members of your staff identified in the : enclosed 1 Inspection' Report.

Areas- examined during the inspection- are identified in the report. Within; these areas, the: inspection- consi'sted of selective examinatiens of procedures -

L cnd - representative records, interviews with personnel', and observation- of- 3

activities in' progress.

i The inspection findings indicate that'certain activities appeared to . violate

~ NRC : requi rei.:ents. - The- violations,. reference's to pertinent requirements, and L elements to' be included in your response are described in the enclosed Notice of. Violation.

-In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2,-

~

Title-10, = Code 'of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letwr and its enclosures .

L will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

-Should'you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.

Sincerely, j' hmh 4 7, Douglas M. Collins, Chief -

Emergency Preparedness and f'

Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

[

Enclosures:

-(See-page 2)

}

1:

l ,_ e

,I s . ' 9;.

+

x, l f university._of Florida- 2' ,

v It ':

Enclosures:

1. -Notice of Violation

2. .NRC Inspection Report

~ ' .cc'w/ enc 15: . .

Dr. W.: C. Vernets'on.. Director of Nuclear a m. Facilities, Uni'*2rsity of Florida

-f 1 Dr'.' Ratib A. Karam.. Georgia Institute of Technology Dr.:T. S. E11eman, North.

~

Carolina State University LDr. R.-U. Mulder, University-l of Virginia-State of Florida lg '

4 g .

=.

I; .

e M.

c

-g m 2j j '"

(

.(

s ENCLOS9RE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION i

2 University of Florida. -Docket No. 50-83 i Florida Training Reactor License No. R-56 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on February 27-March 2,1989, violations of NRC requirements were ' identified.

'. -In accordance with the. " General Statement of Policy anri Procedure for:NRC Enforcement Actions " 10 CFP Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the violations are :

listed below: >

Lg- A. 10 CFR 20.201(b) requires the licensee to make or to cluse to be made such

'E surveys as (l') may be necessary for the licensee to comply .with regulations in this part and (2) are reasonable unoer the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present.

t w Contrary to the above, from January 1,1988 to February 28, 1989, licensee-surveys were inadequate to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards present in that:

1) Routine quarterly radiation exposure surveys conducted in the reactor cell restricted = area failed to adequately evaluate the elevated dose

=

rstes and radiation fields associated with the center and west vertical reactc* beam - ports. For each quarterly survey, records indicated measurements were made only for a single location approximately one meter above the reactor shield surface over the center vertical beam port.

,g 2) Routine quarterly radiation exposure surveys conducted within and ;

3 outside of the reactor cell estricted area failed to identify a collimated radiation beam resulting in radiation dose rates exceeding 10 CFR 20.105(b)(1)' limits of two millirem per hour (mR/hr) outside c I. the west wall of the reactor cell restricted area,

.This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).

B. 10 CFR 20.105(b)(1) requires that no licensee shall possess, use, or ,

transfer licensed -material in such a manner as to create in any -

unrestricted area radiation levels which, if an individual were continuously present in the area, could result in his receiving a dose in excess of two millirems in any one hour.

Contrary to the above, from January 20, 1987, to March 2,1989, the licensee failed to prevent radiation dose rates during full power operation from exceeding two millirem per hour (mR/hr) in a .

I .

1 1

University of Florida Docket No. 50-83' Florida Training Reactor !

2 License No. R-56 limited-access unrestricted area adjacent to the west wall of the reactor s cell.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV). j Pursuant t6 the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the University of Florida is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Nuclear Regulatory 1 I.~ Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk. Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to !

the Regional Administrator, Region II, within 30 tiays of the date of the letter I transmitting this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a " Reply to a !

Notice of Violation" and. should include (for each violation): (1) admission or I denial of the violation,-(2) the rason for the violation if admitteds (3) the l corrective steps which have oeen taken and the results . achieved, (4) the i corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the I. date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown, !

consideration will be given to extending the response time. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be '

issued to show cause why the license should not be' modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken.

FORTHENUCLEK.4REGULATORYCOMMISSION[. :

if u % i ?/f- ($ k -

\

Douglas M. Collins, Chief i Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch Division of Radiation Safety Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this1A day of Aprtl 1989 I !

k I <

I ,

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES DEPARTMENT:

Nuclear Reactor Facility :

, g ' ~y University of Florido: j ;

=ameswneemasse I;u.v==s===en mn May 4,1989

, . .i u.-

Reply to Notice of Violation -I Inspection Repon No. 50-83/89-01 ll - United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555 4

Attnr Document Control Desk

Dear Sir:

This report is divided into two parts to address the two violations cited in Insoection : d i Report No. 50-83/89-01.

A.- Inspection Report No. 50-83/89-01 cites the UFTR facility with a Severity Levet IV violation'of 10 CFR 20.201(b)_ for failure to make or cause to be made such surveys as (1) may be necessary to comply with regulations and (2)'

are reasonable under the circumstances to evaluate the extent of radiation hazards that may be present. The UFTR facility is cited in.two cases- as -

follows:

1. Routine quarterly radiation exposure surveys conducted in the reactor-cell restricted area failed to adequately evaluate the elevated dose rates and radiation fields associated with the center and west vertical reactor

3 beam ports. For each quarterly survey, records' indicated measure-B ments were ma'de only for a single location approximately one meter

' above the reactor shield surface over the center vertical beam port.

Routine quarterly radiation exposure surveys condu' ted within and-2.

outside of the reactor cell restricted area failed to ider tify a collimated l LI radiation beam resulting in radiation dose rates exceeding allowable limits of two millirem per hour (mR/hr) outside the west wall of the .

reactor cell restricted area.

i la. Admission or Denial of the Violation .

]

For the failure to adequately evaluate the elevated dose rates ~ l 1) associated with the vertical reactor ports during the quarterly ;

radiation exposure surveys conducted in the, reactor cell, the -

statement of violation repeated above is admitted; however,

~

although measurements were only recorded for a single location '

and height.over the outer vertical port, the existence of the elevated levels over the ports at significant power levets was - j i

9 EmmsCocornseyfantmcsw Acftenirnousvot

^

I.stter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f -

May 4,1989 known and protection measures were in place to assure ALARA 4 conditions were met.

2)- For the failure to identify a collimated rndiation beam resulting -

in radiation cose rates above two mR/br outside the west wall I H of the reactor cell during quarterly radiation exposure surveys.

conducted within and outside the reactor cell restricted area, the statement of violation is also admitted. However, it should be noted that this beam was discovered by the licensee in followup; I'- to an MRC Inspection.

lb. Rensons for the Vinintion

1) The reason for the violation for failure to adequately evaluate the. elevated- dose rates associated with the vertical ports .is considered to be due to the inadequacy of Radiation Control Technique #31~(Instructions for Performing UFTR Environ-mental Radiation Surveys) used to control and document-performance of the quarterly environmental radiation survey conducted in the : actor cell. The existence of these elevated

~ levels was known to the operations staff and efforts were i undenvay to reduce the levels. In the interim, extra portable.

shielding had been administratively required over the center vertical port since a_ bout April 1988 and one new vertical port plug redesign had been tested but found not to give optimal-dese rate reduction when tested in July,1988. Further redesign and manufacturing efforts were in progress at the time of the I: latest NRC inspection in late February,1989. Basically, the reason for the violation is due to the inadequacy of the radiation survey: requirements and associated documentation for the

-- quarterly environmental radiation > surveys conducted in the reactor cell restricted area which includes the area tround the -

c vertical ports. ' As a result, the recommended caution signs at-the vertical port location were not called out in the Padiation-Control Technique (RCT) controlling the surveys sc tney were-not implemented though conditions at the ports were known to -

the operations staff and resulted in avoidance of the area at power for visitors and with no one allowed to stand over the ports. In addition,' the RCT #31 did not provide for

documentation of administrative steps taken to assure ALARA requirements were met for these ports.

l ,' *, 2) The reasons for the failure to identify the collimated beam were twofold. First, analysis indicates the root cause of this occurrence is an inadequate survey performed on the new rabbit system shield when implemented on January 20,1987. This Im. l 2

L

WQ 4 Y>

I< . .

Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

+

May 4,1989 -

a >

inadequacy was probably abetted by the expectationithat a 1

single-piece monolithic shield should be better than a multipiece

pile of shield pieces as had been used previously.. What was not 1(- accounted for was the reduction in effective shielding thickness along the direct path of the rabbit exit line from the west side

~

c(.

! of the UFTR.

In addition, due to the apparent inadequacy of RCT #31, it is ~

felt that subsequent quanerly radiation surveys of the restricted i areas were not designed to locate such collimated beams. Those -

? quarterly surveys performed under RCT #31 (Q-4 surveillance in unrestricted areas and Q 5 surveillance in restricted areas) ,

. have been used more to assure unchanging reat. tor conditions versus finding hot spots which are expected to be taken care of-r

by surveys performed at the time when shielding is changed as i required by UFTR SOP-E.1 " Alterations to Reactor Shielding-and Graphite' Confip. rations."

'. Ic. Corrective Stens Taken/Results Achieved lg. 1) For the failure to adequately evaluate the elevated dose rates

15. associated with the vertical ports, the area of the vertical ports . -

,. was posted on March 2,1989 and designated as a potential high radiation area when the reactor is running. In addition, detailed - .

radiation surveys of the entire area of the UFTR venical ports-o were taken and documented on March 2,1989 to_ complete

. required corrective action to address this violation. In addition, i

the final redesigned plugs for the center and east vertical ports as well-as an additional bottom plug for the west vertical port it were installed and tested on March 2,1989 to demonstrate over Ej a factor of about two reduction in' the dose rates associated with j the leakage beams from these ports. These plugs were installed i for all future operations beginning March 17, 1989 fol!owing

. y completion of all documentation.

' i 2) Immediatelyupon discovery of the streaming (collimated beam)-

. field emanating from the rabbit system shield on March 17, 1989, an extra piece of portable shielding was placed at the west rabbit shield face to eliminate the collimated beam and reduce ,

radiation levels in the area of the end of the rabbit shield below 5 mR/hr and eliminate levels that would require posting outside ,

c : the west reactor cell wall. Although temporary, the addition '

I of sufficient shielding to provide permanent corrective action

for this collimated beam was expected to be a relatively simple -

1 , matter. In addition, a sign was posted to prevent anyone from removmg the extra shielding.

f -

3 3 s . .

49 . .w - ~ , v

,7

)

9 g , .

gf f Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

' May 4,1989 ;

f Although a reactor trip and subsequent maintenance and.

evaluation for restart delayec evaluation and followup to assure

permanent correction of the problem of this collimated beam, 1- a permanent though still portable arrangement of shielding was installed at the west side of the rabbit shield on March 23,1989. .

Again an of5cial notice was posted warning _ that the extra-

=

shielding is not to be removed without checking with the Facility =

Director. Removal of the shielding will also necessitate a new J radiation survey of the area involved. A complete detailed:

, survey of the entire west side of the reactor room to include the entire equipment door area was completed on March 23,1989; following a similar survey around- the rabbit system port f_ conducted on March 21,1989 after discovery of the problem on -

March : 17, 1989. All these surveys were used to provide h documented assurance of the resolution of the problem of the radiation dose rates exceeding 2 mR/br with all levels external'

_to the cell at the door surface below 2mR/hr at full power and dropping rapidly with distance from the wall to below- 0.1 (1 mR/hr.

Id. Corrective Stens to be Taken to Avoid Further Violations

{

1) No further corrective action is needed to adequantly evaluate

.( the elevated dose rates associated with the UFTR wrtical ports.

However, to avoid further violations of this type, as committed in earlier communications to NRC and to the UFTR Reactor 1 ( . ,

Safety Review. Subcommittee (RSRS) Executive Committee on March 20 and to the full RSRS at its meeting on March 21, 1989,' Radiation Control Technique #31 used:to conduct quarterly environmental radiation surveys is undergoing major revision to assure that adequate surveys are conducted, both to assure conditions are not changing and to assure the location, gs identi5 cation, mitigation and/or posting of radiation areas and hazards as necessary 'to meet the requirements. of 20 'CFR 20.105(b)(1) as well as ALARA considerations. In addition, all UFTR-associated personnel involved in performing radiation

, I'. surveys are receiving oral and pra etical instructions in the proper performance of radiation surveys; a formal class with a pracical E exercise will be conducted 'in this area using the tcna,d B- Radiation Control Technique #31 as a basis prbr to performance of the next quarterly environmental radiation surveys due in April,1989 with a one month delay allowed to May,1989 per UFTR Technical Speci6 cations. This combined lecture and practical training is expected to be completed by May 12,1989 so the quarterly environmental radiation surveys 4

i:

m m-m immei ---- -

w .

4 ,

e ,

_9 <

Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. May 4,1989 E can be conducted and completed well before the May 31,1989 deadline.

2) As committed in earlier communicatio'ns to NRC and to the-UFTR Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee Executive 1 Committee on March 20 and to the full RSRS at its meeting on March 21,1989, the Radiation Control Technique #31 used to conduct quanerly environmental radiation smveys is undergoing I major revision to assure that adequate surveys are conducted,-

both to assure conditions are not changing and to assure the location, identification. mitigation and/or posting of radiation arcos and hazards as necessary to meet the requirements of 20 -

CFR 20.105(b)(1) and ALARA considerations. In addition, all UFTR-associated personnel involved in performing radiation 1 I surveys are receiving oral and practical instructions in the proper performance of radiation surveys: a formal class with a practical -

exercise will be conducted in this area using the revised I Radiation Control Technique #31 as a-- basis prior : to -

performance of the next- quarterly environmental radiation survey due in April,1989 with a one month delay allowed to I -

May,1989 per UFTR Technical Specifications. This special practical training will also address the proper performance of radiation smveys including detector response for shielding placed -

I, arotmd pons to further assure that personnel are adequately trained to survey shielding arrangements .to assure their adequacy. This_ combined lecture and practical training is expected to be co.npleted by May 12, 1989 so the! quarterly

. environmental radiation surveys can. be conducted and completed well before the May 33,1989 deadline.

le. Date When Full Comoliance Ivill be Achieved

1) Full compliance has effectively been achieved as of the NRC inspection on March 2.1989 in that the vertical ports were adequately posted on this date. In addition, detailed surveys' were conducted and documented for the ports with existing plugs and with the redesigned more effective plugs in the center and east vertical ports and-a second lower end plug in the west vertical port on March 2.1989. These redesigned plugs were permanently installed as of March 17,1989 following completion of all documentation. The final corrective step of conducting training on a revised Radiation Control Technique #31 and then s implementing the RCT to control and document the quarterly

^

i environmental radiation surveys will be completed by May 31, 3- 1989.'

5

Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comrhission

May 4,1989-I; ~)

2 Date of Full Comoliance Compliance has been-'a chieved via- the prompt measures delineated in paragraph (Ic)(2) as of' March 17,1989.~ Full. !

compliance with' documented approval and implementation of _

I'- the reWsed Radiation Control Technique #31 for controlling.

performance of the quarterly environmental radiation surveys j

! >. with one documented performance of the surveys following training will be achieved by May 31,1989.

B. Inspection Report No. 50-83/89-01 also cites the UFTR facility with a Severity--

-(;1 Level IV violation for failure to satisfy 10 CFR 20.105(b)(1) which requires ~ ,

that no licensee shall possess, use, or transfer licensed material in such a i manner as to create in any unrestricted area radiation levels which, if an '

individual were continuously present in the area, could result in receiving a

. dose in excess of two millirem in any one hour. The UFTR facility is cited

,. as follows:

f Contrary to the above, from January 20,1987 to March 2,1989, the licensee - ,

failed to prevent radiation dose rates during full power operation from exceeding two millirem per hour (mR/hr) in a limited access unrestricted area adjacent to the west wall of the reactor cell.

L

a. Admission or Denini of the Violation .

I L_ - The violation is admitted.

b. Reason for the Violation i The reasons for the failure to prevent radiation dose rates during full-power operation from exceeding 2 mR/hr in a limited access unrestricted area are twofold. First, analysis indicates the root cause of this occurrence is an inadequate survey performed on the new rabbit j system shield on January 20, 1987. This inadequacy was probably l L abetted by the expectation that a single-piece monolithic shield should be better than a multipiece pile of shield pieces as had been used j

, previously. What was not accounted for was the reduction in effective .l shielding thickness along the direct path of the rabbit exit line from the - '

west face of the UFTR shield structure. ;

-1 7 In addition, it is felt that subsequent quarterly environmental radiation surveys of the restricted and unrestricted areas were not designed to locate such collimated beams. This quarterly survey has been used more to assure unchanging conditions versus finding hot spots which i are expected to be taken care of by surveys performed at the time 3 p

E; 6 (E: -

l t

r u. _ -

_m .

Y bgi ,

gm

' Letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

May 4,1989

{" when shielding is changed as required by UFTR SOP E.1 " Alterations to Reactor Shielding and Graphite Configurations."

yf:

c. Corrective Steos Taken/Results Achieved immediately upon discovery of the streaming (collimated beam) field J emanating from the rabbit system shield on March 17,1989, an extra

j. ;

. piece.of portable shielding was placed at the west rabbit shield face to eliminate the collimated beam and reduce radiction levels in the area of the end of the rabbit shield below 5 mR/hr and eliminate t, levels that would require posting outside the west reactor cell wall.

Although temporary, the addition of sufficient shielding to provide p permanent corrective action for this collimated beam was expected to -

be a relatively simple _ matter. In addition, a sign was posted to prevent anyone from removing the extra shielding.

Although a reactor trip and subsequent maintenance and evaluation for restart delayed evaluation and followup to assure . permanent

. - correction of the problem of this collimated beam, a permanent though I still portable arrangement of shielding was installed at the west side 1

of the rabbit shield on March 23,1989. ' Again an of5cial notice was posted warning that the extra shielding is not to be removed without checking with the Facility Director. Removal of the shielding will also -

I necessitate a new radiation survey of the area involved. A complete detailed survey of the entire west side of the reactor room to include the entire equipment door area was. completed on Mar ^ch 23, 1989-

[5 following a similar survey around the rabbit system port conducted on-March 21,1989 after discovery of the problem on March 17,1989.. All' these surveys were used to provide documented assurance of the 3 resolution of the problem of the radiation dose rates exceeding 2

.Es mR/hr with all levels external to the cell at the door surface below 2mR/hr at full power and dropping rapidly with distance from the wall .

to below 0.1 mR/hr.

d. Corrective Steos to be Taken to Avoid Further Violations To avoid further violations, as committed in earlier communications and to the UFTR Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee Executive

, Committee on March 20 and to the full RSRS at its meeting on March 21,1989, Radiation Control Technique #31 used to conduct quarterly environmental radiation surveys is undergoing-a major revision to assure that adequate surveys are conducted, both to assure conditions are not changing and to assure the location, identification, mitigation and/or posting of radiation areas and hazards as necessary to meet the ig; requirements of 20 CFR 20.105(b)(1) as well as ALARA 3- considerations. In addition, all UFTR-associated personnel involved 7

Y.

g. J f': .

' I.stter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 4,1989 f' ;m performing radiation- surveys. are receiving oral and practical; 3

Instructions ~in the proper performance'of radiation suneys; a formal !

x ;

class with a practical exercise will be conducted in this area using the -

revised Radiation Control Technique - #31' as -a basis ' prior to performance of the next quarterly environmental radiation smveys due y

~

in April,1989 with a one month delay allowed to May,1989 per UFTR !'

,, Technical Specifications. This combined lecture and practical training is expected to be completed by May 12,1989 so the quarterly radiation !

i surveys can be conducted and completed well before the May 31,1989 -

1 . deadline.

1

e. Date of Full Comollance L Compliance has been achieved via the prompt measures delineated in L l

, paragraph (c) as of March 17,'1989. Full compliance with documented q approval ; and implementation Technique #31 as well as docum, entationof- the revised of training lon theRadiation revised - Contr 1

RCT #31 for controlling performance of the' quarterly environmental -)

radiation surveys with one documented performance of the surveys will. j be achieved by May'31,1989.

We trust this response satisfies the requirements delineated in Inspection Report No.

50-83/89 01. If there are further questions, please advise.

Sincerely, !

g ' \-

()w[ e !

William G. Vernetson - -

Director of Nuclear Facilities l

WGV:Imc CC: NRC Region II Regional Administrator H j

P.M.' Whaley L J.S. Tulenko --

l , Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS)

~

[ _

l /

Notdy Pub ic ,, #

v ' '

.3d b I'., I

' % C8ENeini'm hNes May 22. ..e,I

^

" % . T m E .L... .. .

i I j ',

- I

- 1

\_

(

I l

o !

!l !

l'.

4 1

APPENDIX B i L <

L UFTR EMERGENCY PLAN REVISION 3 DOCUMENTATION

. i T

l-

i. . .

o i 1 I

=.

.?

I .

I 4

[

Y i 'N' l

1, I

^.g.h

g. e

NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES DEPARTMENT l NuclearReactorFacility University of Florida

-. I.i,seventaseneggeassame we vomsnism.smew e Andes asoll --

October 17, 1988

,,,,,,. poe m . m eena,

- L U.S. Nuclear Ragulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN Document Control Desk ,

! Ra University of Floride Training Reactor (UFTR)

Facility License 'R-56; Docket No. 50-83 I centlemen: -

The enclosed package contains Revision 3 to the approved UFTR Emergency Planc, The revision consists of a correction to Page 8-4 of the Plan. Siaca this page was changed for Revision 1 as designated by a single vertical bar in-the margin, the-Revi-

, sion 3 change-is marked with a. double vertical bar in the margin

. and has been reviewed by UFTK management and the Reactor Safety .

Review Subcommittee to assure it does not decrease the effective-ness of the Plan. Basically, this change accounts'for the fact that other hospitals are now designated to handle Crystal River 3 radiation accident victims though the Shands f acility maintains capability to handle such cases.in the event of a large accident

and remains a regional resource for handling radiation accident cases. ,

Sincerely, clau A '

William G. Vernetson.

+

Director of Nuclear Facilities .

p . .

w

. ,sY / .,

f Notar lic Sacku.ay (s,,.

'Datha'.s/ ~ l e) s'I .

Notory Put!ic, State of hori o ,, i ,'

- l- WCV/ps My Commission Empires Oct. 5,1991

'",0}'.,,/"*"',,.*

"'*"''***'*""" "e .

Enclosuees- .,,}lo.

-l- cc: NRC Region II Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee ".

P.M. Whaley g

g; .

ik gy %

4+ B Y+kg4k IMAGE EVALUATION

/(( g 4p

/// 5, TEST TARGET (MT-3) 6

<> r, 1.0 Em M y @ EE I.I [" EE 1

1.25 1.4 1.6

< 150mm --

< 6" >

4 %,,, / 'b 5,,,, y -

m <Q,4 4%;gy*///// B y

na n -' -- --

F

/# @ 9 B O b

+ @ IMAGE EVAL.UATION gpyj y' t/ TEST TARGET (MT-3) ////p%' / g(4'4 ( ,

pj,

@ (4 7p q9

+ s I l.0 !!22 5 9 Ela i,i [!E IM I 1.8 l I.25 1.4 1.6 e --

4 150mm

4 6" >

%% + /4

-(f; $ //f = .

33 4

z .-

'+

l t

gg) gd>g>f#

. IMAGE EVALUATION Test T u oer m i-a) j s

M>4 g <. j,

<> r, F-E 1 1.0 'dEaiEaa

=

E.. T_ Eh4 i

1.1 m E

1.25 I.4 t 1

i.6 iE

_ 4 150mm >

b 4 4%

%+k*%,

y & p ,c ..

/!b +gfh 4m '

s.m.._M.e.-,'tw , - . .r

+k+

5 $*

49 kE 1

'N IMAGE EVALUATION

/// b4 k/ -[M TEST TARGET (MT-3)

/ 6 I'Vl.0 5m 2 I gljHE

" E e WM ll u l 1.8 ;

i L25 ' I.4 1.6 ,

4 150mm >

< 6" >

l

+;k*'%

+yy A77777p ..

/f4%

%s :

%<g'Vf4 au - ~

n I .

8.3.4 Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics *

s NUCLEAR ENGINEERIND SCIENCES DEPARTMENT -

Nuclear Reactor Focility '
J m- -
1 esimant 5 40I00 Outages University of Florida '
.m .m Ii n =semass.use.ne seasso February 2, 1989
< U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN Document Control Desk Re

- University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR) l Facility 1.icensa R-56; Docket No. 50-83 Gentlemen:
The enclosed package contains Revision 4 to the approved UFTR Emergency-Plan. Revision 4 has two (2) component parts.
.- First, Revision 4 consists of the latest revision to the Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. Plan For Emergency Randling of Radiation . Accident Cases to replace the contents of . Appendix I of the UFTR Emergency Plan. Only minor changes and updates have been incorporated with this change. This Shands Plan has been reviewed by UFTR management and the Reactor Safety Review
Subcommittee (RSRS) and implemented in our latest large drill to demonstrate its substantial equivalence to the previous Shands Plan For Handling Radiation Accident Cases and to assure it does i p not decrease the ef f ectiveness of the UFTR Emergency Plan. I L
l Second,- Revision 4 of the Emergency Plan consists of the latest revision of one of the emergency implementing procedures
in Appendix III, namely, UFTR SOP-B.1, " Radiological Emergency'.' l Revision 4 to replace the existing Revision 3. This procedure l l: change is primarily.to incorporate Amendment 17 to the UFTR Tech- l L ; nical Specifications allowing the UFTR Reactor Vent System to be j
[
secured under certain conditions when the monitoring system is i L indicating a count rate above 10 cps and requiring the cell atmo- !
l sphere to be sampled, prior to release, to verify radionuclide j concentration prior to release. These changes are in Sections 4.3 l i
and 4.4 of the SOP-B.1 Revision 4, respectively. In addition,
. there are a number of minor changes in SOP-B.I to include better l delineation of the UFTR pager contact in " Instructions For Radio-logical Emergencies" and updating the Emergency Procedure Quali- [
fication Form in SOP-B.1 to reflect that SOP-B.1 and SOP-B.2 are the basis for second person qualification with a quiz and re-
-training as necessary to document the required second person ca-l- pabilities. All these changes clearly increase the effectiveness f- of the Plan. Otherwise SOP-B.1 Revision 4 has a few minor correc-l tions of typographical errors and better clarification of state-
! ments at several points. Again, this Revision 4 of SOP-B.I has been reviewed by UFTR management and the RSRS to assure it does j not decrease the effectiveness of the Plan.
t 4
Ewalopportwey/APtrmorwe Actkm Ernomvec
j ;<
{ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. .< February 2; 1989
, Fage 'No As indicated, all changes have been reviewed by UFTR manage-
) -
ment and by, the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee to assure they do not decrease the effectiveness of the UFTR Emergency Plan.
Sincerely,
[
su OxJd4-William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities YL.U:.Aw -_ 2b2l$0
( '
y No taky.. Date '
I WGV/ps Enclosures P
j ~
cc NRC Region II Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee i
P.M. Whaley I
t l
L Y
I 1
l
ll '
-EMERGENCY PLAN REVISION 4 -
l e .,
DOCUMENTATION COMMENTS l
Since the first part of Revision 4 of the UFTR Emergency Plan consists of the ll- revision to the "Shands Teaching and Hospital and Clinics, Inc. Plan for
-l - Emergency Handling of Radiation Accident Cases" and is both lengthy and not -
g much changed from the previous revision, primarily employing changes in call lists, the full text is not included here. Anyone wishing to receive a copy of this document should contact Dr. W.G. Vernetson at the UFTR Facility.
I :
J Since the second part of Revision 4 of the UFTR Emergency Plan consists of_-
the latest revision of UFTR SOP-B.1, " Radiological Emergency" (REV 0), the-
!I, l
second part of the revision is also not included. The reason here is because the full text of Revision 4 of UFTR SOP-B.1 is contained elsewhere in this -
'l ^ report in Appendix F with other procedures revised during the reporting year.
lI
I L
I -
I.
g w - - - . . , , _ . ,- . . - , . - -
g . .. . , _ -. . - - _ _ . - _ . . _ . . _ . ._
f, .
. l
,;).,
.1 : .
c f. '
i
f. .
i APPENDIX D !
[
l POLICY FOR TRANSFER OF RADIOACITVE ,
t f
MATERIAL BETWEEN THE UFTRR-56 ,
LICENSE ANDTHE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 356-1 STATE- LICENSE
(- !
1 L
x
+
g I ,
I '
'll'. 'i
-FOLICY FOR TEANSFER OF RADIDACTIVE MAIERIALS BE1 WEEN 758 UFTR R-56 LICENSE ,
1 AND TEE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIM 356-1 STATE LICENSE t No experiment is inserted into the reactor or allowed to become activated without a fully approved Raquest for UPTR Operation (UFTR Form SOP-A.5A) on
' which both the Reactor Manager and Radiation Control Officer or their respec-tive designated alternates have signed as approving. In addition, only f aculty members or other equivalent cognizant individuals at the University of Florida or equivalent individuals with external entities such as-other schools or pri-
.vate companies are allowed to initiate experiments and be listed ks Principal
~
Investigators on the Run Request Form for experiments not intended primarily to test / check or otherwise characterize the characteristics or status of the reactor; UFTR staff members below Director- ( Administrative Level 2) are not 3 normally considered to meet requirements to act as Principal Investigator.
5 Therefore, expected activity levels of all experiments have been reviewed prior to irradiation.
The following policy statements shall be applicable to control transfer of radioactive material f rom the UFTR R-56 License to the University of Florida >
p, State License :
l
1. All activated samples, including packaging, leaving the Reactor Cell via the rabbit system shall be considered automatically to be transferred to the State License (356-1) upon removal from the receiving station. The NAA Lab and the work there with radioisotopes is considered to be under the State License, as has been assumed in the past. Waste generated is con-l .
sidered to be under the State License.
2. All swipes, water and air samples including stack samples taken for mea-surements of Argon-41 effluents will also automatically be transferred to the State Ideense when the samples are removed f rom the f acility to be analyzed in various Radiation Control Laboratory Rooms or other designated alternate laboratories. Such surveillance samples taken under normal con-ditions require only an internal record at the UFTR.
L
3. All other experimenta1' samples and materials activated and/or contaminated in other reactor ports (samples, foils, detectors, radiographs, processing L
materials, etc.) or contaminated in the process of performing experiments (whether educational, training or research but for on-campus use under di-rection of a principal investigator employed on campus) shall be trans-ferred to the State License (356-1) prior to leaving the UFTR facility (including Building #557, Annex Basement and Fenced West lot) and should be transferred whenever possible prior to leaving the reactor cell whether l n' Soing to the NAA Lab, one of the Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department lgi i
laboratories, or to another facility elsewhere on campus.
a. UFTR Form SOP-D.6A (University of Florida Training Reactor / University L of Florida Radioactive Material Transfer Record) or titernate simpli-I fled Form SOP-D.6C for activated foils, Form SOP-D.6D for neutron ra-diography film cassettes or Form SOP-D.6E for rabbit systen samples must be completed to document a completed transfer from the R-56 to the 356-1 license.
l l \
n -
!ll l
_____________m_ -
g -- ~ - . - . . . _ _ _ _ _
w. +
,~ -- o
( 'k i
J b.= UFTR ForO SOP-D.6B (University of Florida / University of Florida' ;l Training Reactor Radioactive Material Trausfer Record) or the alter-
~
L ..
1
' note L simplifed ' Form . SOP-D.6C for, foils.. Form SOP-D.6D for neutron ra . :J diography film cassettes or Form S0!'-D.6E for rabbit systen samples 4
Laust-.be completed 1to document a completed transfer from the' 356-1 to
1. g ;
g' the R-56 License.- This transfer from the 356-1 Liesnoe to the UFTR~
R 56 License in normally used only if the niatorial has already bee't 7
approved for further reactor irradiatiott. '
c. - Materials activated for transfer to an outside institution with a li- '
const to receive shall be transferred first to the State License via ig( the Radiation Control Office requiring prior signature authorization fE. by the Radiation Control Officer or his designated alternate. The Ra- .l
~ diation Control- Officer may then transfer and ship the radioactive - 1 y materials to the end user. Radioactive material may be transported by 7 the individual off-campus user provided all DOT regulations are com-4 plied with as approved / verified by the Radiation Control Offica staff.:
.m: 4. Ths State License (356-1) does not authorize the receipt of waste gener-ated under another license except from the Veteran's Administration Hos-
g ~ pital on Archer Road so all material designated as reactor waste must re -
B main within the confines of the reactor f aci ity under the R-56 License t
,. until shipment. A definition for Reactor Waste is given below from UFTR ,
SOP-D.5, "UFTR Reactor Waste Shipments: Preparation and Transfer",. Para- !
! graph 4.2:
Reactor Waste shall be defined to include all radioactive byproduct
,g material generated from' reactor operation and with no' further useful
'3 purpose; for example, gloves used to remove sample.s, worn out shield--
ing materials for experiments, worn out reactor parts such as bush-
!g- ings, drive shafts, etc., used graphite stringers,-experiment hold-
'5)' ers, shield plugs, absorbent paper laid down to provide a work space-around a port or equipment pit, anti-C's used in the cell and booties-used in performing work in the cell would all be considered' Reactor
Waste. All else would not be Radioactive Reactor Waste to include ex-perimental facilities, samples, radiographs, etc. which are intended for further utilization. i
- 5. . Radioactive' Materials on the State License-(356-1) but intended to be ir- !
radiated in the UFTR should remain on the State License until ready to be irradiated in the UFTR. When irradiated, the resultant sample shall be considered to be a product of UFTR operation on the R-56 License until transferred to the State License.
NOTE: Requirements for paperwork to document transfer of material to the
. State License and limitations on the transfer are addressed in UFTR SOP-D.6, " Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers."
kW @ N Date
/ d _ All k l /f Radiation Control Officer Director of Nuclear Facilities Date '
,I
7 w - _ _ _ . _ m-___
Y i
I:s 3
,. 'V ,
i 1 APPENDIX E
(:
{ UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES ORIGINALS GENERATED FOR THE
,I. .
1988-1989 REPORTINGYEAR
.. g . >
aL ~ 1. UFTRSOP-A.8 " PNEUMATIC RAPID SAMFLE i '
TRANSFER (RABBIT) SYSTEM"(REV0)
2. UFTR SOP-D.6, "CONTROLOF UFTR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL TRANSFERS"(REV0) g- ,
lIL I
4
I

I .
!I:
I
--r-e - -*
' L',. ' . '
-v; . it
.w.
I SOP-D.6- PAGE 1 of i j
UFTR OPERATING PROCEDURE D.6' ,
.Ir
'I-1.0:' Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers 7 I; i 1 2.0l Approval- g l Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee . 0-- l? 7f
. . . . . .b Date >
. Director, Nuclear Facilities . . . . . . . . ._.. [ [ -
.d /2!/9/M 4Daee II s
L l
I Lg l
l l .,
\
1 1
,I ,
REV 0,12/88 '
1 4
l u - , _
, SOP-D.6- PAGE 2 of 16 3.0 , Purpose and Discussion l
- 3.1 The purpose of this procedure is=to assure proper control of
-transfers of radioactive materials between the. University of Florida Training Reac tor lie snse (R-56) and the. University of
, : Florida State License (356-1). This procedure will' assure com- l
pliance with the conditions'of both licenses.
l
3. 2 This procedure should also be used to assure records are main- l tained of changes in location of radioactive material at the !
UFTR site but on the 356-1 license and'not intended to be irra-diated in the reactor.
l 3.3 This procedure is not intended to control swipes, air samples.
water samples and gaseous emission samples taken as part of the-normal radiation: monitoring and surveillance program for the UFTR.
4.0 Limits and Precautions 4.1 - All transfers of radioactive material from the UFTR R-56 license to the University of Florida 356-1 license shall be controlled using UFTR Form SOP-D.6A, " University of Florida Training Reac- 3 tor / University of' Florida Radioactive Material Transfer Record" with only.three (3) exceptions allowed as follows:
NOTE: Radioactive material transfers from UFTR R-56 license to UF 356-1 license using UFTR Form SOP-D.6C, " University of; L~ Florida Training Reactor / University of Florida Activated I Foil Transfer Record," UFTR Form SOP-D.6D, " University of l
Florida Training Reactor / University of Florida Neutron.
Radiography Film. Cassette Transfer Record," or UFTR Form SOP-D.6E, " University of Florida Training Reactor /Univer-sity of Florida Rabbit System Sample Package Transfer Re-cord" should only be made within the Reactor Building or to the Nuclear-Sciences Center.
4.1.1 Transfer of foils' activated as part of laboratory exercises '
may be controlled using the table of log entries in UFTR Form I .
-SOP-D.6C " University of Florida Training Reactor / University of Florida Activated Foil Transfer Record."
l 4.1.2 Transfer of film cassettes for production of neutron radio-l graphs may be controlled using the table of log entries-in L UFTR Form SOP-D.6D " University of Florida Training Reactor /
University of Florida Neutron Radiography Film Cassette Transfer Record."
l l
1 REV 0, 12/88
s SOP-D.6 PAGE 3 of 16 ']
$4.1.3 Transfer of-samples via the rapid pneumatic sample.6elivery ]
(rabbit) system may be controlled using the table of log-entries in UFTR Form SOP-D.6E " University of Florida Training j Reactor / University of FloridaLRabbit' System Sample Package- 1 '
Transfer Record."-
4.2 All radioactive materials irradiated in the UFTR sust have a Form SOP-D.6A or allowed alternate forms completed prior to 1 J ' leaving the UFTR site defined by the UFTR Safety Analysis Re- I port.
NOTE: Special documentation on transfer of surveillance-related swipes, water samples, cell air samples, liquid and gas--
eous effluent and other samples taken as part of normal operations will not be required. If removed from the site boundary for analysis, these samples will all be returned to the UFTR f or proper disposition if found to contain controlled quantities of radioactivity.
4.3 All radioactive material transfers from the UFTR R-56 license shall be to the University of Florida 356-1 license with only F
.two exceptions controlled by other procedures as follows:
4.3.1 Transfer and Shipment of Radioactive Waste shall be con- [
trolled by UFTR SOP-D.5, "UFTR Reactor Waste Shipments: Pre-parations and Transfer" and shall be transferred directly to the carrier or shipper within the R-56 license site defined in the SAR, nat to the University of Florida 356-1 license.-
4.3.2 Special Nuclear Material in the form of UFTR fuel, whether of further use or not, shall be transferred directly to a carrier or shipper, not to the University of Florida 356-1 license.
4 .' 4 When radioactive materials licensed under the UF 356-1 license-L are to be relocated to the UFTR and intended'for further irra-l diation, the transfer to the R-56 license shall be controlled
~
using UFTR Form SOPD.6B, " University of Florida / University of
[
l Florida Training Reactor Radioactive Material Transfer ~ Record"'
with only three (3) exceptions allowed as follows:
l l 4.4.1 Relocation of foils activated as part of laboratory exer-l cises, demonstrations or other operations may be controlled l using the table of log entries in UFTR Form' SOP-D.6C "Univer-L sity of Florida Training Reactor / University of Florida Ac-L tivated Foil Transfer Record." !
4.4.2 Relocation of film cassettes for production of neutron radio-graphs may be controlled using the table of log entries in l
UFTR Form SOP-D.6D " University of Florida Training Reactor /
l University of Florida Neutron Radiography Film Cassette Transfer Record."
REV 0, 12/88 I
((' : , :
n ,
1
! I GOP-D.6 PAGE 4 of~16' )
l4. 4. 3 - Relocation of samples via-the. rapid pneumatic sample delivery c
)
'(rabbit)- system may be controlled using the table of log en- j Jg1 tries'in UFTR Form SOF-D.6E " University'of Florida Training I tBL Reactor / University _ of Florid a Rabbit Systen_ Sample Package Transfer' Record."
NOTE 1: In these cases the transfers are in location only as 4 the radioactive material remeins on the-University of Fl o rid a 356-1 state license.
i NOTE 2: These recommendations do not apply to check sources or-similar items on the 356-1 state license which are used under the state license for surveillances, tests or similar work and not intended to be irradiated. ,
4 4.5 When radioactive materials on the UF 356-1 state license-are re-located to the reactor and intended for irradiation, the irra-diation/ activation should have an approved Run. Request UFTR Form SOP-A.5A alread y completed prior to the transfer to assure proper control.
4. 6 ' When radioactive materials licensed under the UF 356-1 license are relacated to the UFTR cell and not intended for irradiation,
'they should have a Form SOP-D.6B " University of Florida /
University of Florida Training Reactor Radioactive Material Transfer Record".or-equivalent form completed prior to being
_l: 5 relocated to assure proper documentation of location except that i
4.6.1 Relocation of foils may be controlled 'using the table of log entries in UFTR Form SOP-D.6C " University of Florida Training-Re ac tor / University of Florid a Activated Foil Transfer Record" 4.6.2 Relocation of the neutron radicgraphy film cassette may be controlled using the table of log entries in UPTR Form SOP-D.6D " University of Florida Training Reactor / University l of Florida Neutron Radiography Film Cassetto Transfer Record"
' NOTE: For such relocations of radioactive material ther L' remains on the University of Florida 356-1 license, i Form SOP-D.6B and alternate Form SOP-D.6C or Form L SOP-D.6D are used to document the location of the material on the UFTR site and not to document an actual license transfer.
4.7 'All records generated via UFTR Form SOP-D.6A or UFTR Form SOP-D.6B must be signed as approved by both the Radiation Control
[ Officer or his duly appointed representetive and by the UFTR
Facility Director, Reactor Manager or his duly appointed re-presentative.
l ~I l
( .
REV. O, 12/88 TCN: 3/89 l
l
l SOP-D.6 PAGE=5 of 16 ,
3 CAUTION Radioactive material located anywhere within the UFTR site boundaries shall be on either the UFTR R-56 license or the UF -
356-1 state license. Material on any other license shall not be located on the site.
4.8 Radioactive materials on the University of' Florida 356-1 license.
i may be stored or located on the UFTR site as. described in the-Safety Analysis Report. The storage or relocation does not in-volve transfer to the R-56 license. Such materials should be
, clearly delineated and their presence documented for~ control purposes.
D 5.0 . References 5.1 -University of Florida Training Reactor License (R-56)'
~
5. 2 University of Florida Radioactive Materials License Number 356-1 5.3 UFTR Safety Analysis Report UFTR' Technical Specifications
~
5.4 -
5.5 UFTR Standard Operating Procedures 5.6 University of Florida Radiation Control Techniques ;
6. 0 Records Required 6.1 UFTR Form SOP-D.6A, " University of Florida Training: Reactor / Uni- 1 versity of Florida Radioactive Material Transfer-Record."
6.2 UFTR. Form SOP-D.6B, " University of Florida /11niversity of' Florida Training Reactor Radioactive Material Transfer Record." ;
I ; 6. 3 UFTR Form SOP-D.6C, " University of Florida Training Re a c tor / Uni--
versity of Florida Activated Foil Transfer Record."
6.4 UFTR Form SOP-D.6D, " University of Florida Training Reactor / Uni-versity of Florida Neutron Radiography Film Caesette Transfer Record."
6.5 UFTR Fort SOP-D.6E, " University of Florida Training Reactor / Uni-versity of Florida Rabbit System Sample Package Transfer Re-cord."
.I:
1 REV 0, 12/88 o - - - - - _ - - - - _ - _ _ - - _ . . - _ - _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ - . _ . _ - -
a , .- .. .
ti q
SOP-D.6 PACE 6 of 16- -j I
i 7.0 Instructions
-7.1 i Transfer?of radioactive' material from.the University of Florida Training Reactor.(R-56)-license to the. University of Florida
'356-1 license shall be approved and controlled using'UFTR Form 3 SOP-D.6A, " University of Florida Training Reactor / University of 1 Florida Radioactivo Material Transfer Record" with only three
~
(3) exceptions allowed per Pa rag ra ph 4.1.1 for foils irradiated l for laboratory exercises. Paragraph: 4.1. 2 f or the film cassette-irradiated to produce neutron radiographs and Paragraph 4.1.3 for samples activated using the rabbit system.
7.1.1 Responsible UFTR staff shall complete Section I of Form SOP-D.6A (Description of Item (s) To Be Transferred) to provide a physical description of the item (s) to be transferred to in-clude special physical forms such as liquids or gases.
NOTE: Multiple samples in a single package may be treated as a single item for purposes of transfer.-
.I 7.1.2 Section II (Radioactive Materials Description) of Form SOP-
~
D.6A shall be completed by responsible UFTR, Radiation Con-
=
-trol or other personnel to assure adequate information is J
available on the radioactivity in item (s) to be transferred. ,
7.1.3 Section III (Packaging Requirements) shall be completed by responsible Radiation Control personnel to assure proper con-trol of radioactive materials,during transfer.
7.1.4 Section IV (Data on Recipient) Parts (a) to (d) shall be com- [
pleted by the responsible UFTR or Radiation Control staff
- members using data on the Run Request Form SOP-A.5A. Parts (e) to (h) shall be completed by the responsible individual in the Radiation Control Office who actually oversees the physical transfer of the material from the UFTR Building-#557 '
to the recipient. t 7.1.5 Section V (Approvals) shall be signed by the Radiation Con- ,
trol Officer or his duly appointed representative and by.the UFTR Facility Director, Reactor Manager or his duly appointed representative prior to initiating a transfer of radioactive material to the University 356-1 license. Any notes, comments '
or other special conditions should be included in the space provided.
7.1.6 Completed copies of UFTR Form SOP-D.6A shall be maintained as part of the UFTR records system. A copy of the completed form and attachments should be retained by the Radiation Control Office for their records.
I REV 0, 12/88
I . :
SOP-D.6 P A 6 2 l 7 :o f. 1 6 -
4 - jl
? +
7.1.6.1L When completed,'JFTR Form SOP-D.6A should be returned to: ;
the'UFTR_ staff for filing within five (5) working days to' !
assure continuing completeness of records. 7, 7.1s6.2 ForJche purpose of performing transfers of radioactive.ma-: '
terial from the R-56 (UFTR)-license to=the UF 356-1 State 31 cense documented via UFTR Forms SOP-D.6C,' SOP-D.6D, and SOP-D.6E. a. licensed reactor operator-and another indi- !
vidual (certified by the Radiation Control Officer to be. .
qualified and authorized to act as a radiation control
' I -.
, technician in the specified transfer) are required to ap . j E prove the transfer.
' 7. 2 Transfer'of radioactive material from the University of Florida 356-1 license to'the.UFTR R-56 license for further irradiation shall be approved and controlled using UFTR Form SOP-D.6B, " Uni-versity of Florida / University of Florida Training Reactor Radio-ective Material Transfer Record" with only three exceptions al-lowed _per Paragraph 4.4.1 for foils-irradiated'for laboratory- ,
exercises, Paragraph 4.4.2 for the film cassettes irradiated to produce neutron radiographs and Paragraph 4.4.3 for radioactive ;
samples to.be ir adiated-using the rabbit system.
,; NOTE: When such radioactive material is actually irradiated-in the UFTR, the existing radioactivity inventory combines with that generated by the irradiation and the entire ra-
'dioactivity inventory of the item (s) is then tracked as-a unit with the new material on the UFTR R-56 license until
_ transferred using UFTR-Form SOP-D.6A or an approved alter-nate form per Sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, or 4'. 4. 3.
h. 7.2.1 Section_I (Description of item (s) To Be Transferred) of Form SOP-D.6B shall be completed by responsible UFTR staff to pro- -f vide a physical description of the item to be relocated'and L 'to verify it is associated with an approved Run' Request, j CAUTION i
L/ Radioactive materials should not be approved for transfer l from the University of Florida 356-1 license to the UFTR l R-56 license except when the material is to be. irradiated /
l l activated in the UFTR and the irradiation / activation already E
$ has an approved kun Request. The transfer from the Univer-sity of Florida 356-1 License to the UFTR R-56 License shall i be controlled using UFTR Form SOP-D.6B or approved alternat.e l l forms.
l I
l REV 0, 12/88
ni " > '
e; 'a i ,
JJ+ "
il
. SOP-D.6 PAGEc8 of 16 l
+
- - . -l NOTE: Multiple' samples in a single package may be treated as ]
a single item for purposes of transfer. l
~
7.2.2 Section II-(Radioactive Materials Description) of Form. 1 SOP-D.6B shall be completed by responsible UFTR, Radiation ,
Control or other.personnol to assure adequate information is ;
available on the radioactivity in item (s).to be_ transferred. l I- 1 I
j 7.2.3 Section Ill (Packaging Requirements) shall be ecmpleted by responsible. Radiation Control personnel to assure _ proper con-trol of radicactive materials during transfer.
j
'j l
' 7.2.4 Section IV.(Data on Transferrer) Parts (a) to (d) shall_be completed by responsible UFTR or Radiation-Control staff members using data on the Run Request' Form SOP-A.5A. Parts (e) and (f) shall be completed by the responsible UFTR staff ;
I?/ ' member who receivks the material at the UFTR prior to ir-radiation. :
NOTE: Because of UFTR-R-56 license restrictions, radioactive:
material is not usually transferred to the R-56 license unless it will undergo further activation =_by irradia-tion in the UFTR. ;
. , 7.2.5 Section V (Approvals) shall be signed by the Radiation' Con-trol Officer or his duly appointed representative and by the UFTR Facility Director, Reactor Manager or his duly appointed representative prior to initiating a transfer of radioactive material to the UFTR for irradiation. Any notes, comments or
' ~
=
other special conditions should be included in the space pro-vided.
I[ L 7.2.6 Completed copies of UFTR. Form SOP-D.6B_shall be maintained as part of the UFTR records system. A copy of the completed form = ,
(. and attachments should be retained by the Radiation Control _ '
Office for their records.
L 7.2.6.1 When completed, UFTR Form SOP-D.6B should be returned to the UFTR staff for filing within five (5) working days to assure continuing completeness of records.
7.2.6.2 For the purpose of performing transfers of radioactive ma-
terial from the UF 356-1 (State) license to the R-56 (UFTR) license documenced via UFTR Forms SOP-D.6C, SOP-
< _ D.6D, and SOP-D.6E, a licensed reactor operator and q another individual (certified by the Radiation Control Of- '
ficer to be qualified and authorized to act as a radiation
, control technician in the specified transfer) are required to approve the transfer.
I; i'
f REV 0, 12/88 i
Q 9 V
3 N I SOP-D,6 PAGE 91of E 16.
1 Ii, o 7 .' ) = Transfer of radicactive-foils activated as part of laboratory >
' exercises shall'be contro11td using UFTR Forms SOP-D.6A and SOP- '
j I: '
D.6B'or alternatively the simplified table of log outries in UFTR Form- SOP-D. 6C "Unive r si ty of' Florida Training Reactor / Uni-3 versity of. Florida: Activated' Foil Transfer Record" may be used.
.I: ; 7.3.1 -When UFTR Form SOP-D.6C is used. the responsible UFTR staff.
, member shall assure completion of one complete'line-of en-tries on Form SOP-D.6C for each type of1 foil irradiated prior to transfer. -
7. 3. 2 - When'UF7R Form SOP-D.6C is used, acceptance of the trans- .
ferred material must.be documented by the signature of the f l
l recipient on each line and approval of the transfer must_be ,
documented by the signature of-the cognizant reactor operator on each line.
7.4 Transfer of film cascettes for-production of neutron radiographs shal'1 be controlled using UFTR Form-SOP-D.6A for transfer from i L the R-56 to the 356-1 license and UFTR Form SOP-D.6B for trans- -
fer from the 356-1 license to the-UFTR.R-56 license for.reirra-diation or the simplified table of log entries in UFTR Form.
SOP-Du6D " University of Florida Training Reactor / University of. i Florida Neutron Radiography Fila tussette Transfer Record" may
[- be used.
7.4.1 When UFTR Form SOP-D.6D is used, the responsible UFTR staff '
member shall assure completion of one complete line of en-tries on Form SOP-D.6D for each film cassette prior to trans-fer from or to the R-56 license.
7. 4. 2 - When UFTR Form SOP-D.6D is used, acceptance of the trans-
-l-
m-ferred material must be documented by the signature of the recipient on each line and approval of the transfer must be l documented by the signature of the cognizant reactor operator
g on each line.
E-
! 7.5 Transfer of radioactive samples activated using the rabbit sys-
! tem shall be controlled using UFTR Forms SOP-D.6A and SOP-D.6B '
l ; or alternatively the simplified table of log 1 entries in UFTR L Form SOP-D.6E " University of F3erida Training Reactor / University of Florida Rabbit System Sample Package Transfer Record" may be used.
l, 7.5.1 When UFTR Form SOP-D.6E is used, the responsible UFTR staff f member shall assure completion of one complete line of en-tries on Form SOP-D.6E for each sample package irradiated prior to transfer from or to the R-56 license.
REV 0, 12/88 l l
l
> x ;
I ct SOP-D.6 PAGE 10-ofL16; l
l
l 7 . 5 '. 2 'When'UFTR Form SOP-D.6E.is used, approval _of the transfer ;
must-beLdocumented by the signature of the-cognizant reactor 1
.g. operator on each line;.further, acceptance of the transferred
"'**ri' ""'t ** ***""*"**d 6 7 th*5 8 "**"r* ' '6r**i P i 'at
.E' on-each line within one.(1) day of-the transfer.:
4 NOTEt'Most rabbit system transfers are-to the.NAA Laboratory i and to the individual working there on behalf of vari-- !
ous research, training or educational activities; this 'l
51 requirement allows signing for a number of samplesLaf- ;
E: **r the irradiation' Operation is concluded to preclude- 1 excessive delays in moving back and forth-from the Lab- )
oratory-to: the Control Room to sign the Form SOP-D.6E j r which is maintained and controlled by the control room l reactor operator in charge of running the experiment. ]
N . ..
! , , ,7. 6 : Relocation (not transfer) of radioactive material from the Uni . I i versity of Flo rid a 356-1 license to a new location at.the UFTR R-56. license site and not intended for further irradiation may
g be controlled using'the same forms used for transfers from the jg; 356-1 to the R-56' license'.
. NOTES- If and when any such material is to be irradiated in the i
UFTR, then another form should.be completed to document i the transfer from the 356-1 to the R-56 license. -1 L -
ill J
l
{
REV 0, 12/88 TCN: 3/89
~ , .
~
1
, 0 SOP-D.6T PAGE-11 of 16, '.
l t<
P l
.J lh .
APPENDIX I f
, t FORMS FOR DOCUMENTATION AND CONTROL OF j RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL-TRANSFERS BETWEEN THE UFTR R-56 LICENSE AND THE. !
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 356-1 LICENSE AND RELOCATION ON THE 356-1 LICENSE A
.i 4
w
-4 4, *r r
,. . .1 p
i 1..
o ,
v l ; REV 0, 12/88
g- -
p : era pean sor-a2 u =
. W19malTt et FI_ Atla,a..t.tAls.tet.RE.ACTW/WIVM._Alft
. GF Fla!M ' l i
~*
PRI(R AFFEGML OF RADI ATION wasn0L DEFAasemna REQUlktD REPORE ANY TRAfterst 18 INITIATED j
u '
1.i Beecriptise of item (s) To be Trametected-
)
- Run sequest Number / Title s j
Physical Description of Itee(s): ;j (Attach additional sheets se necee6ery) i UFTR 1rredletion itietory l 4
i L .. 11.' Radioactive heteriale Descriptise i .
I .
Iten Heterial Radiation Hessuremente Rad io. Physical No. nuclide(s) Fore Ac ti vi t y Instrument (s) Surve yot Surface 1 Ft. Contamination Model . SN Signature /Dete I '
e 1
111. Peekagleg Requiremente IV. Date on Recipient
a. Principal Investigators b. College / Departments c.' Telephone d. Bldg /Roon Numbert i
=
Package Radiation Measuremente ,
ltee No. Activity Instrument (s) Surveyor Surface l Ft. Contamination Model . SN Slanature/Date l '.
1 ..
l l r
e. Received By/Date r f. {ccations
g. Transporters h. ' Date Transported a l
T. Approeale I
- e.t..
, Radiation Control Officer or Alternate Date UFTR Reactor Manager / Facility Director Date ]
.Nort Tuls Is NOT A RAD 10&CTITE MATERIAL SB1FIWIT FORM l TCN 3/89 l REV 0, 12/88 I.. l 1
~~ ^^
- WFTR Peut DOF-NW IY su1 vet $1Tt OF Flat 1DA/pg1TBASITT OF FLORIDA TRA191NC REACf08 BAD 10Activs NATsalAL TRANSFSR 380089 5
FRIOR AFFROVAL OF RADIATION CONTR% DEPARINENT .
REQUlkED BEFORE ANY TRANSFER IS INITIATED
1.." teocription of 1 tem (s) To Be Treasterred l Run Request Number /Titlet
~
Physical Description of lton(s):
(Attach'edditional sheete as necessary) ,
-i 1 11E tadleactive Meteriale Descripties Fackage Radiation Mea;ureeente Itea Phyr.ical Radionuclides / Instrument (s) Surveyor No. Half-Life (s) Fore Activity Surface 1 Ft. Contamina_ tion Model. BN Signature /Dete ;
~
)
'i Ill. Fockaging Requiremente y
IV. Date on Transferrer a.' Principal Investigator / Institutions / b. College /Departmente ie,
c. Telephone / Bldg / Room Not d. Trenoporters
! : . Package Radiation Hessuremente .
s : Iten Instrument (e) Surveyor No. Activity Surface l'Ft. Contamination Model, SN Signature /Date b
. e. Receive r t f. Date Received at UFTRt j Y.'_Approvela
. . .t.
i 4
E Radiation Control Of ficer or Alternate Date UFTR Reactor Manager / Facility Director Doce NU15: THIS 18 Not A RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL SLIFIENT FORM REV 0. 12/88 i l
TCN . 3/89
-- e UFTR FORN $0P-026C I UNIVER$1TY OF FLCIDA TRAINIO REACTOR /UNIVER$11Y OF FLORIDA ACTIVATED F0IL TRANSFER RECORD s
Check.One Package Contamination / Radiation Levels R-56 356 1 Total Authorized Red Con Rx0p Run Reql to - to No./ Type Foil Conte Meter / Neter/ Recipient Signature Signature Date 356 1 R.56 Foils ;4 ass Activ Level SN Contact 1 Ft SN Surveyor Signature Approval Approval-i i
I' ,
I .;
! 4 I
1 il
I
!I
!I:
I '
NOTE

THIS~IS NOT A RADI0 ACTIVE NATERIAL SHIPMENT FORN; THIS FORN 15 FOR TRANSFERS ONLY WITHIN THE REACTOR BUILDING A88.10 TIE NUCLEAR SCIENCES CENTER.
REV 0, 12/88 e
llFTR FORM SOP-0,0 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR /UNIVERSlif 0F FLORIDA
. NEUTRON ROIONAPNY FILM CASSETTE TRANSFER RECORD '
. , Check One package Contamination / Radiation Levels Transfer' R-56 35 M A"thorized Red Con Rx0p Noi/Date to to Contam Meter / Meter / I.ecipient Signature Signature Activity level 356 1 R-56 SN Contact 1 Ft SN Surveyor Signature Approval Approval b
i f
1[ .3 i
t
!I
~~
g q
I TE: THIS IS NOT A RADIDACTIVE MATERIAL SHIPENT FORM; THIS FORM IS FOR TRANSFERS ONLY WITHIN THE REACTOR BUILDING AW TO THE NUCLEAR SCIENCES CENTER.
REV 0, 12/88 1
c; i
UFTR FONM 30P-D.6E' WlVER$1TY OF FLCIDA TRAINING REACTOR / UNIVERSITY Or FLCIDA RABBIT SYSTEM SM FLE PACKAGE TRANSFER RECORD-Check One Glove Radiation Levels Run- . ' Item R-56 356-1 Box Authortred Red Con Rx0p R q-' 'Date Description. to to Monitor Recipient signature Signature I No. 356-1 R 56 P.eading* Cont 1 Ft Meter /$N Surveyor Signature Approval Approvel l
i ,(
.I i i
. )
l :.
t ;
1
I h
r i
-I i
f NOTE:. (HIS 15 NOT A RADAM] PENT 70RM; THIF FORM IS FR TRANSF ERS ONLY dlTHIN TE !!EACTOR BUILDING
. Als TO TE NUCLTAR SCIENCES CENTER.
l
^!
G1cve Box Monitor is an RM-20 Serial No. 361 unless otherwise specified. Authorized recipient is Rabbit System
0perator enless otherwise specified.
REY 0. 12/88
]
1 O. j r ;
. .\ h -
Ul: ;
l y
1 ,
80P-A.8 :PAGE 1 of'19 ;
UFTR OPERATING PROCEDURE A.8
- 1.0' Pneumati6 Rapid Sample Trans'fer (Rt bbit) System'..
'l
.l 2.0 Approval i Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee .
..... .~ O7 nate Director,NuclearFacilities'..........[ I _ / Date k//f M ,
I
~!
.i i
?
+r l
l l.
t I:
REV 0, 12/88 l
l
. . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ - - _ . ,- - -0
7
-i SOP-A.8 PACE 2?cf 19-
'3. 0 ' P0rpose and' Discussion
-3.1 This procedure prevides. instructions.for operation of the Pneu- ,
matic Rapid Sample Transfer-(Rabbit) System to assure proper reactor and radiological controls and documentation are imple- ,
mented when the Rabbit System is used for irradiations.
3.2 The Pneumatic Rapid Sample Transfer (Rabbit) System is used to -
support experimental i rradiations in the UFTR 3.2.1- In accordance with UFTR SOP-A.5, " Experiments," and provided properly completed UFTR Form SOP-A.5A (Request for UFTR Op- i eration) authorizing the use of the-rabbit system has been approved for the experiment,.and.
g= 3.2.2 In accordance-with UFTR SOP-D.6, " Control of UFTR Radioactive g Material Transfers."
~
4.0 Limits and Precautions i
4.1, Persons shall be certified to use the rabbit control system to make sample insertions into the UFTR only ift-4.1.1 They have read and understood the contents of this procedure as demonstrated by trial runs on using the rabbit system;
'4.1.2 Training on how to operate the Rabbit System has been com-pleted and the individual has been certified as qualified to '
operate the rabbit system as evidenced by a completed.and ap-
. proved UFTR Form SOP-A.8A (Rabbit System Operator Certifica-
. tion) on file for the prospective rabbit system operator.
ll1 NOTE: This Form SOP-A.8A, (Rabbit System Operator,Certifica-g- tion) requires the name and signature of the prospec-tive Rabbit System. Operator.
4.2 Communications with the console 4.2.1 The installed communications systems shall be used to obtain I approval of the reactor operator prior to accomplishment of any of the steps of normal operation as well as to inform the reactor operator of any equipment, personnel or radiological abnor=811ty encountered during operation of the Pneumatic
'E.3 sample delivery system.
4.2.2 Sample insertions shall not be made without appropriate in-formative communications with and approval of the reactor operator in the control room.
.- 4.2.3- The communications system should be used to keep the reactor l operator at the console fully informed of any abnormality as l well as the progression of normal activities.
]
REV 0, 12/88 f
SOP-A.8 PAGE 3=of 19 ,
'4. 3 Nitrogen propellant i
4. 3. 11 Unregulated nitrogen supply pressure should be at least 200 psi. !
4.3.2 ' Nitrogen pressure downstream of the regulator should be con-
trolled at about 20 psi (not to exceed 50 psi) and should not '
be less than 10 pai.
t 4.3.3 Nitrogen reservoir bottle should be physically secured at all times except while removing or replacing the: bottle. .
tlI Lu-4.4 An empty sample holder should be inserted (after informing the control room operator).into the' reactor for a short time and're-
^
turned as a check on system operation prior to sample insertion.
4.5 Capsule Return Backlit 'ush-Button Functions .
4. 5.1 - " Capsule Return" lamp indicates capsule is in receiving j station at end-of manual or. automatic cycle of operation. 7 4.5.2 " Capsule-Return" push button allows manual control of capsule ,
return portion of manual or automatic operation of rabbit .i system sample irradiation cycle.
4.5.3 If capsule has not returned normally to the capsule receiving.
I.. station, " Capsule Return" push buttou permits manual actua- ,
tion of return gas pressure.
4.5.4 " Capsule Return" push button permits release of gas pressure.
from the system with gas bottle supply valve shut, regulator diaphram under tension (attempting to maintain downstream '
pressure) and gas supply control solenoid valve energized.-
4.6 -Perconnel Radiological Controls For Rabbit System Operations.
4.6.1 Prior to operations with the Rabbit System

4.6.1.1 The applicable, completed and approved UFTR Form SOP-A.5A (Request for UFTR Operation) should be checked by the reactor operator to assure any special instructions for the rabbit system operator are followed; l
, 4.6.1.2 Certification of the rabbit system operator should be 4 verified by the reactor operator to include having a com- .
L p pleted UFTR Form SOP-A.8A (Rabbit System Operator Certifi- '
I .
cation) on file; NOTE: UFTR Form SOP-A.8A requires the signature of the L
Rabbit System Operator Candidate as well as the i.
Re a c t o r Operator Trainer and the Reactor Manager or Facility Director before certification is complete.
REV 0, 12/88 l
l
~
~
s $0P-A.8 PACE 4 of 19, 4.6.1.3 Portable survay instrumentation should be stationed near the rabbit system glove box to check activity / dose rates from irradiated samples; 4.6 1.4 Dosimeter and/or ring badge should be attached to the rab-bit system operator's extremities used in the glove box if
- significant doce is expected.
i 4.6.2 Gloves should be worn at all times by personnel handling rab-I bit capsules.
4.6.3 Excessive contamination of rabbit capsules and/or irradiated I samples should be avoided. The following controls-apply:
a. Any rabbit capsule in the control station glove box should be visually checked for integrity prior to each use; cap-I sule should be cleaned and/or replaced, as necessary.
b. The number of capsules in use with the rabbit system I should be minimized to facilitate radiological controls.
4.6.4 Rabbit capsules should not routinely be removed from the I glove box except as required for sample loading / unloading, checks for integrity or disposal.
4.6.5 Samples reading 2200 mR/hr on contact with the receiving I station shall not be removed from the receiving station with-out permission of the Reactor Manager and Radiation Control personnel so that additional container shielding can be used I for transfer.
CAUTION Samples or other materials reading 2200 mR/hr on contact i (with shielded container) shall not be transferred between the R-56 and the 356-1 license.
I 4.6.6 Samples reading 21.5 R/ hour at 1 foot unshielded shall not be removed from the glove box without permission of the Reactor I Manager and Radiation Control Officer; CAUTION Specific instructions delineated on an approved Run Request (UFTR Form SOP-A.5A) may supercede this limit and may dic-tate much more restrictive levels which shall be the effec-tive control on removing samples.
REV 0, 12/88
80P-A.8 PAGE 5 of 19 I I 4.6.6.1 The detector (preferably a GM counter) attached to the I
I rabbit system glove box is normally calibrated to indicate 1000 cpm per mR/hr; samples in the rabbit receiving sta-tion should indicate approximately 1000 cpm on the monitor at 50 mR/hr contact. ,
I- 4.6.6.2 For informational purposes, Table 1 in Appendix II con- J
)
tains data correlating contact. dose rates measured with an !
I Eberline GM Detector $30, Serial Number 1879 compared to readings indicated on the rabbit system glove box monitor-ing GM Detector RM 20 Serial Number 361.
1 4.6.6.3 The monitoring function performed using the glove box de-tector.and the hand held survey instrument as read by the .
rabbit wystem operator and recorded by the control room !
I reactor operator are considered to meet the monitoring re-quirements of SOP- A. 5, "Ex pe riment s" and SOP-D.4, "Remov-ing Irradiated Samples From UFTR Experimental Ports" for l
removal of experiments from the reactor. ;
4.6.7 In the event of any radiological abnormality including but not limited to breach of sample containment, suspected air-
borne or smearable contamination in excess of allowable i limits, excessive irradiated sample activity or excessive ra- .
diation levels in the glove box, failure of the exhaunt fan, the rabbit control system operator shall
a. Cease all activity, f i
b. Stand away from the glove box limiting movement of all '
personnel at the rabbit control station to prevent the ;
potential spread of contamination, and i r
Contact the reactor operator for further instructions via
c. ,
intercom or telephone. ,
4.7 Contamination Control i
4.7.1 The glove box exhaust fan shall be in operation during use of ,
the rabbit system. '
4.7.2 Gloves, waste disposal bags, and labelled trash receptacles
! should be available near the Rabbit Control Station Glove ,
Box.
k lI .
, REV 0, 12/88
._ _ _ - - , . ..._.s - ,- -
en 80P-A.8 PACE 6 of 19 4.7.3 On a weekly basis when the Rabbit System has been used, when-ever the Rabbit System has been used for more than 20 sample insertions in any one day and also as appropriate for experi-I._ ment conditions, a smearable contamination survey should be performed to include at least 3 swipes or area checks as fol-lows:
4.7.3.1 Around the glove box access; 4.7.3.2 Around the contamination survey instrument; 4.7.3.3 In the path of travel between ths glove box and the NAA counting laboratory room.
4.7.4 Any signs of smearable surface contamination outside the glove box in excess of UFTR SOP-D.1 limits shall be immedi-
!I ately reported to the reactor operator and Radiation Control; the area shall be decontaminated and proven to have contamin-
~
g ation within acceptable limits before rabbit operations may g- resume.
4.8 Before securing the Rabbit System from daily operations, all I steps of Section 7.3 shall be ser,uentially performed. The pneu-matic rapid sample delivery system should be secured by perform-ing asterisked steps in Section ' .3 for two conditions:
ig
_g 4.8.1 Rabbit System is to be secured with the reactor operating, or 4.8.2 Rabbit System will not be used for more than one (1) hour I with or without the reactor operating.
4.9 Irradiated samples (byproduct materiel) returning to the glove box after removal from the reactor are automatically considered
- I- to be removed from the UFTR R-56 license to the State 356-1 li-cense per the applicable Policy Statoment For Transf er of Radio-active Materials Between the UTTR R-56 License and the Univer-I sity of Florida State License 356-1. This transfer must be docu-mented per the requirements of UFTR SOP-D.6, " Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers." Provided they are not removed from the UFTR site (NAA and Radiochemistry Laboratory as well as Reactor Cell), no further documentation of the transfer of sam-ples is necessary.
CAUTION If samples are to be removed from the NAA/ Rad Chem Laboratory complex, then additional documentation of the transfer to the State License shall be required per UFTR SOP-D.6 (Control of
=
UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers).
REV 0, 12/88 I I
{
SOP-A.8 PAGE 7 of 19 l~
5.0 References 5.1 UFTR R-56 License 5.2 UFTR Safety Analysis Report
5. 3 UTTR Technical Specifications i
L 5.4 UTTR Standard Operating Procedures (A.1, A.5, D.1, D.4 and D.6) 5.4.1 UFTR SOP-A.1, " Pre-operational Checks" 5.4.2 UFTR SOP-A.5, " Experiments" 5.4.3 UFTR SOP-D.1, "UFTR Radiation Protection and Control" I- 5.4.4 UFTR SOP-D.4, " Removing Irradiated Samples From UFTR Experi-mental Ports" I 5.4.5 UFTR SOP-D.6, " Control of UTTR Radioactive Material Trans-fers" 5.5 . Policy Statement For Transfer of Radioactive Materials Between the UFTR R-56 Licenso and the University of Florida 356-1 State License.
6.0 Records Required 6.1 -- UFTR Operations Log Entries 6.2 Radiation and Swipe Survey Results
6. 3 . UFTR Form SOP-A.5A (Request for UFTR Operation) 6.4 UFTR Form SOP-A.8A (Rabbit System Operator Certification)
I- 6.5 UFTR Form SOP-D.6A (University of Florida Training Reactor / Uni-versity of Florida Radioactive Material Transfer Record)
I 6.6 UFTR Form SOP-D.6B (University of Florida / University of Florida Training Reactor Radioactive Material Transfer Record) 6.7 UFTR Form SOP-D.6E (University of Florida Training Reactor / Uni-I .versity of Florida Rabbit System Sample Package Transfer Record) 7.0 lustructions 7.1 Rabbit System Preparation and Check Out I 7.1.1 Check communications by informing Reactor Operator, " Setting Up Rabbit For Operation."
REV 0, 12/88
i 11 ,
SOP-A.8 PAGE 8 of 19 l l
l 7.1. 2 Ensure regulator set screw tension completely released (reg- I ulator operator " Backed Out").
7.1.3 Inspect Rabbit facilities visually to establish or verifyr i
7.1.3.1 Proper hose connections l
7.1.3.1.1 To in-core rabbit assembly; make up hose connection if disconnected 7.1.3.1.2 Exhaust venting from the glove box (vent line from glove box to reactor core vent system) 7.1.3.1.3 Hose connecting regulated nitrogen supply to Rabbit control station 7.1.3.1.4 Poly hose connections from the reactor cell to Rabbit control system (connecting gas and capsule transit .
g line) l 3 1 7.1. 3. 2 Radiation detectors available and operating:
7.1.3.2.1 Portable radiation / survey meter 7.1.3.2.2 Glove box area monitor i 7.1.3.3 Glove box interior properly prepared to include:
7.1.3.3 1 Glove box light 7.1.3.3.2 Absorbent paper 7.1.3.3.3 Clean transfer container (as required) 7.1.3.3.4 Rabbit capsule of verified integrity 7.1.3.3.5 Operability of receiving station (leave station open) 7.1.4 Prepare Receiving Station I. 7.1.4.1 Turn on exhaust blower (control switch on glove box) 7 1.4.2 Turn on Rabbit Power Supply (control switch on Rabbit con-trol station) 7.1.4.3 Assure nitrogren pressure regulator set screw is backed out REV 0, 12/88
'I SOP-A.8 PACE 9 of 19 t
7.1.4.4 Energize gas supply solenoid control valve (switch on '
Reactor Control Panel)
~
i CAUTION }
I This step shall be performed only by a licensed reactor operator with approval of the Reactor Manager or his de- i signated alternate. This step requires a line entry in !
the UFTR Operations Log.
7.1.4.5 Oper. or verify open rabbit receiving station (latch open) ;
i 7.1.5 Prepare Rabbit System Valve Lineup 7.1. 5.1 Core veut sample line valve (rabbit station) shut I 7.1. 5. 2 Rabbit control vent line valve (rabbit station) open 1 7.1.5.3 Sample transit line valve (reactor cell) open 7.1. 5. 4 Gas supply / return line valve (reactor cell) open 7.1 6 Prepare Nitrogen Supply ;
7.16.1 Crack open, then fully open nitrogen tank supply valve i l 7.1.6.2 Screw in regulator set _ screw until downstream pressure ,
gauge indicates in range 20 poi (18-20 psi preferred).
L l NOTE: If the pressure on the downstream side exceeds 25 '
psi, back out I full turn on the set screw, press the " RE TU RN" button on the Rabbit control panel, and.
, wait for the Rabbit System to cycle. After the cycle ,
t is completed, attempt to set downstream pressure ,
again. Because receiving station is open, these op-t erations do not result in anything being inserted into the core.
[ CAUTION ,
If the Rabbit System has been disconnected prior to the current experiment run, an initial test insertion with an observer stationed at the hose connections in the cell to check for gas leakage and travel of the sample I. container during the initial test insertion should be performed prior to reactor startup to assure proper sam-pie delivery.
l l REV 0, 12/88 LI
ll ,
, SOP-A.8 PAGE 10 of_19 .i 7.1.7 Verify that rabbit system operator is qualified with com- 5 pleted UFTR Form SOP-A.8A (Rabbit System Operator Certifica- ;
tion) on file to certify qualification.
7.1.8 Make Daily Opera tions Log Entry: " Rabbit System Energized and ;
Ready for Operation; Certified Operator (Name) On Duty;" or !
similar appropriate notation.
7.2 Rabbit System Operation (Rabbit system operator actions except as noted):
7.2.1- Put gloves on; 7.2.2 Insert one empty capsule prior to initial sample insertion to test the sample insertion system for proper operation and ;
verify proper return; manual mode should be used.
r CAUTION ,
Assure control room reactor operator is informed of all I insertion / removal steps as for all other insertions. i 7.2.3 If Automatic (sample insertion and removal) Mode is to be used, set timer for required length of irradiation; 7.2.4 Place capsule on prepared surface (inside glove box) using glove box side entrance, or place sample on prepared work surface on lab bench; 3
ll CAUTION If the sample contains radioactive material as trom a pre-vious irradiation, then the insertion into the UFTR experi-mental port requires a transfer of that material from the University of Florida 356-1 license co the UFTR R-56 11-cense. In such cases the tranefer must be controlled using SOP-D.6, "0ontrol of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers" Lg and the transfer must be documented on UFTR Form SOP-D.6B
's (University of Florida / University of Florida Training ;
Reactor Radioactive Material Transfer Record) or UFTR Form SOP-D.6E (University of Florida Training Reactor / University I of Florida Rabbit System Sample Package Transfer Record) as desired. The transfer to the R-56 license must be docu-l mented prior to insertion into the UFTR via the rabbit sys-ten which is the point at which the transfer is considered to occur to assure proper control of licensed material.
l
REV 0, 12/88 l
l
\; \
'I SOP-A.8 PAGE 11 of 19 )
7.2.5 Place sample into rabbit espsule;
{
, 7.2.6 Place prepared rabbit capsule near receiving station, close i glove box; 7.2.7 Place rabbit capsule into receiving station inside glove box; i
7.2.8 Seal receiving station. !
l 7.2 9 In conformance with the governing run request, inform Reactor l Operator,
" Inserting sample (number and/or type) for (specify time)" ,
or other appropriate notation. '
7.2.10 Reactor Operator: Make entry in Daily Operations Log indicat-ing sample identification, insertion and expected length of insertion.
I. 7.2.11 After verbal acknowledgement is received from the reactor operator, press " AUTOMATIC OPERATION" for automatic operation mode, " Manual INSERT" for manual operation mode.
7.2.11.1 Automatic sequence of operations (following depressing ,
" Auto" push button): '
l. " Auto" light on for sample insertion portion of cycle, '
capsule inserts into reactor;
2. " Auto" light and " Timing" light on for sample irradia- ,
tion portion of cycle, timer counting down;
'p
3. " Auto" light on, " Timing" light off for sample removal portion of cycle, sample removed from reactor;
-I
4. " Auto" light off, " Capsule Return" light on for comple-tion of cycle, capsule returned to receiving station.
,3 7.2.11.2 Manual sequence of operations (following depreesing ig " Manual" switch):
1. " Manual" light on, capsule inserting; i I- 2. " Timing" and " Manual" light on, capsule at rest in reactor; >
3. [When " Capsule Return" push button is depressed):
" Manual" light on, " Timing" light off, capsule ej e c ti ng from recctor;
4. " Manual" light off, " Capsule Return" light on, capsule in receiving station.
REV 0, 12/88 I
. .~. - . _ . - .- _-_ . - . _- - .
I :
$0P-A.8 Page 12 of 19.
f 7.2.12 Reactor Operator: Note and record (in Daily Operations Log)
1 the changs in reactivity due to sample insertion, as deter-mined by regulating blade position changes; if no change is '
noted, make Operations Log entry noting sample has "negli-gible reactivity effect," or other appropriate notation.
i
, NOTE If the sample contains radioactive material, this entry in- ;
dicates transfer of the sample from the University of Flo- l I- rida 356-1 Radioactive Materials License to the UFTR R-56 Reactor License. '
i 7.2.13 In manual mode of operation, at end of desired irradiation period, inform reactor operator, " Retrieving Sample" (or other appropriate information) and depress " Capsule Return." j 7.2.14 When visible (" Capsule Return" lamp) and audible indication -
of rabbit sample return is noced: ,
7.2.14.1 Inform Reactor Operator of capsule return; l 7.2.14.2 Observe glove box rkdiation monitor; 7.2.14 2.1 Report reading to reactor operator l 7.2.14.2.2 Reactor Operator should record reported reading on glove box radiation monitor at this point. .
7.2.14.3. Reactor Operatort note capsule return in Daily Operations I Log.
I :
CAUTION l
? : In the above sequence, if a sample does not return as ,
expected, or any specific problem affecting the Rabbit System or reactor is noted, the Recctor Operator shall ,
~
be informed Ammediately; the rabbit system operator should remain at the Rabbit Control Station to assist with problem diagnosis, corrective action, and contamin-I- ation control as necessary unless radiation, radioactive ,
contamination or potential airborne contamination indi-cate otherwise. ,
r REV 0, 12/88
I i
1 SOP-A.8 PAGE 13 of 19 l I 7.2.14.4 Transfer or store sample as follows: {
I 7.2.14.4.1 Observe glove box radiation monitor, report reading to reactor operator if reading excessively high, contact.
reactor operator for instructions, otherwise:
1 j
l i
NOTE: Clove box radiation monitor is calibrated j to read 1000 cpm per mR/hr. t 7.2 14.4.2 Unlatch receiving station to allow rabbit capsule to fall to glove box floor; ,
I 7.2.14.4.3 Monitor glove box monitor reading in cpm as well as l sample radiation levels on contact and at I foot using l the portable survey meter; !
7.2.14.4.4 Report all three (3) radiation level-related readings to reactor operator; 7.2.14.4.5 Reactor Operator: Record three (3) radiation level-re- ,
lated readings in the daily operations log; this entry '
indicates transfer of the sample to the University of Florida 356-1 Radioactive Materialc License. !
NOTE: The monitoring function performed using the l glove box. detector and the hand held survey in- >
lI- strument as read by the rabbit system operator and recorded by the control room reactor opera- l tor are considered to meet the monitoring re- ;
quirements of SOP-A.5, " Experiments" and SOP-D.4, " Removing Irradiated Samples From UFTR-Ex- ,
7 perimental Ports" for removal of experiments '
. from the reactor. i 7.2.14.4.6 Reactor Operator: Log the transfer of the irradiated sample f rom UFTR License R-56 to UF License 356-1 per I UFTR SOP-D.6, " Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers" using either 'sFTR Form SOP-D.6A (University of Florida Training Reactor / University of Florida Ra- ,
, dioactive Material Transfer Record) or UFTR Form SOP-
D.6E (University of Florida Training Reactor /Univer-sity of Florida Rabbit System Sample Package Transfer Record) as desired. ;
7.2.14.4.7 Inspect physical integrity and guide ring wear of Rab-
) .
bit capsule.
i' 7.2.14.4.8 Unscrew rabbit capsule cap; 7.2.14.4.9 Remove sample (s) from rabbit capsule (use care to maintain sample containment integrity when handling tools such as tweezers are utilized);
REV 0, 12/88
I SOP-A.8 l
FAGE 14 of 19, I 7.2.14.4.10 Place sample in transfer container or shielded con-l tainer as necessary. l 7.2.15 In removing the sample from the glove box, l
I 7.2.15.1 Check sample activity with portable radiation survey in-strument l
7.2.15.2 Report information obtained on radiation levels to reactor j operator who will record them in the Operations Log i 7.2.15.3 Transfer sample to control, storage or analysis location I within the NAA/ Radiation Chemistry laboratory complex.
j j
I i
i CAUTION !
Samples shall not be removed from the Reactor Building without further documentation of transfer to the Univer- -
sity of Florida 356-1 State License per UFTR SOP-D.6. I l
I 7.3 Securing the Rabbit System J
i
7.3.1 With reactor secuted. rabbit capsule removed from receiving station and rabbit glove box vent fan operating, depress cap- ,
sule return backlit push button (to purge activated gas from rabbit system);
7.3.2 *Close nitrogen supply tank valve to remove gas supply to the regulator; 7.3.3 Open rabbit system receiving station door to assure no inser-tion occurs while depressurizing rabbit system; 7.3.4 Manually cycle Rabbit Control Station by depressing " Capsule Return" backlit pushbutton to release upstream nitrogen pree-sure; 7.3.5 *Back off the regulator set screw to release tension; .
i 7.3.6
Turn off power to rabbit control panel via control panel backlit " power" push button; a
7.3.7
Secure power to gas supply solenoid - reactor operator func-tion; (make log entry indicating that rabbit system is de-energized);
7.3.8 Shut Rabbit system manual valves (control station vent and reactor cell valves / sample transit line and gas supply / return line);
REV 0, 12/8B I
i l
80P-A.8 PACE 15 of 19 l 7.3.9 Secure lights unless needed for further operations. j i
CAUTION I I Exhaust blower should not be secured until after the reac-tor is shutdown and system lines have been purged.
j 7.3.10 Reactor Operator: Make Daily Operations Log entry, " Rabbit' I Systen is Secured" or other appropriate notation. ,
NOTE: If required or desired, the switch supplying the blower motor, illumination, and Rabbit System control panel' 4 may be opened behind and to the right of the glove box. ,
i I .
t I
l l
1 l .
l l
REV 0, 12/88
'l
.. . . . _ . . . _ _ . . _ .-. --. . . . - - . . _ . - - . . . . . - . . _ . - _ . . ~ _ . - . - .
i
it SOP-A.6 PAGE 16 of 19, I !
i i
I !
f I
f I !
e I
I I
i i
APPENDIX I :
NAA FORM SOP-A.8A '
Rabbit System Operator Certification" !
\ ,
l
't I
I:
I l 4
l l .
l REV 0, 12/88 r._,_ ... . . _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . , , , .._.,,...__._.-..._m,_... , , , ,
t l
$0P-A.8 PAGE 17 ef 19 l UFTR FORN SOP-A.8A .
RABBIT SYSTEN OPERATOR CERTIFICATION Section I is to have items initialled by perwonnel qualified to perfers radia-tion control functions;Section II is to have items initialled by a licensed reacter operator except Ites 1 also requires the candidate's signature. See-tion III is to be completed by a certified rabbit system operator who is a reactor operator with final authorizing approval by the Reactor Manager or Fa-cility Direct % required prior to cxercising use of the rabbit system.
SECT 105 It Rabbit System Radiation Controls Certification !
t y 1. University of Florida Radiation Control Guide Form RC-1, j Statement of Training and Experience, on file with '
Radiation Control 0ffice....................................... ,
2. Fila Badge issued by Univereity of Florida Radiation Control ,
Office in accordance with Radiation Control Technique.#9,
" Instructions for Personnel Monitoring Badges"................. '
3. Familiarity with basic contamination control and use of '
portable survey demonstrated by readings j
a. Radiation Control Technique #1, !
" Performing Swipe Surveye"................................
]
b. Radiation Control Technique #30, " Responding to Spills of Radioactive Material"...........................
c. Radiation Control Technique #4, " Instructions for Radiation Surveys"........................................
4. Demonstration of ability to understand and operate portable monitoring instruments................................
C SECTICE II: Rabbit System Operator Certification
1. Candidate has read and understands the need for verbatim compliance with contents of UFTR SOP-A.8 lI as indicated by name and signature...........
j
2. Candidate understands requirements for communications lI. with Reactor Operator at the Controls..........................
3. Candidate understands the operation of the Rabbit l
-System Control Panel...........................................
4. Candidate is familiar with nomal operating characteristics of rabbit system and has operated the system under the direction of a certified Rabbit System Operator to demon-strate adequate capabilities...................................
SECTION III: Review and Certification Approval I i
l L
Rabbit System / Reactor Operator Date Rx Mgr/ Facility Dir Date REV 0, 12/88 I- TCN: 11/89 1 1
l
T
. 80P-A.8 PAGE 18 of 19, g
F-L I
I I
APPENDIX 11 DATA FOR CORRELATION OF RABBIT SYSTEM GLOVE BOX MONITOR COUNT RATE AND DOSE RATE MEASURED WITH SURVEY METER I
I I
k l
REV 0, 12/88
I '
i
. i SOP-A.8 PAGE 19 of 19 l 1
l 1
TABII 1 5
~
Correlation Between Glove Box Monitor Count Rate (cpm) !
i And Hand Held Survey Meter Measured i
Contact Dose Rate (mR/hr)[1][2]
(
)
i GloveBoxMongr HandHeldSurveyMgr I- Count Rate (cpa)
Contact Dose Rate (mR/hr) 3000 150 2000 100 I 1000 50 500 25 NOTE 1: This chart should only be used as a guideline to evaluate need for special handling; data from typical rabbit op- ;
erations indicates ratio of approximately 120 (mR/hrt ;
cpm): however, significant variation in daca was also present (e.g. , 3000 cp /7200 mR/hr,1000 cps /190 mR/hr, f-500 cpm /90 mR/hr, 600 cpa/7 mR/hr).
f NOTE 2: Normal 100 kw background levels on the glove box monitor ,
are 50 to 200 cpm.
NOTE 3

Glove Box Monitor is an RM 20 (GM Detector), Serial !
Number 361.
NOTE 4: Hand Held Survey Meter is an E-530 (GM Detector), Serial Number 1879.
=
REV 0, 12/88
, . - . .-. . - - - . - _ _ . _ _ . _ . ..~ _ _. -
't"* fj s
r i
I i i
APPENDIX F
~
q
- UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES l 5
MAJOR REVISION GENERATED FOR THE 19881989 REPORTING YEAR i
1. UFTR SOP-A.1, " PRE OPERATIONAL CHECKS" (REV 14)
}g 2. UFTRSOP A.4," REACTOR SHUTDOWN"(REV10) ;
i5' t
3. UFTR SOP A.5, " EXPERIMENTS"(REV4) ~
l 4. UFTR SOP-B.1, RADIOI DGICAL EMERGENCY"(REV4)
~
5. UFTR SOP-D 4, " REMOVING IRRADIATED SAMPLES FROM UFTR EXPERIMENTAL PORTS"(REV4)
,g 6. RADIATION CONTROL TECHNIQUE #31, "INSTRUCTICNS :
Lg: FOR PERFORMING UFTR ENVIRONMENTALRADIATION !
SURVEYS" '
lI j I
i e.
l l
L >
~ -
Hs I' 50P-A 1 PAGE 1 cf 33 q UFTk OPERATING PROCEDURE A.1 1.0 Pre-Operational Checks l
2. 0 Approval -
Reactor Safety Review Subcommit. tee . . . . . . M N 9!d2
/ !
Date Director, Nuclear Facilities . . . . . . . . . .
I2Dat6ldh F (
1 i :
ll
) ,
l~ ;
ll :
!I- !
l .
I REV 14, 12/88
I
SOP-A.1 PAGE 2 sf 33 i
(
3.0 Purpose'and discussion I
3.1 General l
'E 3.1.1 The pre-operational checks shall be performed by a licensed ;
3 reactor operator or trainee (s) under the direct supervision ,
of a licensed reactor operator. .
3.1.2 Pre-operational checkoff sheets and other materials document-ing completion of the checkouts shall be maintained in accor- ,
dance with the Technical Specifications.
I l
3.1.3 The following conventions shall be used with this procedure:
I 3.1.3.1 An underlined statement implies a command, or action to be taken.
3.1.3.2 Quotation sirks indicate annunciation at the console. i 3.1. 3. 3 Parentheses are used to denote the required indication or ;
instrument reading.
i 3.1.3.4 Discrepancies shall be noted with an asterisk in the blank provided on the check off sheet and explained in the "com-ments" section of the respective weekly or daily checkoff I' sheets.
3.1.3.5 Asterisks (*) are used to indicate items requiring values to be recorded within the instructions eections of this procedure, or on the Weekly Pre-Operational Check Sheet i (UFTR Form SOP-A.1A), on the Daily Pre-Operational Check Sheet (UFTR Form SOP-A1B) when used to record the results ,
of the weekly and daily checkouts.
3.1.4 The reactor console key must be under the control of a li-I censed reactor operator at all times. If the console is left unattended, the key shall be secured.by being in the actual t possession of a licenced reactor operator or locked in the ,
designated key cabinet.
3.2 Weekly pre-operational checks 3.2.1 The weekly pre-operational checkout of the UFTR will be per- l formed routinely on the first working day of the week when )
the reactor is operable. During extended ehutdown periods j for administrative purposes, maintainence, or modifications, 1 the weekly. pre-operational checks will be performed each week l on the operable systems. l 3.2.1 1 A single page abbreviated form (UFTR Torn SOP-A.1A) as contained in Appendix 1 will normally be used to record these checkout actions and results, but l
REV. 14, 12/88 l
l
I '
SOP-A.1 PAGE 3 of 33 4
'I 3.2.1.2 A copy of SOP-A.1 (Steps 7.0 through 7.1.28) may be used to document performance of the weekly checkout. l 3.2.2 The weekly pre-operational checks (SOP-A.1, Steps 7.0 to 7.1.28) shall have been completely performed within seven (7)
I days prior to reactor startup except that any item or situa-tion not required by Technical Specifications for operation l
i or to make the reactor operable may be omitted provided that:
3.2.2.1 The deviation is noted on UFTR Form SOP-A.1A Weekly Pre- ;
Operational Check Sheet or the copy of SOP-A.1 (Steps 7.0 through 7.1.28) used to document the performance of the .
weekly checkout in the comments section when the deviation l occurs during the performance of the weekly checkout, and upon discovery in the Daily Operations Log; and, I
3.2.2.2 All opera tions that involve making the reactor operable '
must be specifically authorized by the Reactor Manager or the Facility Director and noted as a line item in the Daily Operations Log. ,
3. 3 Daily pre-operational checks 3.3.1 The daily pre-operational checkout of the UFTR will be per-formed in accordance with the checklist starting with Step
7. 2. ;
3.3.1.1 A single page abbreviated form (UFTR Form SOP-A.18) as contained in Appendix 1 will normally be used to record ,
these checkout actions and resulta, but '
3.3.1.2 A copy of SOP A.1 (Steps 7.2 to 7.2.5.6.11) may be used to document completion of the daily checkout. ;
3.3.2 A daily pre-operational check must have been started and sat- ;
isfactorily completed within eight (8) hours prior to reac-cor startup. Items or situations checked by SOP-A.1, Steps 7.2 to 7.2.5.6.11 may be omitted for satisfactory comple-tion of the Daily Pre-Operational Check, provided that:
e .
3.3.2 1 Such deviation is noted in the comments section of-UFTR I Form SOP-A.1B or the copy of SOP-A.1 (Steps 7.2 to '
. 7.2.5.6.11) used to document the daily checkout; and 3.3.2.2 The operation that the startup supports has been specific- '
ally authorized by the Reactor Manager or the Facility Di- ,
t rector, who shall indicate with the authorization that:
E .
3.3.2.2.1 The Reactor Manager and/or the Facility Director is l
fully cognizant of the deviating condition, and REV. 14, 12/88
. . . - - .- . ~. - - - - - . .
1 I 3.3.2.2.2
$0P-A 1 PAGE 4 of 33 ,)
l The' deviating condition is compatible with the Techni
cal Specifications requirements for startup or reactor l
operability.
l I 3. 3.1 The requirements for actual completion of the daily and week-ly checkouts may be waived providing that the reactor startup is made within six (6) hours of a normal reactor shutdown.
4 J
For these purposes, a normal reactor shutdown means that the I reactor had been critical with proper functicaing of all in-struments and components, and that a shutdown had been ef-facted under normal conditions. ,
3.3.4 A de-energiastion of the nuclear instrumentation (loss of I electrical power or opening of the circuit breaker behind the I' console rear center door) or electrical transient which drops out a scram relay requires a subsequent completion of the daily pre-operational check before the' reactor may be i
started. This startup must be authorized by a licensed !
senior reactor operator to include " documented verbal con-currence,' which must be entered in the reactor operations log. .
3.4 Successful completion of a Weekly Pre-Operational Checkout or a Daily Pre-operational Checkout is defined as performance of all .
.g steps listed in the appropriate checklist with attendant obser-
'g vation of required equipment conditions and response except as ,
noted in Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.2.
4.0 Limits and precautions
'4.1 General 4.1.1 After reactor operation at power, it may take up to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months for the Argon-41 in the core to decay to a background level (about I cps). If the diluting and/or vent fans are stopped
'I while Argon-41 levels are still high, the radiation levels in the reactor cell may become high enough to set off the low level trip on the area monitors. Section 3.3.1 of the UFTR I
Technical Specifications states that the vent system shall be operated until the stack monitor indicates less than 10 counts per second unlest otherwise indicated by facility con- J ditions to include:
4.1.1.1 Loss of building electrical power.
4.1.1.2 Equipment failure.
4.1.1. 3 Cycling console power to dump primary coolant.
4.1.1.4 Performance of tests and surveillances.
l REV. 14, 12/88
~. . . .. _- -
3 I ,
SOP-A.1 PAGE 5 of 33 4.1.1.5 'Inittstion of evneustion alarm for tests and surveillances. i including emergency crills. I If the stuck count rate sonitor. indicates 10. cps or higher, !
.l_ the time theca fans are recared for these reasons should be i e minimized.
C_AUTION l
=
When the stack count rate monitor indicates 10 cps or high- !
er, the diluting and/or vent fans shall not be secured ex- !
cept for one of the conditions delineated in items 4 1.1.1 ;
through 4.1.1.5. i
'4.1.2 Prior to a startup, no known condition may exist which has ;
E the capability of preventing a successful completion of a ~i g weekly or daily checkout except as noted in Sections 3.2.2 '
and 3.3.2.
4.2 Weekly pre-operational checks 4.2.1 Entry into the equipment pit is to be controlled by the
g. guidelines enumerated i r. UFTE SOP-D.3, ' Primary Equipment Pit
g Entry'. ;
4.2.2 Entry into the equipment pit shall be made no sooner than 15 minutes after shutdown from a power run above 1 kW to allow Ni trogen-16 activity to decay. The radiation level shall be !
checked prior to and during each initial entry. Twenty-four ;
~
hours after shutdown, gamma levels are normally less than 5 ar/hr. However, contact gamma level at the demineralizer can remain as_high as 100 mr/hr. ,
4.2.3 Prior to entry into the equipment pit, a check shall be made for evidence of primary water leakage. If wet spots or water .
marks are visible, full Anti-C's will be required until Ra-diation Control determines that no surface contamination exists above limits specified it UFTR SOP-D.J. All primaty .
t coolant leakage must be reported immediately to the Reactor [
Manager and Radiation Control.
t
-4.2.4 Upon initial ent y into the equipment pit, partial Anti-C's lE Shall b* wora and *wi Peu taken to determine the level of con-g tamination. Checks shall be made routine?y for visible leaks. UFTR surface contamigation linics are 100 DPM/100 cm 2 beta-gamma and 50 DPM/100 cm alpha. If actual levels of con-lI.
tamination are less than these limits, subsequent pit entry does not require Anti-C protection.
REV. 14, 12/88 1 lI-
.n PAGE 6 of 33 I SOP-A.1
.t i
4.2.5 Shortly after power operation, a few drops'of primary coolant, can contaminate a swipe to 450 cpa beta-gassa (adj usted to_ a ;
detector efficiency of 45 %). This corresponds to 1000 DPN tt 10 times the permissible UFTR limit. Any_ radiation level ;
above background in the pit could indicate a potentially I. hasardous condition with regard to handling primary coolant. 3
-5.0 References !
5.1 UFTR Safety Analysis Report {
5 2 UFTR Technical. Specifications 5.3 UFTR Operation and Maintenance Manual l.
5.4 UFTR SOP-D.3 (Primary Equipment Pit Entry) )
'5.5 Physical Security Plan I, 6.0 Records required 6.1 UTTR Operations Log entry
[
6.2 Weekly Pre-operational Check Sheet (UFTR Form SOP-A.1A) l 6.3 Daily Pre-operational Check Sheet (UFTR Form SOP-A.1B) 7.0 Instructions-7.1 Weekly pre-operational checks
, Record start time on UFTR Form SOP-A.1............. *
(if UFTR Form SOP-A.lB is used to record the performance of the weekly preoperational checks).
^g The time taken to accomplish checkouts following '
'g this procedure is needed to accurately reflect utiliz& tion and training time in the UFTR and should be entered into the Reactor Operations Log.
'I 7.1.1 Stop Core Vent and Stack Dilute fans...........
1 7.1.2 Diluting Fan System (access from the reactor i building annex basement) 7.1. 2.1 Check Diluting Fan drive belts (condi- l tion and tension)...........................
- (Proper tensicn is indicated by a deflection of about 1 inch) 7.1.1.2 Check temperature of motor and diluting fan bearings by touch for excessive heat....
REV. 14, 12/88 ,
l l
l 1
1 PACE 7 of 33 I SOP-A.1 l
7.1.2.3 Check fabric coupling between blower .
l housing and ductwork for integrity..........
7.1.2.4 Check for deterioration of tachometer I generator rubber coupling................... :
.7 7.1.3 Check Blade Gear Box oil levels................
- . (011 level should j ust be visible. If breather cap air hole is plugged, it may cause ,
abnormal level indication. 4dd oil as needed j with Macoma No. 33 [Shell 0- 1 ] or equivalent. -
Add only the amount of oil 1- " ired to estab- !
~I lish a visible level.)
i I 7.1.4 Check zero level of inclined manometers and the Magnehelic gage............................ ,;
i 7.1.5 Source check portal monitor for proper j response......................................._ -
7.1. 6 Core Vent and' Diluting Fan systems '
7.1. 6.1 Depress Core Vent Fan switch to check ,
core vent fan interlock.....................
(With the dilutant fan deenergized. the ;
lower half of the core vent light will illuminate with the upper half deenergized.) !
'I 7.1.6.2 Start Stack Diloting Fan (425 rpa [
. minimum)........ ..........................* __ rpm 5 7.1 6.3 Verify proper operation of the core vent damper by either of two methods:
i 7.1.6.3.1 Note that a significant length of l' time elapses between fan start and
, flow indication;.........................
7.1.6.3.2 Observe that the core vent damper
, opens slowly as the core vent fan -
is energized.............................
7.1. 6. 4 Check D/P indications for core vent
! filters and vent flow rate I
Rough Filter (D/P in green range of manometer).................................* in I Absolute Filter (D/P in green range of manometer).................................* in s-i REV. 14, 12/88
. I
SOP-A.1 PACE 8 cf 33 Vent. flow (D/P consistent with flow .
desired--refer to chart posted under instrument)................................* in 7.1.7 Start Shield Water Recirculation Pump..........
7.1.8 Start Demineralizer Pump.......................
7.19 Reset magnet power key and release (maintain slight down pressure on the key while turn-ing it).......................................
CAUTION Prior to energizing control blade circuits (drive or clutch), an author-I, iting signature is required to be l
entered in the Daily Operations Log, a qualified second person is required [
to be present in the UPTR complex, ;
and a designated JR0 is required to
, be readily available on call._
, NOTE: Any deenergized scram relry ensures that control blade i circuits remain deenergized. "
(If the dump valve buzzes excessively, cycle console " POWER ON" switch, and repeat Step 7.1.10.)
i 7.1 10 Check " REACTOR ON" exterior lights (4)........
7.1.11 Start log / linear neutron recorder and check
'g for proper operatJ.on and adequate ink and ,
g chart supp1y..................................
(The log / linear recorder is placed into opera-tion to provide a record of the neutron level 1 during core filling [ Step 7.1.13]. The addition of water adds positive reactivity and therefore i reduces shutdown margin.)
7.1.12 Start Primary Coolant Pump and record flow, when stable...................................* gpa (Normal flow is about 40 gpm; stable flow rate is achieved in about 2 ninutes of pump operation.)
I i
REV. 14, 12/88
$0P-A.1 PAGE 9 af 33 7.1 13 Primary Coolant resistivity determinations .
7.1.13.1 Check in-line primary coolant resistivity at $0LU-Bridge mounted on the control-room I wall. Set compensating temperature to ten-perature indicated by Point 7 (primary cool-ant inlet) on temperature monitoring panel..,__ ,_
7.1.13.2 Check resistivity at inlet to desineraliser.* Hohn-en 7.1.13.3 Check resistivitf st ourlet from deminer-a11:er......................................* Mohe-ca (When outlet resintivity drops and stays I bolow 1 Hohe-en, desineralizer resins should be changed. A Radiation Work Permit (RWP) must be prepared (see UFTR SOP-D.2) and used for changing of primary resins, l as per UTTR SOP-E.1.)
l 7.1.14 Blade Withdrawal Time Hessurements
} , NOTE: Commencement of this stop requires
that a qualified second person be en-l tered in the daily operating log. and present in the Reactor Building Com-plex. and that an authorizing signature l be made by the Reactor Manager or his assigned representative approving the reactor operation of putting the UFTR I J. n a non-secured status. A designated SRO is also required to be readily a-vailable on call.
These checks verify proper operation of the blade drive motors and digital indicators.
CAUTION Insure no personnel are in the equipment pi t during these checks 7.1.14.1 Sequentially measure and record elapsed c.ae for a full withdrawal of each blade as indi-cated by the red upper limit light illumin-ated. record the blade position and return t the blade to the fully inserted position
} (white down light illuminated).
REV. 14, 12/88
\
p-SOP-A.1 PAGE 10 of 33 NOTE: As one blade is being inserted, the -
next in the test sequence may be with-drawn.
i NOTE: Proper functioning of neutron instru- s
- I- mentation should always be observed i during reactivity changes such as ,
these; abnormalities should be noted ;
by log entry for further investiga- !'
tion.
I ..:
Blade Top Position Withdrawal Time ,
(Eeconds)
Safety 1 ;
Safety'2 Safety 3 Regulating 7.1.15 Dump primary coolant as per UFTR SOP-A.4 Step 7.9.......................................
7.1 16 Secure the console Magnet Power Key............ ,
The reactor console key must always be under direct control of a licensed operator or locked in the key cabinet mounted on the east side of the reactor.
I 7.1.17 Stop Log / Linear recorder and temperature recorder. Secure core vent and stack dilu-tion fans if appropriate. See Argon-41 Caution in' Item 4.1.1. >
Log / Linear recorder is normally left with chart drive off, amplifier power on, both pens lifted and linear range switch in zero position. !
I Place temperature recorder print wheel in down position and turn off chart drive
[
switch..........................................
7.1.18 Equipment Pit checkout.
lr 7.1.18.1 Preparation for equipment pit checkout.
7.1.18.1.1 Remove the shielding from the primary equipment pit.............................
REV. 14, 12/88
SOP-A.1 PACE 11 of 33 i
g- 7 1 18.1.2 Assemble three (3) capped plastic bottles -
l
'g for. sample collection, one (1) liter bot- ;
tie and two (2) bottles of at 1 cast 100 ml capacity. Rinse sample bottles pr.ior I
l to entry into the pit with domineralised
water. Verify that the capped bottles do not leak.
7.1.18.1.3 Fill a fourth large bottle about one-half ,
full of tap water for an equipment pit i alarm check. Place all bottles on the ;
stepoff pad for the Primary Equipment Pit.
iE 7.1.18.1.4 Place a low level beta gamma survey meter B-on the equipment pit step-eff pad. ,
l3 7.1.18.1.5 Prepare four (4) swipes for contamination
'g survey and place on the equipment pit step-off pad.
i 7.1.18.1.6 Perform a pit entry per SOP-D.3.......... -
7.1.18.2 Gamma Radiation Leve1s l 7.1.18.2.1 Check Primary Coolant Tank (Maximum camma 1 eve 1>............................. ar,hr .
(Normally Background- Abnormal reading could indicate fuel meat is exposed to cooling water or possible secondary to l primary leak. A pin hole leak in the ;
fuel cladding could cause a noticeable .;
increase in the radiation level of the r
L l' storage tank. Radiation level will nor-mally be higher than background for a time after shutdown.)
7.1.18.2.2 Check Core Vent Filters (Maximum gamma level) e* carnally, on contact...........* ar/hr ,
(Normally background- Abnormal reading
[ could be the result of radioactive pro-
! ducts from an experiment that is vented l to the core vent system, from a coolant l 1eak (during operation) near the core, i or from fission products or activation i products in the primary coolant storage tank).
REV. 14 $ 12/88=
l
SOP-A.1 PAGE 12 of 33, 7.1.18.223 Check Primary Purification = Domineral- .
- iser (MaximumLgamma level)..............* ar/hr
-(Levels can be.as high as 100 ar/hr, depending on recent operational history)'
7.1.18.3 Check operation of equipment pitialara.......
(Verify alarm occurs when sump is filled with prepared tap ~ water, clears when sump is
. . drained - the bottle will now be used as a purge volume for water samples.)
7.1.18.4 Obtain primary,-secondary sample tank, and
-, secondary-heat exchanger water samples.......
Partially' fill purge bottle prior to-sam-pling'each point to flush the sample lines; then fill.the' sample bottle about 3/4 full.
Properly cap bottles.
The primary sample is taken from the inlet side of'the demineralizer system, and is
-representative of the water in the-coolant i storage tank.
The sample tank collects a sample of.secon-
, dary cooling water anytime the secondary cooling system is in operation. This sam-ple is representative of the radioactive content of effluent discharged to the' storm drains in the event of a primary to secon-t dary leak.
The secondary heat exchanger sample is a sample representative of conditions in the eecondary heat exchanger at the time of
= sampling.
7.1.18.5 i:,eck Demineralizer flow...................* gpm (Flow is read at the top of flow indicator and taken with the demineralizer pump run-ning. Normal flow for the demineralizer
pump is about 0.9 gpm if all filters in in the line are clean.)
2 1
REV. 14, 12/88
}
-1
. SOP-A.1 PAGE ~13 of 33 ,
e I 7.1.18.6 Check _ Rupture Disk for-moisture (feel
botton surface gently)...................... r (Moisture 1could indicate a leak or crack; in the disk.).
1 7.1.18 7;' Check Dump'Va1ve............................
(Dumpcyalve shouldLoperate freely when operated by hand.- Check for water leakage along stem.)
7.1.18.8 Check Primary Coolant Storage Tank level
, (20 inches minimum)........................* 'in
[
CAUTION Water shall not be added to the
g; Primary Coolant Storage Tank after i g the reactor startup' commences.
NOTE: Starting the, Primary Coolant Pump causes water level to drop about 7 inches in the storage tank, corre-sponding to 44 gal. of water. Dur-ing power operation, primary coolant is lost due to evaporation at the rate of about 10-30 gal / week for 50 hours5.787037e-4 days 0.0139 hours 8.267196e-5 weeks 1.9025e-5 months of 100 Kw operation.
7.1.18.9' Perform swipe survey of the equipment pit.....
.I (This step _need not be performed if the pit has remained open since the performance of the last swipe survey.) .
l
^
7.1.19 Water sample analysis
! H 7.1.19.1 Prepare the resistivity bridge:
7.1.19.1.1 Place ~ the mode switch to the 50-60 cps position, j 7.1.19.1.2 Monitor resistivity of demineralized l water flow at 1/2 gpm until resistivity !
is one megohm-cm or higher, !
7.1.19.1.3 Leave the probe immersed in demineral-t .
ized water; rinse all equipment to be used in collection or analysis.
REV. 14, 12/88
SOP-A.1 PAGE 14 ofL33' 7.1.19.2 Determine primary coolant sample resistivity _ -
Add suf ficient primary coolant to the beaker to cover the probe-electrodes and'the vent
, , hole. Record a resistivity value when all air is vented from the probe. (Resistivity shall?be greater than 0.4 Mohn-ca.)..........*
3 Empty beaker into reactor cell sink (sink-drains L- radiological waste storage tanks) and_ rinse sink. Rinse-beaker and probe with I1 demineralized water to decontaminate them.
NOTE: Because secondary water pressure in I: the heat exchanger is greater than that of 6' primary, first evidence of a pri .ry-secondary leak should be a drastic lowering of primary I- water resistivity.
7.'l.19.3 Deliver remaining primary sample (100 ml Il minimum in a properly capped bottle) to Radiation Control for activity analysis as per'UFTR-SOP D.1.......................... __
'I Primary coolant activity analysis consists oft
1. Gross beta-gamma for general activity
2. Alpha to detect possible fuel plate leakage
3. Gross beta-gamma to check for the pres-ence of long-lived-activity.
7.1.19.4 Obtain chield water sample 7.1.19.5 Check shield water system resistivity
.(0.6 Hohm-cm minimum).......................*
I 7.1.19.6 Deliver a sample of shield water (100 mi minimum) to Radiation Control to be checked for gross activity as per UFTR S0P-D.I......................................
-g_ .7.1.19.7 Deliver a sample of water (100 ml minimum)
B- from the heat exchanger to Radiation Control for analysis of gross activity as per UFTR S0P-D.I.......................................
~
REV. 14, 12/88
SOP-A.I. PAGE 151ofL33 l 7.1.19.8 Deliver a sample of water (up to 100 ml).- .
from the. Secondary Sample Tank.to Radiation ;
Contro11for analysis of-gross activity as '
per UPTR SOP-D.1.............................- ,
_ 7.1.20 Air Particulate ~ Detector 7.1.20.1 Stop air pump, replace filter paper, Ilr restart pump.................................. ,__
CAUTION
~
Great care must be taken when changing the I t
-APD filter paper. Insertion of fingers or ,
foreign objects.into the unit may destroy j l the thin Hylar window of the detector.
(The removed filter, paper should be treated as potentially contaminated material and given to cognizant Radiation Control per-sonnel .for counting.)
I. Turn screw on the bail so the filter holder is snug against inner gasket to ensure air flow does not bypass filter paper. ,.
. Check altra by turning pointer downscale to p . contact meter pointer. Alarm indications L consist of an intermittent ringing bell and two red lights. Range switch is normally l 1 eft-on the X10 range.
Move pointer to 100 % of scale and reset alarm by depressing reset switch.............. l 7.1.20.2 Check air flow at middle of the ba11.........* 1pm (10-45 liters per minute) -
L '
7.1.20.3 Check proper operation of the recorder........
L.
( 7.1.21 Radiation monitor console 1
l-L 7.1.21.1 Stack effluent monitors L REV. 14, 12/88 l
l
- S OP- A. I' PACE 16 of 33 ,
l
- 7.1. 21.1.1 - Check adjustable alarm on Auxiliary ~ ,
,l' Alarm Panel by' bringing red _ pointer ;
ig of meter down to' contact the black l indicating pointer. Red light should I illuminate and' bell-should ring.
Clear alarm.- by raising alarm poin te r. . . . . . .
l' 7.1 21.1.2
~
Check'high level non-adjustable. alarm l by turning switch on stack monitor ;
control module.to ' TRIP-ADJ' position j
_and holding. Trip _2 (yellow. light) ,
and Trip 1 (red light) should illumi- {
IJ nate and sonalert alarm should activate. o Release switch. Press NO FAIL light to
. reset stack module if needed...............
7.1.21.2 Area radiation monitors 1 q
j NOTE: Occupants in Annex and Reactor L Building should be notified that ,
L the siren will be tested.
l l Place' siren in bypass........................
Check response of each area. monitor trip unit (Trip 2, yellow. light; Trip 1, red eI1 light and audible alarm) by placing test
. switch in check source position.
East North South Trip 2 (2.5 mr/hr) ar/hr mr/hr l Trip 1 (10 mr/hr)
Check coincidence circuitry by placing two '
(2) test switches-in " Check Source" to lock in the Trip.I signal'for.two area monitors .
LE in the following combinations:
g ,
1. -East and South
2. East and North
3. North and-South Observe red flashing light indicating siren 1
is operative each time (siren should not sound).......................................
P
.k REV. 14, 12/88-I .
SOP-Ah1 ~PAGE'17 ef-33' I& a
't I
7.1.21.3- With two area monitors alarmingDat-10 nr/hr .[
and red-siren light flashing on, quickly turn. siren bypass key to. normal and back to
. bypass for siren test. (Check that green I' power lights on auxiliary alarm panel la-belled "UFTR"'and " Annex"ugo out as sirens
[
activate to indicate proper. functioning of I both sirens. Minimize' length of time that sirens are on so this exercise-can be rec-ognized=as a test.) Clear alare lights on
area monitor modules and return bypass key -
switch to normal and remove key..............
Check _that red. light on air conditioning con-I. trol box is on, and check that core diluting and vent fans are tripped (bottom halves of control switches energized, top halves de-energized)...................................
7 1.21.4 Check manual evacuation alarm, momentarily activating the manual alarm switch (red tog-I- gle switch) on the auxiliary alarm' panel.
Check that the Green indicating lights go out momentarily..............................
B 7.1.21.5: Reset air conditioner (A/C) (red light on A/C controlfbox goes out) by pressing switch E- on'the bottom of the A/C control box; reset
'EL diluting and vent fans by depressing " Reset Fans" button ~ on auxilary alarm panel.........
7.1.22 Secure or check secured secondary water, and +
clean secondary strainer.........................
l 7.1.23. Check-for proper operation of security system monitors........................................
{ 7.1.24 Complete records !
7.1.24.1 Complete UFTR Form SOP-A.1A (if used).
. 7.1.24.1.1 Record operator of record and trainees.
7.1.24.1.2 Record time and date check out was
, completed.
t
~I l I REV. 14, 12/88 a
l , , SOP-A.1 PAGE 18 ao f ' 3 3 --
j
'l 7.1.24.1.3' Record any discrepancies in the com-- .
l 2
~
ments section. i j
7.1.24.2 Complete Operations Log (Preoperational- 1 Check., Weekly Checks Section)..
1
17. 1. 2 4. 2. 1, Record operator of record (trainees
may be noted). l 7.1.24.2.2 Record time and date'the weekly; check-out was completed as-recorded in Step i 7.1.24.1.2.
-y 7.1.24.2.3 Complete - Section labelled " Comments."
i : 7.1.24.2.4 If.the Weekly Checkout was completed satisfactorily, indicate satisfactory l T
completion; if the Weekly Checkout could not be completedly performed as written, i note any discrepancies-and/or abnormal-ities......................................* -l
=
.7.1.24.3 If SOP-A.1 Steps 7.1 to 7.1.23 are used as ,
. a record of completion of the Daily Pre- !
operational Check, complete the following i
information:
I -
. Time' Completed- Date Completed i ) !
Operator !
.i i
Trainee -
j i -Comments: j
'l
.]!
.h
-1 11 REV. 14, 12/88
SOP-A'.1 PACE '19: cf 33 !
~ 7. 2) Daily pre-operational' checks. .
Record-Start Time in the indicated space at the a top-of fors UFTR-SOP-A.15 (if used to record- 1 the performance of the Daily-Preoperational i I' Checks.............................................*
7. 2. 1- Console ~and equipment power I 7.2.1.1. Insure both east vall electrical. power :
l 1
breakers are on............................... I
-7.2.1.2 Insure well pump motor breaker on, unless on city water................................. ;
l 7.2.1.3 Depress console power switch, if off, to '!
illuminate....................................
NOTE: If console appears to be completely s de-energized, check overload trip breaker, inside rear center door of I console. If tripped, reset. If it trips again, proceed no further with the checkout. Notify Senior Reactor Operator or Reactor Manager of the ,
situation.
L7.'2.1.4 Light bulb check I. ' 7. 2.1. 4.1 - Cycle green " POWER ON" switch to illumi-nate all-scram annunciator lamps on left pane 1......................................
NOTE: " Interlock," " Period," and
" Source" lights indicate inter-locks (not scrams) and may not illuminate at thio time.
7.2.1.4.2 Depress all unlit switches on right motor
control annunciator pane 1..................
NOTE: " Dump Valve," " Flow Scram," and
" Warn Well" indicators are not i switches, but should-illuminate due to system conditions.
7.2.1.4.3 Cycle mode selector switch, and leave in " MANUAL" position to verify lamps in both modes are functional...............
4 I
REV. 14, 12/88 l
+'
N .
SOP-A.1 PAGE'20 of-33. l
.j 7.2.1.4.4' Verify illumination of control ~ blade '
I l * "DOWN" lights.............................. I i
1
l7W2.1.5- Recorder checkouts

l l
7.2.1.5.1~ Check for sufficient chart and ink l supply.on Log / Linear recorder.- If l -off,. turn amplifier power and chart J drive power on. Lower both. pens and 4
, ' check for~ proper operation.................
.I;\ NOTE:- If recorder and console clock l appear dead, check that sola transformer (Under.W/R drawer, I;; console rear) is energized. f Reset transformer switch if i tripped.
I- 7.2.1.5.2 Check for chart paper supply and proper i operation on Area Monitor, Stack Monitor and Air Particulate Detector (s)...........
CAUTION The: striker pointers of these I; Rustrak recorders are very easi-ly damaged by improper chart }
,, loading.
I
,i i
7.2.1.5.3 Check'for adequate chart supply on temperature' recorder....................... .;
7.2.1.6- Radiation Monitor Console Checkout i 7.2.1.6.1 Verify Stack and Radiation Monitor I.' meters are properly functioning with
>" live Zeros................................. i 7.2.1.6.2- Verify illumination of green "N0 .
FAIL" lights (4 lamps)..................... ;
7.2.1.6.3 Place failure toggle switch in OFF, ]
TRIP 2 toggle switch in OFF and alarm
~
toggle switch in ALARM on alart module.....................................
I ll: ,
REV. 14, 12/88 1
SOP-A.1 PACE 21Dof 33 ,
7. 2.1. 6. 4 Depress black push button-test switch -
-on alarm module and verify illumina-tion of all low and high-level alarm lamps and operation of audible alarm....... I
.I'- 7.2.1.6.5 Verify =-illumination of 2 green lamps i and 1 yellow lamp on both units of.24 l volt DC power supplies.- Open lower '
panel and verify illumination of 2 red lamps on each battery charger.......... .
7.2,1.7 . Auxiliary Alarm Panel Checkout
) 7.2.1.7.1 Verify that 4 green lights are on..........
?
7.2.1.8 . Dump-Valve s
r CAUTION '
Do not perform this step within 3 minutes
of a prior interruption of primary flow.
Closing of dump' valve while water is drain-
ing from core will result in a water ham--
mer which will break the rupture disk.
-7.2.1.8.l' Rotate Magnet Power Key to reset (maintaining slight down pressure on key) and release. Verify " DUMP VALVE" light goes out (key has re-turned to operate position)................ y
-l If-the dump valve buzzes excessively after-closing, cycle console " POWER ON" switch and reclose the valve.
Repeat as necessary.
7.2.1.8.2 Rotate console Magnet Power Key to '
off; remove and secure the key............
CAUTION
.. 4 Prior to energizing control blade circuits
.g- (clutch or drive) an authorizing signature 3; is required to be entered in the daily op-erations log, a qualified second person is J
required to be present at the UFTR building l complex and a designated SRO is required to be r.eadily available on call.
REV. 14, 12/88 i
f
. .a
. SOP-A.1- PACE 22 of 133 I' 1 NOTE: Any de-energized scram relay ensures ,
IL, that control blade circuits remain de-energized.
7. 2.1. 9 - Operational equipment startup and checkout Start the following equipment items, and l note that the corresponding lights go'out 2 7.2.1.9.1 Diluting Fan, " DILUTE FAN"
(>425 rpm).............-....................* rps 7.2.1.9.2 Core Vent Fan, " CORE VENT"..................
7.2.1.9.3 Demineralizer Pump, " DE M I N P UM P" . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ls 7.2.1.9.4 Primary Coolant Pump. "PRI COOLANT" (lower half of f "DEMIN PUMP" light IL illuminates); check that primary flow indication stabilizes at-normal Va1ue............................... e....* gPa 7.2.1.9.5 Shield Water Pump..........................
7.2.1.10 Shield tank recirculation system 7.2.1.10.1 Check system for no leaks or abnormal noises in pump or water line...............
~
7.2.1.10.2 Check for proper flow (rotameter flow indicator ball should be at or near j the top of the indicator' scale)............
7.2.1.10.3. Check for proper valve alignment........... ,
7.2.,1.11 Air Particulate Detector 7.2.1.11.1 Check meter, recorder and motor for proper functioning; filter holder 4 .. screwedcup snug;-some count level indicated on instrument....................
7.2.1.11.2 Check air flow rate (normally 10-45
! liters / min)...............................*
I 7.2.1.11.3 Check range switch at normal setting (x10)......................................
-7.2.1.12 Check portal ' monitor for power on and no malfunction or alarm indicated...............
i
, REV. 14, 12/88
-i SOP-A.li 'PAGE 23 of ~ 33 :
1 i
. 34 7.2.1.13: In-line Primary Resistivity Bridge Checkst ' i "g'- 1 7.2.1.13.1 Verify power switch is on and green
. lamp is. illuminated; check for opera-bility of red lamp.........................
7.2.1.13.2 Set compensating' temperature (from
}l4 3 point-7 of temperature recorder),
place selector switch at inlet' ,
read-resistivity by turning indi- J Lg : cating pointer until red light comes .
B on and record...........................* Mohn-cm i
, 7.2.1.13.3 Place selector switch at outlet, read and record resistivity as above.........* Mohn-ca. '
7.2.1.13.4 Place-instrument in use by setting ,
switch to inlet and indicating pointer
] :
at about 1 Megohm-cm'with green light on.........................................
7.2.2 -Operational Checks NOTE: Commencement of the operational checks
requires an authorizing signature by j -
the Reactor Manager or his designated representative to be entered in the.
operations log approving the reactor '
!g E operation and further requires that a
. qualified second person (name also en- ,
tered in the Daily Operations Log) be '
i present in the UFTR complex and that a designated SRO be readily available on-call, i
2
7. 2. 2.'l Rotate console Magnet Power Key to reset and hold.......................................
7.2.2.1.1 Verify magnet clutch yellow "0N" lights remain extinguished..................
i 7.2.2.2 Return Console Magnet Key Switch to operate t
(Holding slight down pressure) and verify that:
i gl m 7.2.2.2.1 All scram lights out on left annunci-ator pane 1..................................
7.2.2.2.2 Magnetic clutch "0N" lights illuminated.....
REV. 14, 12/88 n
SOP-A.1 -PAGE 24=cf133:
7.2.2.2.3 Red rotating beacon is in operation......... -
'7.2.2.2.4 : Temperature recorder is in operation........
7.2.3 Blade Interlock. Checks (Table 4.1-of UFTR Technical' Specifications):
NOTE Before~beginning these checks, clear any indicated-scram by operation.of
[ the console magnet power key to reset.
=7.2.3.1 Place all Calibrate and Trip Test switches in OPERATE or 0FF..............................
I 7.2.3.2 Record whether SOURCE interlock light is
=on (illuminated) or off.......................*
I 7.2.3 2.1 If SOURCE' interlock light is on, verify that no control blade can be withdrawn...................................
7.2.3.2.2 Observe neutron count level; if be-low'2 cps, insert PuBe source into a vertical port (CVP preferred).
I Record neutron count level (should be
>2 cps)...................................* ' cps CAUTION If PuBe source is inserted, depress source alarm to display red light, l and post warning sign.
7.2.3.2.3 Clear SOURCE interlock (if needed) by operation of Safety-1/ Log Calibrate Switch to position 2 and return to 0PERATE.....................................
7.2.3.3 Calibrate and Trip Test Switches i 7.2.3.3.1 Rotate Safety-1/ Log Calibrate Switch to ZERO and verify interlock light comes on and return to OPERATE..............
7.2.3.3.2 Momentarily activate Period Calibrate !
Switch te verify that "INTLK" light Comes on.
REV. 14, 12/88 l i
SOP-A.1' PACE 25 of 33 .
, Release switch and-verify "INTLK" .
, light goes.out..............................
7.2.3.3.3- Hold Saf ety-2 Calibrate - Switch in >
l , ZERO position.to verify that "INTLK" light 1 comes on. Release switch and '
verify'INTLK light goes out................. j 7.2.3.3.4 Activate Safety-1 Trip Test Switch j (rotate switch only until it clears i the "0FF" position) and verify that no control blade can be withdrawn. r Return switch to "0FF"......................
I ~7.2.3.4 Ten Second Period Interlock 7.2.3.4.1 Activate; Period Trip Test Control cir-cuit and verify that FAST-PERIOD inter- a lock comes on at 10 seconds.................
7.2.3.4.2 Advance the control to keep indicated ,
I. period between 10 and 3 seconds and verify that no control-blade can be
. withdrawn. Return control to 0FF...........
'7.2.3 5 Hultiple Blade Withdrawal Interlocks
_- 7.2.3.5.1 . Verify that no combination of 2 blades 3
. f can simultaneously be withdrawn.' Check all combinations (6) of 2 blades............
7.2.4 Nuclear Instrument and Calibration Checks 7.2.4.1 Hold Period Calibrate Switch in CALIBRATE.
position and verify period meter indicates
I-
^
3 seconds. (If meter advances only part .
way_and then drops back, release' switch ,
momentarily and repeat.) Release switch t which returns to 0PERATE......................*
7.2.4.2 Safety / Log Calibrate Meter indications.
.I 7.2.4.2.1 Place Safety-1/ Log Calibrate Switch in ZERO position and verify Safety Channel 1 meter indicates 0%...............*
7.2.4.2.2 Place in CALIBRATE and verify Safety
Channel 1 meter indicates 100%.............*
i REV. 14, 12/88
SOP-A.I' PAGE 26:of 33 7.2.4.2.3 ' Place switch consecutively in posi-tionss 1 through-6. Verify that Wide
-Range: Meter' indicates approximately I at successive red marks,-and that the purple pen of the recorder follows.
Verify tha t _ "Ex tend ed L Range" light
, goes out at position 2. Return switch to 0PERATE...........................
7.2.4.3 Linear ~ Range Selector' Switch l 7.2.4.3.1 Rotate to ZERO, and verifz red. pen ,
of recorder indicates ZERO. Record results....................................* %
7.2.4.3.2 Rotate to CALIBRATE and verify red i . pen of recorder indicates 85% 2%.
Record results.............................* %'
4 l
7.2'.4.3.3 Return switch to operating range (red pen somewhore on scale)................ !
~
7.2.4.4 Safety, Channel 2 Calibrate Switch .
7.2.4.4.1 Hold in ' ZERO and verify Safety
Channel 2 meter indicates 0%...............* %
lu 7.2.4.4.2 Hold in CALIBRATE and verify meter
+
indicates 100%. Release switch and i record results.............................* %-
7.2.5 Scram and Annunciation Checks I '
NOTE: Before beginning_these checks, clear any indicated scram by operation of-l the console Magnet Power Key to reset. ,
7.2.5.1 Secondary pressure (secondary water flow) scram; 7.2.5.1.1 Rotate' Safety-1/ Log Calibrate Switch to Position 4. Operate' Safety-1 Trip Test Control to advance indication on log _ power scale. Verify that at 1%
power indication, "SEC PRESS" scram illuminates (on well water, a red warn-ing light will illuminate about 10 seconds before the scram occurs)............
l
\
l REV. 14, 12/88 I
I .
b; ' SOP-A.1 PAGE 27 of . . .. .
-l 7.2.5.1.2 Start secondary flow and verify flow '-
j indication.- Operate-console Magnet 4
' Powe r-- Key to Reset and verify that ~
"SEC PRESS" clears..........................
I 7.2.5.1.'3 Return-both controls to 0FF or OPERATE....... -l 7.2.5.2 High primary coolant temperature scram;
~7.2.5.2.1 Open temperature recorder door and swing out chart drive mechanism. ;
Depress test switch when micromwitch roller is on flat of can and hold de-pressed. Manually rotate bull gear for upscale temperature indication. l l Verify that audible alarm annunciates ,
at 150*F. R_e,c o r d results..................*
. . i, 7.2.5.2.2 Rotate bull gear further up scale and verify that "HI PC TEMP" scram is in-dicated at 155'F. Release switch, l
-I .l record results.............................*
7.2.5.2.3 Restore recorder to NORMAL configura- -!
tion........................................
7.2.5.3- Manual Scram !
7 2.5.3.1- Operate console Magnet Power Key to clear all scrams. Raise Safety Blade 1 about 40 units............................
7.2.5.3.2- Depress Manual Scram Bar and verify .e that "0N" lights go out, " MANUAL SCRAM" illuminates and Safety Blade ~1 drops to the bottom position, illuminating "DOWN" lights...............................
7.2.5.4 Safety Channel 1 High-Power Scram
7.2.5.4.1. Operate console Magnet Power Key to clear all scrams. Raise Safety Blade
! 2 about 40 units............................
7.2.5.4.2 Rotate Safety-1/ Log Calibrate Switch to Position 1 (to stabilize the period circuitry)..................................
REV. 14, 12/88
i . .
l I . -
SOP-A.1' PACE 28'cf-33 1
g 7.2.5.4.3l Rotate Safety.Channelt1 Trip Test, Con- ,- 1 trol to advance indication on Safety !
Channel-1 Percent Power Meter. Verify and record that at 125%, " SAFETY.1" -
scram illuminates,."0N" lights-go out
-and Safety Blade 2 drops to botton :
' illuminating."DOWN"-11ghts.................* '
7.2.5.4.4 Return both switches to'0FF or OPERATE.......- t 7.2.5.5 Period. Scram-7.2.5.5.1 operate console Magnet Power Key'to clear all scrams. Raise' Safety Blade ;
5 to about 40 units.........................
]
7.2.5.5.2 Rotate Safety-1/ Log Calibrate Switch to ;
Position 1..................................
7.2.5.5.3 Rotate Period Trip Test Control and verify and record that at an indicated
l-
m~
3 second pe'riod, " PERIOD" scram illumi- .
nates, "0N"' lights go out and Safety-3 drops to bottom, illuminating "DOWN" 11ghts.....................................* __
7.2.5.5.4 Return both switches to 0FF or OPERATE...... s j
7.2.5.6 Safety Channel 2 High Power Scram
. - 7.2.5.6.1 ' Operate console Magnet Power Key to clear all scrams. Rs ise Regulating
. Blade and any Safety Blade to about-40 units....................................
-7.2.5.6.2 Rotate Safety Channel 2 Trip _ Test Control to advance indication on Safety-2~ Percent Power meter. Verify
! lL and record that at indicated 125%,
!" " Safety 2" scram illuminates...............*
" DUMP VALVE" illuminates (right panel)......
Lower half of "PC PUMP" illuminates
, (right Pane 1)...............................
Three (3) primary coolant scrams illumi-
[ nate (" COOLANT PUMP " " COOLANT FLOW" and f
" COOLANT LEVEL")............................. __
I REV. 14, 12/88 m - ___m_ m _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ . _ - -
L ,
t SGP-A.1 -P AGE 129 of: 33 :
9
All' control; blade magne tic clu t ch "0N" lights:go=out............................... ,
~
s All' control blade "DOWN" lights illumi--
nate with all control blades at botton i positions...................................
WARNINO I I
At this. point,'D0 NOT operate the console magnet power hey to RESET. It may be ro- .!
1 I tated ONLY to the OFF position.- Premature Operation to the' RESET position say result in breakage of the rupture disc because of ,
I water hammer.
7.2.5.6.3 Return Safety Channel 2 Trip Test' Con-trol to 0FF.................................
7.2.5.6.4 Indicate whether secondary water is shut i l
off or left on.............................*
7.2.5.6 5 Secure console Magnet Power Key to
[ proper contro1.............................._ ,
.l l
7.2.5.6.6 Operate temperature recordet chart I h.. drive switch so that print wheel is not in an up position (failure to do so may
. result in a slow upscale drift with eventual activation of audible alarm).......
17.2.5.6.7 Secure the Log / Linear recorder unless there-is a need for its continued oper- i ation; shut off the chart. drive and lift.
both pens.................................... _ ,
).' '
7.2.5.6.8 If the source is to remain inserted in the reactor, insure -the PuBe source 11 light is on-(red) and the reninder sign is on display...............................
7.2.5.6.9 Mark all control room charts with time and date.................................... _
l. . .
I t'
REV. 14, 12/88 s
SOP-A.1 Page 30 of 33 7.2.6 Complete ' Records :
I 7.2 6.1 -Complete UFTR Form SOP-A.1B (if used). I 7.2.6.1.1 Record operator of record and trainees.
1 7.2.6.1.2 Record time and date check out was completed as indicated'by Step 7.2.5.6.10. ;
7.2.6.1.3 -Record any discrepancies in the comments section.
]
7.2.6.2 Complete Operations Log (Preoperational Check, Daily Check j Section)- !
.; 7.2.6.2.1 .
Record operator of record (Trainees should be noced). l o 7.2.6.2.2 Record time daily checkdout was begun as recorded in Step 7.2 and time and date the daily checkout was completed as recorded in Step 7.2.5.6.9.
l 7.2.6.2.3 Complete Section l a b e.1.l e d " Comm e n t s . "
If the Daily Checkout was completed satisfactorily, indicate satisfactory completion; if the Daily Checkout 1 could not be completely performee as written, note any discrepancies and/or abnormalities.
7.2.6.3 If SOP-A.1 Steps 7.2 to 7.2.6.3 are used as a record of comp 1'etion of the Daily Preoperational Check, complete the following information:
Time Completed Date Completed-Operator Trainee
Comments:
7. 2 r 6. 4 On the Daily Operations Log for the end of the previous week, ensure "FPH this month," and "FPH this sheet" are
completed.
If "FPH this month" as noted is within 10,000 Kw-hr of the i.' .. posted monthly limit, that fact shall be noted in the com-
. , ments section of the Daily Operations Log, and the Reactor Manager shall be informed.
r i i REV 14, 12/B8 TCN: 10/89
SOP-A.li-PAGE 31 ofL33-t 1
o .
Ii 1
i '. l l
a 3
e i.
i l
L' APPENDIX I i
WEEKLY AND DAILY l CHECKOUT FORMS i
ll I
i h
i
t a
I l-s I
r i .
l r.
L REV. 14, 12/88
, j
.__._=.._2__L-_:
I UFTR FOM SOP.AilA ,.
EEKLY PRE-OPERATIOmL CECK SEET
$0P.A.] PAGE 32 0F 33 '
I 1 Daft START:
7.1 RECORD Start Time...................
7.1.18.3 7.1.18.4 CHECK Pit Alarm...o..............
OSTAIN Water $amples (Primary Coolant. Seconder Heat Exchanger, i7.1.1 $10P Core Vent /$ tack Dilute Fansn.. Secondary $ ample ank)............
7.1.2 CHECK Di l ut e F an. .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1.18.6 CHECK Domin Flow......n ..........
7.1.2.1 ' CHECK Dilute Fen Drive 8elts/ Motor 7.1.18.6 CHECK Rupture Disk................
bearings..........................
7.1.2.2 CHECK Bearing Temps...............
7.1.18.7 CHECK Dump Valve..................
7.1.18.8 CHECK $torage Tank Level (20 min).
7.1.2.3 CHECf Blower.$ tack Coupling.......
7.1.18.9 PERFORM Pit $ wipe Survey..........
7.1.2.4 CHE CK Tachomet er. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.19 2 CHECK PC Resistivity from Grab 7.1.3 CHECK Slade Drive Gear Box 011...... Sample............................
7.1.4 O!ECK Nnomster/Magnehelic Zero..... 7.1.19.3 DELIVER Remaining PC $ ample to I 7.1.5 7 1 6.1 So m e CHECK Portal Montter.........
CHECK Vent / Dilute fan lnterlock...
7.1.19.6 DELIVER Shield Tank 5 ample to Radeon 7.1.6.7 START Stack Dilute Fan....... .. .. .
7.1.19.7 DELIVER Heat Exch. $ ample to Radcon 7.1.6.3.1 VERIFY Delay Fan Start to Flow..
or 7.1.19.8 DELIVER Sec $ amp Tank $4mple to 7.1.C.3.2 ' 0BSERVE $10w Opening Vent Damper Radcon............................
I' 7.1.6.4 RECORD D/P.Routh Filter...........
. Absolute Filter..........
-Vent Flow................
7.1.20.1 7 1.20.2 CHANGE APD Filter Paper...........
CHECK APD Air Flow and Alarm......
7.1 7 $ TART Shield Water Pump............. 7.1.20.3 CHECK APD Recorder Operation......
17.1.8 START Domin. Pump................... 7.1.21.1.1 CHECK 5 tack Alarm ( Aux Alarm Panel)
{
7.1.9 RESET Hagnst Power..'................ 7.1.21 1 2 CHECK Stack Alars (Rad Mon Console) 7.1.10 CHECK ' REACTOR ON" Lights. .. .... . ... 7.1.21.2 $1ren in Bypass SOURCE CHECK AREA MONITOR $-
7.1.11 START Log / Linear Recorder........... EAST NORTH $0UTH Trip 2 mR/Hr Flow..........
7.1 12 START PC Pump. Record Trip 1 Z mR/Hr 7.1.13.1. SET Compensating Temp............. CHECK $1ren/ Ventilation Interlocks 7.1.13.2 CHECK Demin inlet Resistivity.....
7 3 21.4 TEST Siren in Autcastic/ Manual Mode....u ........................
7.1.13.3 CHECK Demin Outlet Resistivity....
OBSERVE Evacuation Stren Indicator 7.1.14.1- MEASURE AND RECORD:
Blade Withdrawal 7.1.21.5 RESET Fans /Alr Conditioner........
Position Time to
Full Out 7.1.22 CLEAN Secondary $ trainer............
5-2 7 1.23 CHECK 5ecurity Systen Operation.....
5-3 Regulating 7.1.In DUMP Prima ry Cool ant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1.16 SECURE Console Magnet Key...........
7.1.24.1.2 RECORD Completion Time /Date....
7.1 17 SECURE Temperature Log /Lfn Recorders 7.1.18.1.1 REMOVE Pit Shielding............
7.1.24.1.3 RECORD Discrepancies (use reverse side as 7.1.18 1.6 ENTER Equipment Pit............. needed).........................
- 7.1.18.2.1 CHECK Primary Coolant Tank Gamma Radiation Level.................
7.1.24.2.1 RECORD Operator / Trainee (Daily OPS 7.1.18.2.2 CHECK Core Vent Filters Gamma Log)............................
Radiation Level........ ........
7.1.24.2.2 RECORD Completion Time /Date (Daily 7.1.18.2 3 ' CHECK Domin Gassia Radiation OP$ Log)........................
Level...........................
~
7.1.24.2.3 RECORD Connerts (Daily OPS Log)
S AT/ UNSAT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
KEV 14, 12/88 i
I,
$op.A.! PAGE 33A 'T 33 grit FORM $0P-A.18 DAILT PRE-OPERATIONAL CECK0UT CHECK Ll$i 7.2 RE CORD $t e rt 1 tme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.1.9.4 $ TART Pr! mary Coolent Pump. Record Flow j i
- Console and Equipment Pouer 7.2.1.9.$ $1 ART shield Water Pump................
7.2.1.1 CHECK East Wall Powsr Breakers ON...... $hleid lenk Recirc 7.2.1.10.1 CHECK $hleld Water ReCirC Operation....___
'. 7.2 1.2 CHECK Well Pump Breaker 0N............. l
, . 7.2.1.3 ILLUMINAlt Console
POWER ON" Backlit 7.2.1.10.2 CHE CK f or ProPe r fl ow. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
i $w1tch.................................
~
7.2 1 4.1 CYCLE Console
POWER ON" Backlit $ witch Air Partfulate Detector y 7.2.).a.2 DEPRES$ Unitt $ witches. Right Motor '
control Annuntiator Panel.............. 7.2.1.!!.! CHECK APD operation.'...................
7.2.1.11.2 CHECK APD Air Flow.....................
t 7.2 1 4.3 CYCLE Hode Selector $ witch. Leave in
MANUAL *............................... 7.2.1.11.3 CHECK Range $ witch (110)............... *-
7.2.1 4.4 VE R I F Y
DOWN" L i g ht s 0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ 7.2.1.12 CHECK Portal Monitor...................
Recorder Checkouts Resisttetty Bridge 1.2.1.$.1 MAKE and/or CHECK Log /Lin Recorder 7.2.1.13.1 CHECK Resistivity Bridge power ON. Red Op& rational Ampilf ter Power. Chart Light functional.......................
Drive. Chart Paper..................... *
7.2.1.13.? CHECK Domin Inlet Resistivity..........
7.2.1.5.2 CHECK Operation.' Chart Paper for APD Area Monitor. $ tack Monitor............ 7.2.1.13.3 CHECK Dein Outlet Resistivity.........,
7.2.1.$.3 CHECK Chart Paper for Temperature 7.2.1.13.4 $[I Al a rm to 1 Meg ehm-cm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
2- Monitor................................. 4 Operational Checks Radiation Monitor Cons 41e 7.2.2.1 PL*,CE Console Magnet Power Key in Reset 7.2.1 6.1 CHECK Operation Stack / Radiation Monitors 7 2.2 1.1 VtRIFY Clutch Lights Out...............
7.2.1.6.2 VERIFY *NO FAIL *. Light llitainated.....
7.2 2.2 1 RETURN Console Magnet Power key to Operate.
7 2 1.6.3 PO$! TION Radiation Monitor Power Supply YERIFY $crae Lights out................
loggle $ witches; " FAILURE
in DFF.
TRIP 2*
i n 0F F . ' ALARM" in Al a rm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2.2.2 VERIFY Clutch Lights *0N*..............
7.2.1.6.4 DEPRES$ Push Button. CHECK lliumina- 7.2.2.2.3 VERITY Red Routing Beacon on....... ..
tion of Alarm Lights on Modules and Aud i b l e Al a rm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2.2.4 VERIFY Temperature Recorder Operating.. 4 7.2 1.6.$ VERIFY all AC and DC Power Supplies Blade Interlock Checks tunct1onal.............................
I. Ausfliary Alarm panel 7.2.3.1 PL ACE Calibrate and Test $ witches to DPERATE or 0FF.........................
YERIFY 4 green lights 7.2.3.2 Source Light ON or
7.2.1.7 on............... 0FF.................
Oump Valve 7.2.3.2.1 If Source Interlock ON. VERIFY No Con-trol Blades Can Se Withdrawn...........
7.2.1.8.1 RESET Console Magnet Power key. Check
" DUMP VALVE
Light Out. Key in Operate. 7.2.3.2.2 If Less Than 2 CP3. IN3ERT PuBe Source.
RECORD Lounts..........................
l 1.2.1.8.2 -REMOVE. SECURE Console Magnet Power Key 7.2.3.2.3 CLEAR Source Interlock.................
Operational Equipment Startup and Checkout 7.2.3.3.1 ROTATE Safety 1/ Log Calfbrate to ZERO.
7.2.1.9.1 START Dilute Fan. Record RPM.... .. .....
VERIFY Interlock Light 0N..............
7.2.1.9.2 $7 ART Core Vent F.n.................... 7.2.3.3.2 ACTIVATE Perted Calibrate $ witch.
7.2.1.9.3 S T AR T Demi n Punp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
?.
I (DATE )
(l3 1 RCV 14, 12/88
).I-J
.y
?
$0P-A.1 PAi[ 336 0F 33 i l
WTR FOWI $0P-A.It DAILT PRE-0PCRAfl08AL CECE001.OtCK tl$f Gontinued)
7. 2. 3.3. 3. $4fety 2 Cat in Zero. *lNTLK' 0N.......- 7. 2. 5. 4. 2 Safety 1/ Log Cal to Position 1.........
7. 2. 3. 3. 4 ETIVRE Safety 11 rip lest $ witch. 7.2.5.4.3 ROTATE Safety Channel i 1rtp lest. at VERIFY no control blade car. tre with- 1251 *0N". Lights out. 'DOWN" Lights on, drawn. '$AF ETY l' Scram Ind icator DN. ... . .. ...
7.2.3.41 ETIVATE Period $ witch. *FA$1 PPla0* 7. 2,5. 4. 4 $ witches to OPEPAf f or 0FF...... ... ....
on a t 10 sec Pe r i od . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.5.5.1 RESET Coasole Magnet Power Key P.atte 7.2.3.4.2 VERIFY No Control Blade can be With- Safety Blade 3 to 40 Units............. j drawn..................................
I 7.2.5.5.2 k0iATE Safety 1/ Log Cal to Position 1..
i - 7.2 3.5 1 WRIFY Multiple Blade Interlock........
) 7.2.5.5.3 ROTATE Period Trip test. at 3 Sec
-; leuclear Instrument and Calibration Checks forted . 'ON" Lights out 'DChN" Lights j on, ' PERIOD' Scram Illuminatea.........
i 7 2.4.1 Period $ witch in Calibrate, Indicated
'f 3 s ec Pe r i od . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.5.5.4 RETURN $ witches to OPERATE or 0FF......
7.2.4.2.1 - $afety 1/ Log Cal' in Zero. 01 Indicated.
7.2.5.6.1 RESET Console Magnet Power Key, Raise kegulating snd any Safety Blede to 40
7. 2.4. 2. 2 Safety 1/ Log Cal in (41. 1001 Indiceted _
Units..................................
7.2.42.3 Safety 1/ Log Cal in Positions 16, 7.2.5.6.2 ROTATE Safety Channel 2 trip lest et VEPlFY Wide Range Meter at Red Marks. 1251 *$AFETY CHANNEL 2" Ecram on. 'DW
'EXi[NDED LIGHT Out at Position 2 VAL VE" on. Lowe* Hal f *PC PUMP
on.
Log Fen F ol l ows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' COOLANT PUMP.* COOLANT FLOW.*
COOLANT LEVEL" $ cram Lights on. *0N* Lights Out.
7. 2.4. ;. ) Linear Range to lero.
Il' ' EC WN' L ig ht s on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
01............... *
.)
7. 2.4. 3. 2 Linear Range to Calibra.e . 851... ..... .
7.2.5.6.1 R!I URN $wi tc h t o 0FF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.4.3.3 Linear Range to Range of Operation.....___ 7.2.5.6.4 Secondary Cooling Status (0N/0FF)......_
I. 7.2.4.41 Safety 2 Calibrate in Zero. 01 Indicated
7.256.5 $ECURE Console Magnet Power Key........
7.2.4.4.2 $afety t Calibrate in Cal 100% Inril.
7.2.5.6 6 A$$URE lemperature Print Wheel Down.... -'
j' cated..................................
7.2.5.6.7 $ECURE Log /Lin Recorder Drive. LIFT Pens* j I.> $ cree a=1 Annunciation Checks 7.2.5.6.B If PuBe Source in. Check Red Light ON.
3 7.2 5.1.1 Safety 1/ Log Cal to Position 4. Safety $ tg n on Di s pl ay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I irtp lest to 11; VERIFY "$EC PRES $"..
7.2 5.6.9
'I 7.2.5.1.2 $ TART Secondary Cooling. VERIFY Flow, Reset Magnet Power Key. VERIFY '$EC PRES $* Clears..........................
MARK Control Room Charts with Time /Date Cteplete Recottis s
7.2.6.1.1 RECORD Operator / Trainees ........ ... ....
7.2.5.1.3 Control s to OPERATE or 0FF. ... .........
7.2.5.2.1 Audible Alarm at temperature Monitor 7. 2. 6.1. 2 RECORD T ime/Da t e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ind i c a t i ng 150 Derees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.5.2.2 "HI PC TEMP" Light. SCRAM at 155 Degrees _ *
7. 2. 6.1. 3 RECORO Di sc repanc ie s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._
7.2.5.2.3 RESTORE Recorder to Normal ... . ... . .. ...
7.2 5.3.1 RESET Console Magnet Power Key. Raise I Safety Blade I to 40 tm1ts.............
7.2.5 3.2 - DErRE$$ Manual Scram Bar. VERIFY 'ON*
Ltyhts Out , 'DOWN' Lights on. ' MANUAL
$ CRAM" 0n..............................
7.2.5.2.2
'.2.6.2.3 RECORD Time Check Out was Begun. Time and Date Completed (in Operations Log).
RECORD Coments (In Operations Log)....
7.2.6.4 RECORD 'FPH THIS MONTH / "FPh THl$
7.2.5.4 1 RESET Console Magnet Power Key. Raise $4ET* (In Operations Log).............
Sa fety Bl ade 2 to 40 Units .. . ....... ..
REV !!, 12/88
1 i <, ,
SOP-Aa4 . PAGC 1 of 5-.
I 5, .
UFIR OPERATING PICOEDURE A.4
, 21. 0 Nonnal Reactcc Shutdown 250 Approval-
1 React.or Safety Review Si*munittee . . . . . . . I rA /
I Date Director, Nuclear Facilities . . . . . . . . . .
~
I L /d !/)f hh . ' l
.. l
~
.1
- ~ 4 N ', '
o, t i
L l REV 11, 10/89 .
l l
Is SOP A04 PAGE 2 OF 5 I
PurpoFe and' Discussion 73.0 l :
3.1 The purpose of'this' procedure'is to describe the steps required'
{ ,
to bring the reactor to a safe shutdown and secured condition.
4;0: Precautions and Limits '
4.1 If: the reactor has been operated at greater than 1 kw, do not secure' secondary coolant until the secondary flow trip setpoint is cleared (usually about 700 watts). . Secondary cooling'should be maintained until primary cooling is secured for a normal ,
shutdown; however, secondary cooling may be secured prior to $
n securing primary cooling if desired and/or if required =by.
E *n ther Procedure.
CAUTION '
When the stack count rate monitor indicates 10 cps 2
L or higher, the diluting and/or vent fans shall not
be secured except for one of the conditions delin- 3 eated in Items 4.2.1 through 4.2.5. .
4.2 UFTR Technical Specifications in Section'3.4.3 (Reactor Vent System) require.that the " vent system shall be operated until EJ the stack monitor indicates less than 10 counts per second" jg' unless otherwise indicated by facility conditions to include
g- 4.2.1 Loss of building-electrical power.
ig.
- 4.2.2- Equipment failure.
r
,i 4.2.3 Cycling console power to dump primary coolant.
4.2.4 Performance of tests and surveillances.
4.2.5 Initiation of the evacuation alarm for tests and surveil-lances: including emergency drills.
NOTE: If the stack count rate monitor indicates 10 cps or higher, the time these fans are secured for these reasons should be minimized. '
4.3 If the temperature recorder is not left running, assure that the print wheel is in a down position by operation of the chart
crive switch to prevent spurious temperature alarm due to up-
scale drift.
5.0 References f 5.1 UFTR Safety Analysis Report 5.2 UFTR Technical Specifications 5.3 UFTR Operation and Maintenance Manual ,
REV 11, 10/89 l I
i
__ . ____ _ ._--_ _ 1
~
, SOP-A.4I PAGE 3 cf 5 i
6.0> _ Records Required 6.1 UFTR Op6 rations-Log 7.0 Instructions
) NOTE: This procedure does not apply during abnormal conditions.- !
This procedure may be altered during tests or experiments.
A notics to that effect shall be entered into the^ opera-tions Log.
7 .1 - Initial Conditions - Reactor in Manual Mode. If in Automatic p Mode, depress Auto-Manual Control Switch to place in Manual
Mode.- The regulating blade will now respond to manual control..
r 7.2 Note the time (to be entered in the Operations Log as beginning shutdown) and depress all "DOWN" switches (4) driving all blades- t down simultaneously. As each "DOWN" light illuminates, release '
that "DOWN" switch to permit down drive of all other blades.
When blades are Down, depress each "ON" switch momentarily.
7.3 Enter time all control blades are at the bottom position in Op-erations Log as shutdown time.
NOTE: As neutron flux decreases, adjust linear range selector switch to keep linear recorder (red pen) on scale, or place' linear selector switch in zero position and lift red pen.
7.4 Remove the reactor key and enter time in the Operations Log with notation that reactor is secured.
7.5 Inform Senior Reactor Operator on call that reactor is shut- ,
! down. It is permissible to leave nuclear or temperature re- 1
corder in operation for as long as needed. 4 7.6 If the reactor is to be restarted, proceed to SOP A.2 - Reactor
Startup.
7.7 Shut off nuclear recorder chart drive and lift both pens unless they are required to supply data following shutdown.
7.8 If the reactor has been operated at greater than 1 kw, do not secure primary cooling for a normal shutdown until
7.8.1. Reactor power on the log channel ir at a power of 1 watt or
'less unlees cuperceded by another applicable procedures.
L 7.8.2 Primary coolant temperature is stabilized at less than 80"F.
k i
{ REV 11, 10/89
x SOP-A.4 PAGE'4'of 5 _
P .j 7.9. Primary coolant-may be dumped to the coolant storage tank by'
-either of the following two methods after primary coolant aver-- I
. age outlet temperature is less than 80 F and decay gamma ~ heating is negligible.
. NOTES- Prerequisite for this operation is a qualified second 1 l3 person, a designated SRO on call and approval of the op-5.- eration ainee the clutch currents are being energized and .I blades are partially withdrawn.
. 7.9.1 By operation of key switch 3 7.9.1.1 Turn reactor key switch on 1 7.9.1.2 -Raise any two blades about 25-40 units.
tg- 7.9.1.3 Turn off and remove reactor key, which drops both blades, jg opens dump valve and dumps primary water.
CAUTION a Rotate the key switch COUNTERCLOCKWISE ONLY, to
! the OFF position. Rotation-clockwise to the reset
[g g position will break the rupture disc.- 1 1
i .
7.9.1.4 Depress " Primary Coolant" pump switch, illuminating both .
i halves of the switch.
7.9.2 By operation.of the console equipment power switch:
g CAUTION ,
!g~-
[ When the stack count rate monitor indicates 10 cps or higher, the~ diluting and/or. vent'. fans shall not be i
e secured except for one of the conditions delineated in l
Items 7.11.1 through 7.11.5.
l r
7.9.2.1 Turn off Vent Fan, Diluting Fan, and Well Water Pump to
! prevent electric surge.
7.9.2.2 Cycle console equipment power switch. This opens the dump valve and shuts off Primary Coolant Pump.
I.-
7.9.2.3 Depress Primary Coolant Pump switch, illuminating both halves off the switch.
7
,I REV 11, 10/89
EOP-A'4 .' PAGE 5Lof 5-
~ 7.10- - If:the reactor has bee 1 operated at or above 1-kW, do not '
i secure: secondary coolf g until the secondary flow trip _setpoint +
is cleared (usually about 700 watts). Secondary cooling should '
be maintained until ptimary cooling-is secured for a normal.
( l shutdown; however, secondary cooling may be~ secured prior to <
securing primary cooling-if desired and/or if required by, ,
l another. procedure.
7.11 Argon-41 levels decay slowly after shutdown. It takes about 8 to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months after-shutdown for stack monitor count level-to drop to background (about 1 CPS). Therefore, the Diluting Fan ,
t and Vent Fan are required to be in operation for several hours after reactor shutdown or until stack monitor indicates less- '
than 10 CPS unless otherwise-indicated by facility conditions' to include:
'7.11.1- Loss of building electrical power.
I 7.11.2 Equipment failure.
7.11.3 Cycling console power to dump primary coolant.
7.11.4 Performance of tests and surveillances.
7.11.5 Initiation of the evacuation alarm for tests and surveil-lances including emergency drills.
NOTE: If the stack count rate monitor indicates 10 cps or h higher, the time these fans are secured for these r reasons should be minimized.
7.12 The~following systems are normally left in operation:
7.12.1 Reactor Vent System including the' Dilution Fan and Vent Fan.
7.12.2 Shield Water Recirculating System 7.12.3 Primary Purification System NOTE: If. temperature recorder is not.left running, assure that the print wheel is in a down position by' opera- +
l tion of the chart drive switch.
7.13 To secure the reactor, the Magnet Power Key shall be removed and under the custody of a licensed operator or locked in the
_ key box. 4 7.14 Time of reactor shutdown and experiment stop time should be en-tered in the experiment information section of daily operations log.
g NOTE: Reactor run time is computed from beginning blade with-l g- drawal (Reactor Startup Time) to key removal (Reactor lj Secured)'.
l REV 11, 10/89 L '
s. - ,4 4 ,
?
I
$0P-A.5 ' AGE 1 of 19 '
i UFTR OPERATING PROCEDURE A.5 l 1
1.0 Experiments-i I
, 2. 0 Approval :
kaactorSafetyReviewSubcommittee......( i o= --
IN Date I Director, Nuclear Facilities . . . . . . . . . .d Melk[ uI /8//fM
' ~
San i I
-i J, -
l k
I REV 4, 12/88 l.
Lg.. '
I SOP-A.5 PAGE 2 of 19 3.0 Purpose and Discussion 3.1 The purpose of this procedure is to assure that experiments re-ceive sufficient review and care in-performance to assure opera-tional safety and prevent damage to the reactor facility, reac-tor fuel, reactor core, and associated equipment; to prevent ex-ceeding the reactor safety limits; and to minimise potential hasards from experimental devices.
3. 2 It is recommended that the Principal Investigator or his/her re-presentative discuss the experiment with the reactor staff prior to submitting UFTR Form SOP-A.5A (Request for UFTR Operation).
I The reactor staff will make recommendations on the feasibility of the experiment and on specific limitations which may apply to the experiment as planned by the investigator. '
4.0 Limits and Precautions 4.1 Reactivity Limits ;
4.1.1 Absolute reactivity of any single moveable or non-secured ex-periment shall not exceed 0.6% ok/k.
4.1.2 Total absolute reactivity worth of 611 experiments shall not ,
er.ceed 2.3% Ak/k.
.i .
4.1.3 Uhen determinir.g absointe react,ivity of an experiment, no credit shala 'oe taken for temperatute coefficients. ,
4.1.4 An experime7t shall not be irkertet or removed unless all control blader an inr>erted or unicar its abstaute resctivity ,
worth-is l e s t, than t.ha c wM.ch would ca.use positive 20 second ;
stable peried. L 4.2 Eulosive ra terials shall not be irradieted. .
4.3 Experiments shall be designed so that during normal operation or possible failure
'I 4.3.1 The thermal hydraulic parameters of the core do not exceed the safety limits.
_l 4.3.2 Fuel cladding integrity shall not be compromised by either .
E chemical or blast effects from the experiment.
4.4 A limit should be established on the inventory of fission pro- i ducts in each experiment containing fissile material according to its potential hazard and as determined by the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS).
1 I
REV 4, 12/88
I. SOP-A.5 PACE 3 of 19 l
i 4.5 Fct Class III and IV experiments, a limit on the permissible :
concentration of radioisotopes should be established by the RSRS I according to the potential for airborne releases at greater than the allowed legal limits.
i 4.6 Experimenters handling radioactive materials should have an RC-1 l Form " Statement of Training and Experience" on file with the ta- l diation Control Office. i 4.7 UTTR SOP-D.4 " Removing Irradiated Samples from UFTR Experimental Ports" shall be used to control removal of irradiated material from the core.
4.8 UFTR SOP-D.6 " Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers" shall be used to control radioactive material transfers between ;
the UFTR R-56 license and the University of Florida 356-1 State :
license. !
5.0 References 5.1 UFTR Technical Specifications i
5.2 UTTR SOP-B.1, " Radiological Emergency" 5.3 UPTR SOP-C,1, UFTR Rcdiation Protection and Control" 5.4 UFTP S0?-U.2, " Radiation Work Permit" 5.5 UFTR SOP-D.4, "Rta0ving Irradiated Samples from UPTR Experiman-l t a ?> Ports"
5. 6 UTTR SOP-D.6, " Control of UTTR Radioactive Material Trcnsters" 5.7 UTTR 60P-E.2, " Al te ra tions to Reactot Shielding and Graphite ,
Configuration"
.l 5.8 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation"
5. 9 Guide for Irradiations in the UFTR 5.10 Guide for Production of Short-Lived Isotopes at the UFTR
,I 5.11 Radiation Control Manual 5.12 Radiation Control Techniques l
5.13 Policy Statement For Transfer of Radioactive Materials Between the UFTR R-56 License and the University of Florida 356-1 State License.
'll REV 4, 12/88 n = - , . . ,~ v , . -
l j
$0P-A.5 PACE 4 of 19 i 6.0 Records Required (As Applicable):
6.1 Reactor Operations Log l 6.2 UFTR Form SOP-A.5A (Request for UFTR Operation) !
I. 6.3 Radiation Contrcl Form RC-1 (Statement of Training and Experi-t ence) 6.4 UFTR Form SOP-D.4A (Record of Sample Irradiation and Disposi- l tion) 6.5 UFTR Form SOP-D.4B (Sample Record index) 6.6 UFTR Form SOP-D.6A (University of Florida Training Reactor / Uni-versity of Florida Radioactive Material Transfer Record) ,
67 UFTR Form SOP-D.6B (University of Florida / University of Florida f Training Reactor Radioactive Material Transfer Record) 6.8 UFTR Form SOP-D.6C (University of Florida Training Reactor / Uni-versity of Florida Activated Foil Transfer Record) '
6.9 UFTR Form SOP-D.6D (University of Florids Training Reactor / Uni-versJ.ty of Florida Neutron Radiogt aphy FiJ a Cassette Tr ansf e r
Record) 6.10 UFTR Form SOP-D.6E (Universi:y of Flor';da l'rasning Reactor / Uni-
I */ . 0 varsity of Floridt Rabbit System Sample Package Transfer Pecord)
InstrJctions c
i 7.1 Definitions 7.1.1 Experiment shall mean any apparatus, device, or material in- '
stalled in the reactor core or experimental facilities which is not a normal part of the reactor core or experimental fa-cilities.
For the purposes of UFTR SOP-A.5, a reactor experiment need-ing an approved run reqLest form is defined as whenever the reactor is started up, achieves criticality, or is opersted at any power level with any equipment, apparatus, or material inserted into or modifying the core, thermal column, shield tank, or any of the reactor control, safety, coolant, or aux-iliary systems (exclusive of standard startup sources) for the purpose of conducting a research experiment, class or training experiment, or t0st of reactor behavior. Additional-ly, any reactor run made for a class experiment or exercise
' I. that is not oxclusively of a reactor training nature, is an experiment and hence should have an approved Run Request form on file.
REV 4, 12/88 I
b 1
SOP-A.5 PAGE 5 of 19 , !
,I A reactor run conducted exclusively for testing of reactor lj systems or for training or demonstration purposes that does not icvolve modifications to the reactor or its associated structures and equipment is not an experiment and does not ,
require an approved Run Request form on file.
'I 7 1.2 Experiments are classified in four (4) categories (see UFTR Tect 1 Specifications) as follows:
Cl a. s s I -
t<nutine experiments such as gold f oil irradia-tion and other routine established exercises.
Class II -
Relatively routine experiments which need to be documented for each new group of experimenters l performing them, or whenever the experiment has not been carried out for one calendar year or more by the original experimenter, and which pose no hazards to the reactor, the personnel or the public.
Class III - Experimwnts which pose significant questions re-
_g garding the safety oi the reactor, the personnel,
g. or to the public.
Class IV -
1:xperisents which have a significant potential I. for hazard to the reactor, to persoanol, or to the public.
s NOTE: The eperdrion M a ?lats III or Class IV experiment re -
, I. quites RSRS app:* oval of an ans. lysis of associated op-l erational characteristics, hazards and safety consider-ations (including emergency procedures and steps to
- I'- mitigate the consequences of potencial accidents as de-lineated in Section 7.2.2.3).
7.2 Requesting Use of the Reactor for an Experiment 7.2.1 A properly completed and approved UFTR Form SOP-A.5A (Request
.g for UFTR Operation) shall be filed in the Run Request Book in ,
lg the Reactor Control Room prior to operating the reactor for an experiment; no experiment may be performed without proper approval via UFTR Form SOP-A.5A.
L NOTE: UFTR Form SOP-A.5A (Request for UFTR Operation) may also be used to document reactor usages which are not technically experiments and hence which do not require this form; such documentation may be used a t t h e dis-cretion of the facility management.
7.2.1.1 All new experiments shall require an initial, detailed run l
1 request to be generated (UFIR Form SOP-A.5A) and approved.
REV 4, 12/88
SOP-A.5 PAGE 6 of 19 , i I
i 7.2.1.2 A comprehensive Run Request for a series of well estab- l 11shed experiments may be generated to cover a group of !
experiments selected from a list of all standard Class I i' and Class II experiments previously performed in the reac-tor. The comprehensive Run Request Form must identify all
'I' approved experiments by full experiment title, date last run, and expected date the experiment will be run under j
J the comprehensive request. )
I 7.2.1.3 Each different class or group utilizing a comprehensive Run Request for a series of experiments will require a I separate run request for its comprehensive set of experi-ments.
i 7.2.2 Run Request Preparation !
7.2.2.1 The UTTR Form SOP-A.5A (Request for UFTR Operation) con-tained in Appendix I must be filled out and approved in its entirety prior te experiment insertion. The experimen- ,
ter nay utilize assistanea from other sources as necessary to complete the form. .
f 1. 2. 2.1.1 ine oxperikonter must pruthe a hefef summary of the a preposed eyoricent d e t a ili'a g the names of the expriri-wenters, c o t,2 c e o f a u p p o r t , e z;p a ri m e n t obj ec tive s and
I - mignific6nce of thu exp6.rimerst. Tbc experimenter should ,
also prov W information on expected publications. If l the format of Fcre 80P-A.5A s}1ous sufficient space, i this infors% tion ray be included on the Run Request :;
Neo under Section 1 (introduccory Administrative In-formation).
NOTE: Thie information is needed for the UFTR Annual Report.
,I 7.2.2.1.2 The experimenter with UFTR dtaff support as necessary should also complete Section II (Operational Informa-tion) of Form SOP-A.5A giving the operational informa-tion for running the experiment. ;
7.2.2.1.3 The principal investigator, co-investigator or a desig-nated alternate should sign under Section III (Experi-
'I menter Approval) of UFTR Form SOP-A. 5 A indica ti-information given in Sections I and II of the fu a is the correct to the best of the individual's knowledge. Stu-I dents authorized by the experimenter to work with the experiment are to be listed in thisSection III as well.
I I REV 4, 12/88 l
I SOP-A.5 PAGE 7 of 19 .
7.2.2.1.4 The experimenter with UPTR staff or other support as necessary must complete Section IV (Irradiation Infor-nation) of Form SOP-A.5A to assure _ adequate control over materials inserted in the UFTR experimental ports and to assure proper controls and preparations for ex-I periment removal after irradiation. Limiting experiment parameters are designated in this Section via Table A.5A which is used to track any applicable limiting parameter (s) as an experiment is run one or more times.
7.2.2.1.5 The experimenter with other support as necessary must also complete Section V (Personnel Limitations and Re-I quirements); only those individuals listed as author-ized to remove radioactive material from the UFTR cell will be allowed to do so under the limitations and doc-unentation requirements of UFTR SOP-D.6. The final de-cision about whether radiation control supervision will be required outside the cell and whether radioactive
g material vill no allowed to leave the reactor cell,
,g reactor building or nuclear sciences center must be
! made by the Reactor Manager and Radiatico'Controi Of-
E ficer in approving the experiment with input from t.hc t experimenter providing the necessary supporting fafor- l
~
mation. ;l
,I 7. 2. 2.1. 6 The Reactor Hansger or Faciliff Directur shall accure that Section VI (Experiment Approsal Aequ2raments) to q
completed to include innicating whether a new proposal
,3 is needed, assigning che Exyeriment Crtegory (sco Sec-E- tion 7.2.2.2) and indicating whether RSRS appreval is i required. All other blanks in Section VI are completed y
by signatures and dates of those approving the experi-ment.
NOTE: New proposals will normally only be needed for experiments of a type not run previously or for which detailed information is needed. The infor-mation supplied in Section 1, Part (1) will be sufficient for most toutine experiments so a full
'I proposal will not be needed.
7.2.2.1.7 Section VII (Experiment Hodifications) must be com-
'It pleted by the Reactor Manager or Facility Director and the Radiation Control Officer for all changes on the !
Run Request after original approval.
3 NOTE: Significant changes on a Class III or IV Experi-ment Run Request will require RSRS approval. l 7.2.2.2 Requirements for Experiment Approval I REV 4, 12/88 I >
I SOP-A.5 PAGE 8 of 19 .
7.2.2.2.1 Class I experiments shall be approved by the Reactor Manager; Class I experiments should also be approved by the Radiation Control Officer.
7.2.2.2.2 class II experiments shall be approved by the Reactor Manager and the Radiation Control Officer.
7.2.2.2 3 Class III experiments shall be approved by the Reactor Manager and the Radiation Control Officer after review and approval by the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS).
I 7.2.2.2.4 Class IV experiments shall be approved by the Reactor Manager and the Radiation Contro3 Officer after review and approval by the RSRS. Specific emergency operating I instructions shall be established for conducting such experiments.
7. 2. 2. 3
,I Special instructions apply f or approval of Class III and IV exper!.ments; at least three (3) working days prior to the RSRS meeting at which the proposed experiment in to be 7
reviewed, the experimenter, as a minimum, must submit the I following information to the teactor Nanager for transmit-tal to RSRS rembers:
A. Experiennt Deperiptien to inC1Gdt :
1) Detailed d2sr.ription of the Experimont and its apparatus, 2*/ Operational and/or safety considerations including the use or production of hazardous material and as-sociated radiation and/or chemical hazards.
NOTE: A copy of " Hazardous Chemicals Desk Refer-ence," N. San, is normally available at the I-facility for use in evaluating hazards.
3) Estimated potential effects on reactor reactivity and UFTR operational characteristics.
B. Experimental Procedures for three experimental phases: .
1) Preparatory to reactor operation,
2) During reactor operation, I. 3) Subsequent to reactor operation.
C. Analysis of maximum credible accident (s) associated with the experiment.
REV 4, 12/88
I SOP-A.5' PAGE 9 of 19 i
)
l i
D. Emergency procedures and steps proposed to minimise the i probability of such accidents and to mitigate the con- ]
sequences of postulated accidents. j i
t E. A one page summary of the experiment including the- l I names of the experimenters and source of support as well as obj ectives and significance of-the experiment.
The information in this summary is needed for submittal j
j I to the U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission and to the Department of Energy as part of the UFTR Annual Report and may be included on the Run Request Form.
i' F. Additional information as applicable to aid the RSRS in ,
~
their evaluation and the operating staff in preparing for the experiment. !
I 7.3 Running the Experiment i
2eactot Operations btsff Duties for Expetistut Insertion I
7.3 1
']
7.3.1.1 Before any (xpat?mont is inctalled-in r.b e r e a.: t o r , the .
UFTK operator t o r j u r.s s M e for running the reacter shall
^
assure that a proper 3y approved UFTR Form SOP-A.5A (Re-quest for UFTR bperstion) han been filed and that the . -
[ pasuned operation does not eFceed any of the limits pisc64 i
)
upon the experiment via the approvcd Run Ro uest. ;
7.3.1 1.1 The UFTR reactor cperator shell assure understanding of !
the ex pt. r a meat and its run request including any limit- :
ations.
i 7.3.1.1.2 -If the experiment has not been run previously, the -
reactor operator shall assign and enter a Run Request Number and Date of Initial Experiment Run on the first page of UFTR Form S0?-A.5A; the reactor operator should :
also record the applicable experiment information on the list of experiments run for the year to date.
7.3.1.1.3 The reactor operator shall assure the planned operation l will not exceed any limiting parameters delineated in l UFTR Form SOP-A.5, Table A.5A by checking the margin on ,
the limiting experiment parameter (s) listed in Tabic i A.5A.
7.3.1.2 Requirements for running Class III and IV Experiments 7.3.1.2.1 Class III and IV experiments will be inserted, disas- ^
sembled or removed from the reactor only under the di-
n - rect supervision of the Reactor Manager or his duly
g authorized representative.
REV 4, 12/88
.~
s_ ,
Il !
SOP-A.5- PAGE 10 of 19 l
7.3.1.2.2 All personnel present in the reactor cell during the l running ~of Class 111 and IV experiments must be fami-
'I liar with the Radiological Emergency procedures.(UFTR SOP-B.1 and UFTR SOP-B.2) and shall be certified as l;
a such using UFTR Form SOP-B.1. The only allowed excep-I tions are visitors to the control room and up to two individuals in the cell accompanied by a member of the UFTR technical staff who is certified as second person qualified. !
7.3.1.2.3 All gases which may cause a hazard through neutron ac- s tivation shall be exhausted from experiments or experi-I mental fecilities installed in or near the core or sur-rounding graphite to the environment via the Reactor Vent System. l i
1.3.J.3 Adjuatments and alterations to permanent and temporaty shielding at well zu siterations to graphite configura- ;
ticas stali be contro13ed via UTTR SGP-E.2, dAlteretienn I to Reactor Shielding and Graphite Configurations."
7.3.1.4 Radiation surveys following shielding adj us tments as well l
(
as alterst. ions to graphite configurations shall be con- ;
trolled vis UPTR SOP-E.2, " Alterations t o Rf, a c t r, r Shield- i ing and Grephite Configurstdous." l 7.3.1.4.1 - Normally when radiation surveys are deemed necesspry, it will be adequate to check experiment radiation +
levels first at one kW and to extrapolate one decade.
'I As power is raised one decade, the extrapolation should be confirmed and the process repeated until the desired -
power level is achieved.
7.3.1.4 2 If any permanent reactor shielding has been removed or displaced in preparation for insertion of an experi- .
ment
a. A representative of the Principal Investigator (s) and-of the Radiation Control Office must be present I- during initial insertion of the experiment.
b. Radiation Control Personnel will monitor and docu-l ment radiation levels f oll owi ng initial startup and during any initial subsequent increases in power level.
l 7.3.2 Reactivity Considerations for Experiments 7.3.2.1 An experiment shall not be inserted or removed from the core unless one of two conditions is met:
REV 4 12/88
I l SOP-A.$
I 7.3.2.1.1' All control blades are fully inserted, or PAGE 11 of 19 . l l
I 7.3.2.1.2 The experiment's absolute reactivity worth is known to be less than that which could cause a 20 second posi-tive stable period. ;
7.3.2.2 During startup, the total reactivity worth of an experi- i ment will be determined and logged in the Reactor Opera- '!
tions Log by the following mechods ,
A. From the best recent clean startup, determine the blade '
I position in the Reactor Operations Log for the stable 1 watt critical position; i
B. Determine the I watt stab.le critical position with the experimeist insertec; C. b61ng blade worth curvis, determine the total reac- ;
I tivity worth atoociated with the dif f erence in blade positions at i vatt with the experiment removed and with the experiment inserted; i
NOTE: If xenon buildup er other reactivity effects pre- :
veut a determination of experiment worth bastd ou ;
the best r es e c n t : lean startup, then the experi-I ment worth abould be determined by determining the present I watt critical position without the experiment followed by shutdown, experiment in-sertion and restart to I watt.
b D. Record the reactivity worth of the experiment in the Reactor Operations Log; the reactivity worth may also L
I. be recorded on the Run Request Form (UFTR Form SOP-A.5A) for future reference. This record should be L made if the reactivity worth is significantly different from that expected.
7.3.3 Generation of short-lived sample activity for purposes such i
<l tu as neutron activation analysis may be facilitated by the use of the Rabbit Sample Transfer System.
NOTE: All samples inserted via the Rabbit System are known to have reactivity worth less than that which could cause a 20 second positive stable period provided the mate-( riel is not fuel material.
7.3.4 The reactor operator should update Table A.5A (UFTR Record of Irradiation and Experimental Parameter Limitations) as appli-I cable prior to removing the experiment from the reactor. The reactor operator shall update Table A.5A as applicable prior to the next insertion of the experiment. ,
REV 4, 12/88
I SOP-A.5 PAGE 12 of 19 .
7.4 Removing Radioactive Material from UFTR Experimental Facilities 7.4.1 Any radioactive material producing radiation levels greater than 200 mR/hr on contact shall be placed in a shielded con-tainer or otherwise shielded to reduce potential exposure.
7.4.2 Any radioactive material producing radiation levels greater than 200 mR/hr on contact with its shielded container shall I not be removed from the UFTR without prior consent of Radia-tion Control.
7.4.3 The controlling UFTR SOP-D.4, " Removing 1rradiated Samples
.I from UFTR Experimental Ports" shall be used to control re-moval of samples and other activated and/or contaminated ma-terials from UFTR experiaental ports to include samples re-
} moved vis the Rabbit System.
7.4.4 Two qualified individuale shall monitor experiment removal j from the UFTR.
7.4.4.1 A licensed UFIR traf f membe r must monitor removal of all experiments.
NOTE: Remote monitoring at the console is considered to j' , acet this requirement for samples removed via the Rabbit System.
1
- 7.4.4.2 Radiation Control will monitor removal of all experiments and samples from the reactor. A Radiation Control repre-sentative must be present (radiation control qualified UFTR personnel are considered acceptable).
NOTE: ltems that are parts of experiments but only subject
! to beams extracted from the reactor may be removed by a single person and without reactor power reduc-tion provided that proper monitoring is performed.
7.5 Releasing Radioactive Material from the UFTR R-56 License 7.5.1 Implementation of SOP-D.6 shall be in conformance with the
" Policy Statement For Transfer of Radioactive Materials Be-I tween The UFTR R-56 License and The University of Florida 356-1 State License.
7.5.2 The controlling UPTR SOP-D.6, " Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers" shall be used to document the release and transfer of radioactive material from the UFTR R-56 License to the University of Florida 356-1 License.
I REV 4, 12/88 1
w r
Le SOP-A.5 PAGE 13 of 19 ,
I 7.5.3 If a radioactive sample on the R-56 License is to be removed from the UFTR site then UFTR Form SOP-D.6A (University of Florida Training Reactor / University of Florida Radioactive
[ Material Transfer Record) or in'certain cases shortened forus represented by UTTR Form SOP-D.6C (University of Florida Training Reactor / University of Florida Activated Foil Trans-fer Record) for foils, UFTR Form SOP-D.6D (University of Florida Training Reactor /Universityoof Florida Neutron Radio-graphy Film Cassette Transfer Record) for the neutron radio-graphy film cassette, or UFTR Form SOP-D.6E (University of Florida Training Reactor / University of Florida Rabbit System h Sample Package Transfer Record) for samples irradiated.via
g. the Rabbit System must be completed to control and document the transfer.
I 7.5.4 If radioactive samples or other nater3al on the University of Florida 356-1 State License is to be traneferred to the UFTR R-56 license for irradiation, then UF71 Form SOP-D.6B (Uni-versity of Florida / University of Florida Training Reactor Ra-la dioactive Hnterial. Transfer Record) or in certain cases shor-tened forms represented by UFTR Form SOP-D.6C (University of I F1mrida Training Reactor /Univerrity of Florida Activated Foil rsnsfer Record) for foils, UPTk Form SOP-D.6D (University.of Florida Training Reactot/ University of Florida Heutron Radio-graphy Film Cassette Transfer Record) for the neutron radio-I graphy film cassette, or UFTR Form SOP-D.6E (University of-Florida Training Reactor / University of Florida Rabbit Systen Sample Package Transfer Record) for samples irradiated.via I the Rabbit System must be completed to control and document the transfer.
I:
I I:
I I 1 REV 4, 12/88 <
I
1 I SOP-A.5 PAGE 14 of 19 i
i
-I:
~
i t
4 i
,t t 1 l APPEND 1X 1 ,
Request 'le t UF'R Operaciur. -
( Rtin ite q ue s t Ft.rr) 1 j l'/TR I orm SOP-A. 5 A j.
i '
L' d
lI
.t I
l '
J '
k i
i t
4 i
1 lI l REV 4, 12/88
- - - - - - - - - - - - - . ---____.__-.._-,,.,,,.n., ,._n.,-nn...,- ,.,..,.....,..,,-e. ,,,a,. ,_.. . . , , , n., n.,,-,.,. c-,.,,,y . , . , -, .
n SOP-A.$ PAGE 1$ Cf IC
" #4* N Run Requeat Number:
gg Dste of Initial Run s I g.
NOTE: this form must be filled out and approved in its entirety prior to experiment inser- l tion. Assistance from the reactor facility management and staff is available as i needed.
I
! 1 Ilrf30DOCTORY AInffEISTRATIVE INFOBRATION :
Brief Title of Experiment Principal investigator: Phones i Organization: Departments _
Co-Investigators: i Research Students or Technicians (include phone): _
L _ _ _
PROJECT FUNDING Federal State Industrial /
hnded: />gency: _ Agency: Commerical (specify);, ;
Not Funded: Justification for ur. funded projecM: _
f GENERAL: A short description of the project, its objectives and its significance ,
with specific reference to how the UFTR will be used is required for re-porting purposes. Attach additional pages as needed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires an annual- report describing UFTR utilization; the De-partment of Energy requires details of publications, reports and oral pre-l sentations resulting f rom reactor use to justif y f uel support.
I
1. Proj ec t/ Expe riment De s cri p tion / Obj ec tive s/ Signi fi cance :
i
2. Publications including theses expected to result from this reactor utilization (list potential authors with phone numbers):
I -
l- REV 4, 12/88
SOP-A,5 PACE.16 cf 19 I ;
11. OPERAT1 MAL IEFUWET105 +
Type of Operation:
Class Experiment / Demonstration (indicate course designation):
Research Project (include project designation): [
l Commercital Usage (include company name/ project designation):
Experies at Title For Use in Reactor Operations leg:
I' Ieseription of Operations Acce.as Port (s) , _ _
Maximum Powar level: ,
Duration _
Brief D2ecription of Operation , , _ _ _
Special Instructions (Class III and Class IV Experiments Require RSRS Approval and May Require Detailed Procedures):
I III. EXPER MENTER APPROVAL Principal List of Authorized Students:
Investigator:
Signature .
REV 4, 12/88
- * *W 9 & ^' '
{ SOP-A.5 PAGE 17 of 19
! 17. IRRADIAT108 IBOM&T100 Description of sample or apparatus to be inserted into Reactor:
1. lootopic composition including container and standards:
~
_ 2. Physical form and containment if required
3. Destination of all irradiated materials _
4. Method of disposal of radiosctive waste: _
5 5. Expected reactivity effects in the reactor
6. Limitation on radiation level of sample (s) or apparatus to be removed from the reactor:
a. At 1 foot unshielded:
b. On contact unshielded: c. On contact shielded:
~. 7. Limiting Parameter (s) Relative to Running the Experiment:
NOTE: The attached Table A.5A is part of this form and should be used to document meeting any experiment limitations. If there are no special limiting para-
meters, then a simple "not applicable" entered here eliminates the need for Table A.5A.
V. PERSOMBEL LIMITATI0BS AND REQUIREIGurTS List of persons authorized to remove radioactive material from UFTR Cell Location RC-1 Film Badge Name Phone # of Material on File Required J
NOTE: All personnel in the cell during the running of a Class III experiment must be
_l second person qualified as certified via UFTR Form SOP-B.1A. Exceptions are l allowed only for individuals restricted to the control room or accompanied in the cell by a member of the UFTR Technical Staff who is certified as second person qualified.
REV 4. 12/8R-
SOP-A.5 PACE 18cfI i
Rad Con Supervisics will be rcquir:d cctside of 5 the Reactor Cella Yest_ No t, -
Radioactive material will leave the Reactor Cell / Reactor Buildiogs Yes Not .
I i
Radioactive material.will leave the Nuclear >
Science Facility Yes: Not v1. = r = = = - ,1 - - . .
A new proposal is needed for this experiment: Yes: Not (proposal must be attached to Run Request) ,
A 10 CFF 50.59 Evaluation is required for i this experiment Yes No t_ 4 Assigned Experiment Classif 2 cations , Rx hgr/Fac Dir Initials: _
RSRS approval is reqtire(. for this experiment: Yes No '
11 "yes," approval must ce indicated by signature /date of RSRS Chairman:
RSRS Chairman Signcture Date This experiment is approved for running in accordance with UFTR Technical Specifica-tions and SOPS as well as compliance with all required documents and conditions:
=>
~ ^
Reactor Manager Date Radiation Control Officer Date VII. EIFERDENT MODIFICATI0IIS All changes to this operational request should be noted below and initia11ed by both the Reactor Manager and Radiation Control Officer (or their designated alternates) prior to implementation.
Chsage Rx Mgr/ Rad No. Description Con Of f I
I Control of all activated samples or components associated with this experiment that I leave the reactor cell for further use must be documented using the forms in UFTR SOP-D.6, " Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers."
REV 4, 12/88!
a SOP-A.5 PAGE 19 cf 19
, a g gy,g,g Run Requeat Number:
TABLE A. R UFTR Record of irradiation and Bayerinsatal forameter Limitations
Limiting Parameter (s) . . . . . Indicate by check whether this limiting parameter is per sample Units of Limiting Parameter (s).. per run
__ or cummuistive Limiting farameter 1 Limiting Parameter 2 Run Total Total Amount Total Amount Total Date Number kun Time Exp. Time This Run To Date Margin This Run To Date Margin l
m b
-m 5 _
3 P =
A U
Insert number for Limiting Parameter which could be t (1) Number of Irradiations; (2)
Number of Samples; (3) Number of Runs; (4) Number of Hours Run; (5) Energy Generation;
, (6) Maximum Power; (7) Tot 41 Activity; (8) Dose Rate; (9) Other (Specif y).
REV 4, 12/88
n ;
I l I'
80P-3.1 PAGE 1 of 12 l 1 i!
UFTR OPERATING PROCEDURE B.1 l l
1.0' Radiological Emergency l I 2.0 Approval ,
J
. 3-:-
^
i
\
Reactor Safety' Revise Subcommittee . ..... k_ C / 7 Yo
. t.
I DirectorNuclearFacilities..........hkd -
h /2 //NN D.e e<
l o
h 1
I :
I
I P
lI. REV 4, 12/88 lI
- . - - . - - . , ,. m., _,.__.
l 1
SOP-B.1 PAGE 2 0F 12 3.0 Purpose and Discussion 3.1 This procedure delineates a chain of responsibility and outlines '
I specific actions to be taken by all personnel in the event of a l -
radiological emergency requiring evacuation of the UFTR Cell. 1 l l l 3.2 Complete knowledge and understanding of this procedure is re-quired for someone to be qualified as second person for reactor :
operation which requires completion of the UFTR Form SOP-B.lA (Emergency Procedure Qualification) contained in Appendix II of
I this procedure.
i 4.0 Limits and Precautions I I
4.1 All limits and precautions for radiation protection end control I in UFTR $0P-D.1 are to be observed. I 4.2 The University of Florida Radiation Control Guide should be used for control of radiation and contamination limits. ;
I I CAUTION I When the stack count rate monitor indicates 10 cps or higher, the diluting and/or vent fans shall not be secured except for one of the conditions delineated in Items 4.3.1 through 4.3.5.
4.3 If the stack count rate monitor indicates 10 cps or greater dur-ing routine shutdown conditions, the vent and/or diluting fans ,
may be secured only for one of the following facility conditions to include 4.3.1 Loss of building electrical power.
4.3.2 Equipment failure.
4.3.3 Cycling console power to dump primary coolant.
4.3.4 Performance of tests and surveillances. ,
, 4.3.5 Initiation of the evacuation alarm for tests and surveil-lances including emergency drills.
NOTE: If the stack count rate monitor indicates 10 cps or higher, the time these fans are secured for these reasons should be minimized.
4.4 Prior to initiation of venting of the UFTR cell to reduce the concentration of airborne radioactive materials, the cell atmo-
,. sphere shall be sampled and the radionuclide concentration veri-fled to be within limits for release to unrestricted areas with the usual dilution credits allowed.
- _ . _ . _ _ _ - - ~ - - - , . . _ - , -
F U; j
I- SOP-B.1 PAGE 3 of 12 j i
i 5.0 ' References l 5.1 UFTR Emergency Plan l 1 5.2 University of Florida Radiation Control Guide 5.3 UFTR SOP D.1, " Radiation Protection and Control" 6.0 Records required 6.1 UFTR Form SOP-B.14, (Emergency Procedure Qualification) 7.0 Ifte$ ructions ;
7.1 During working-hours .
7.1.1 lamediate actions ;
Note: Working hours are defined as any time that authorized
, personnel are la the Reactor Cell. l i
7.1.1.1 Upon hearing the evacuation siren, all personnel in the ;
Reactor Building shall evacuate the Reactor Building. The Raactor Building shall be defined as including the Reactor :
Cell, the Annex f,ui l d i n g and the upper level and lower -
level of the Reactor Building. t 7.1.1.1.1 If in the Reactor Cell, evacuate the cell and unless
! ~
exit is made via the freight door, proceed directly to the Decontamination' Room (Rm. 108, NSC). -
7.1.1.1.2 If in the upper level of the Reactor Building, the ;
. upper floor of the Annex Building, or the lower level of the Materials Science side of the Annex Building j evacuate and assemble in front of the Annex Building.
'7.1.1.1.3 If exit is made via the freight door emergency exit, )
the rear exit of the Radiochemistry Lab or the lower floor of the reactor side of the Annex building. l assemble in the security area behind the Reactot Building close to the NSC air conditioning equipment room.
E 7.1.1. .4 Personnel assembling at either of these two areas will
g. .
be checked by a representative of the Radiation Control j Department and given further instructions.
7.1.1.2 Evacuation siren activation methods q 1
7.1.1.2.1 The evacuation siren will activate automatically upon a l 2 out of 3 coincidts:;ee with the North, South and/or l . East area monitors 2r the reactor cell reading 10 seem/hr or more. If the siren does not activate auto-i matically, manually activate the siren. l l
REV 4 12
_ _ __ . _ . _ _ __ _ . _ . _ l@s LI$l(Lf 88
. -U
I, I SOP-B.1 PAGE 4 OP 12 I 7.1.1.2.2 If the Air Particulate Detector (APD) alarms, unless it j
is positively known that this is not a valid alarm con-I, dition, all persons shall immediately evacuate the cell and proceed as per this procedure. The reactor opera- i tor will activate the siren manually priar to exiting the cell.
7.1.1.3 If a maj or radiation incident has occurred in the reactor, l
the personnel reaching the Decontamination Roos shculd !
check the radiation level to determine if evacuation of !
the Nuclear Sciences Center is imperative. If the radia-tion level is larger than 10 mrea/hr, in the hallway, dial i Campus Police (2-1111), inform them " Disaster in the Reac- i tor" and evacuate the Nuclear Science Center immediately.
7.1.1.4 The connecting doors to the Nuclear Science Center will be '
closed. ;
7.1.1.5 The first responsibility of the senior person on site will f be to obtain medical aid for any inj ured personnel. When evacuation from the reactor cell is required due to a ra- i diological emergency oc fire, the reactor operator or senior experimenter will ascertain that all personnel have i
evacuated (unless not feasible due to the emergency).
Every effort will be made to safely avacuate incapacitated
. . personnel by supplying physical assistance or using a lit-ter.
7.11.6 Personnel responsibilities Note: Licensed reactor operatort have seniority in all reactor-related matters. The Reactor Manager will direct any supplemental actions.
If a reactor operator is not present, start imple-I menting " Instructions for Radiological Emergency" (Appendix I) posted in the Decontamination Room (Rs.
108 NSC). In particular, make the required tele-I phone calls immediately. Make a log of all calls made, all pertinent information known or available and all actions taken.
7.1 1.6.1 Reactor Operator shall rerform the following immediate actions:
7.1.1.6.1.1 Insure the reactor is shut down by any appropriate method, and remove and take custody of the control console key, check the gamma area monitors and stack monitor for abnormal conditions. Check that the air conditioner is off.
i I !
i I $0P-B.1 l
PAGE 5 0F 12 l I 7.1.1.6.1.2 If possible, assess the overall plant status to in-i clude consideration of any inj ured person.
J 7.1.1.6.1.3 Insure that the personnel in the cell have evecuated
.~
to the Decontamination Room if possible. Take no- #
t tice if anyons evacuated through the reactor cell i freight door. Notify Radiation Control Duty Of-ficer, Reactor Manager and Senior Reactor Operator from the.tciephone in room 108. t 7.1.1.6.1.4 If persible, start implementing Appendix I, "In-structions for Radiological Emergencies" pnoted in Room 108 NSC. '
7.1.1. 6.1. 5 Assume the responsibilities of the Senior Reactor Operator in his absence.
7.1.1.6.2 Senior Reactor Operator en duty shall perform the fol- ;
i lowing actionst 7.1.1.6.2.1 Check with the reactor operator.in the Decontamina-
~
tion Room to ascertain that the reactor has been shut down.
7.1.1.6.2.2 Check with those evacuated from the reactor cell.to ascertain who or what initiated the evacuation I. siren.
7.1.1.6.2.3 Contact the Reactor Manager and the Radiation Con-trol Duty Officer. '
7.1.1.6.2.4 Assume the responsibilities of the Reactor Manager in his absence if conditions require.
7.1.1.6.3 Reactor Manager on duty shall perform the following:
7.1.1.6.3.1 Immediate Actions i
b 7.1.1.6.3.1.1 Direct all actions pertaining to the emergency.
.I' 7.1.1.6.3.1.2 Assess the situation from preliminary reports and -
proceed to the Decontamination Room.
7.1.1.6.3.1.3 Insure emergency equipment is properly employed, including clothing and respiratory devices. Wear two pocket dosimeters, one low range and one high range, and carry a survey meter (low and/or high range).
7.1.1.6.3.2 Supplemental Actions 9 u-- m,-- m-- ___--_u-.
80P-B.1 PAGE 6 0F 12 l
I l
7.1.1.6.3.2.1 If advisable, enter the UFTR building with a Ra-diation Control Officer through the first floor door connecting the UFTR and the NSC Buildings.
I l
Take preliminary radiation level readings. If the radiation. levels allow, proceed to the Reac-tor Control Room door. Observe-the area radia-tion monitor readings and reactor console instru-mentation indications through the control room
(, door observation window.
7.1.1.6.3.2.2 Datermine the cause of the alarm, if possible.
l
Enter the reactor cell, or take appropriate ac- ,
tions to safeguard the safety of the public and remove injurec personnel.
, 7.1.1.6.3.2.3 Coordinate all emergency actions with Radiation ,
!g Control and aid in deciding whether the Shands -
,g- Teaching Hospital and Clinics Plan for Emergency Handling of Radiation Accident Cases and/or the Official Stato Plan for Radiological Emergenciar >
in Florida should be implemented.
l Notify the evacuated personnel when it is safe to-7.1.1.6.3.2.4 reenter the building.
7.1.1.6.4 Radiation Control Duty Officer shall perform.the fol- ,
lowing:
7.1.1.6.4.1 Immediate Actions:
I 7.1.1.6.4.1.1 Safeguard the health and safety of the public and of the personnel involved in all actions pertain-ing to the radiological emergency. Radiation ;
Control shall have veto power over actions per-taining to events and incidents which are part of the radiological emergency condition.
7.1.1.6.4.1.2 Upon notification, immediately proceed to the De-contamination Room from the Nuclear Sciences Cca-ter.
I. 7.1.1.6.4.1.3 Check or instruct another radiation control staff member to check the personnel situation, includ-ing those who exited through the freight door of the reactor cell and those who might have as-sembled on the East side of the Reactor Building.
7.1.1.6.4.2 Supplemental actions 9
I .
- - ~ . -- - _1.-_* '_.__u-_
_ /L " '_ _ _ _ . - -
t i
i l
=
SOP-B.1 PAGE 7 0F 12 ,
f
!l
s- 7.1.1.6.4.2.1 Enter the UFTR Building with the Reactor Manager and determine the nature and extent of any radia- -
tion or contamination hazard. Aid in coordinat- !
ing entries to che Reactor Cell. Wear appropri- I are clothing and respiratory devices, two pocket ;
dosimeters, one high and one low range and carry l
a radiation survey meter (low and/or high range).
7.1.1.6.4.2.2, Supervise any decontamination of the area, equip- i ment and personnel. Insure that all personnel i<g g ', irvolv6d in any cJevn-up opa.rktion are properly
.lothed and protectef for the operation. !
r 7.1.1.6.4.2.3 When necessary, dirGct and assist in the arrante- ;
ment of any emergency shiolding.
I 7.1.1.6.4.2.4 Coordinate all emergency actions with the Reactor Mas.ager and aid in deciding whether the Shands '
Te a c hi ng Hospital and Clinics Plan for Embrgency :
g Handling of kadiation Accident Cases and/or the 3 Official State ?lan fer Radiological Energencies

in Florida should be implemented. If a Reactor Operator is present, follow his instructions.
7.1. 2 - If the incident involves evacuation of off-site personnel, !
bodily inj ury or damage to off-site property, American Nu-
clear Insurers shall be notified at (203) 677-7305.
7.2 During non-working hours 7.2.1 Immediate Actions
{>
lg 7.2.1.1 Personnel responding to a notification of any abnormal -
!g noise or condition in the reactor cell shall first proceed to the Decontamination Room, via the Nuclear Sciences Cen-t 1
ter. Upon arrival, evaluate the situation from.the best information available. ,
7.2.1.2 If there is any suggestion of radiological involvement, ,
begin implementation of UFTR SOP-B.1, " Radiological Emer-gency."
7.2.2 Supplemental Actions 7.2.2.1 If there are no indications of radiological involvement, L proceed cautiously to the reactor control room with a low lg range survey instrument. If no radiological involvement 3 is confirmed, further evaluate the situation and take ap-propriate actions.
REV 4, 12/88
. - - . . . _ - . ....- .... . .~. .
I 8 0 F-3.1 ' PAGE 8 0F 12 j I. l 1
I I
i I
j APPENDIX 1 I INSTRUCTIONS FOR RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCIES 1
i 4
l l
. r.'
r i
e t
i
I lI f
REV 4, 12/88
~
$0P-B.1 FAGE 9 0F 12
-INSTRUCTIONS FOR RADIOLOGICAL ENERGENCIES L=
1. Call in orders (a) Reactor Manager:
1) Dial number for his known location
2) Dial 395-0111 (Shands Switchboard): ..
Specify Pagar Nusbur 740 Say, " Emergency in the Reactor" J'
3) See posted call list for home phone.
(b) Radiation Control Officer
1) Dial 1-1591 for his office
2) Dial 121-878 (p4ger).
Say " Emergency in the Reactor" I_. 3) See posted call list for home phone.
2.
I: Check radiation levels in the hallway outside the decon. room.
If greater than 10 arem/hr, evacuate the Nuclear Science Center.
3. Check personnel for gross contamination.
4. Set up a control area outside the decon. room, a) Use. absorbent paper b) Position a barrier between the decon. room and the counting room.
c) Place the emergency kits and the air packs near the control point.
5. The senior person in the Decontamination Room will be in charge of recording main events-and personnel involved (names and con- :
tamination levels), including the chronology of events. !
6. Supplemental actions for REACTOR OPERATORS ONLY a) When deemed advisable by the senior person in charge, the following switches on lighting panel 1 in the UFTR operat-ing staff room may be opened for the following effects:
1) Switch D in the Auxiliary Panel deactivates UFTR siren.
I REV 4, 12/88 TCN: 10/89
W "
N ,
1U '
f.lj ',
$PJ Yi SOP-B.1 PAGE 10 0F 12 lll 11 2)~ No. 19:in the Main Panel deactivates-Annex siren.
'3) No. 25 shuts'off the air conditioner if the automatic trip did not function. .
.b) B:eaker No. 9 on the main AC Distribution Panel in-the Ra-I'.- diochemistry Lab. Shutting this.off will scram the reactor (if this had not been done) and will also shut off all ;
l equipment including the Dilution. Fan-and Core Vent Fan.
I This will also cause the Radiation Monitors to operate on their battery packs. Resetting this breaker will restart -
, all: equipment, but will leave the reactor in a scram condi-tion. I I .
.f I ,
I j
+
lI ,
n. ru'95L_A 6
I
)
1 s ;. e W :; -
n. l
.r.
E.. I g ,
j S O F-B .1- PACE 11 0F 12- !
o.
i i --
t i 3 4 6
t i
t l-
, APPENDIX II 1 UFTR Form SOP-B.lA
c. " Emergency Procedure Qualification" ;
.1'
.)
)
4
?
.h i !
I. . j I
'e ,
j 1
i
. . ~ . . _ . _ _ . _. _ _ _ REV 4_
3 18/88.
l .
1 SOP-B.1 PAGE 12 0F 12-l I
4 UFTE FORM SOP-B.lA-EMERGENCY PROCEDUkE QUALIF10ATION To the attention of the Reactor Manager:
In accordance with the requirements set forth in the Standard ,
Operating Procedures and Technical Specifications regulating the safe .
operation.of the UFTR, I have read SOP-B.1, "Rediological Emergency" and SOP-B.2, " Emergency Procedure - Fire" and. fully understand my re-sponsibilities as a "second person."
L.
I- Name:
(Print or Type)
Date ,,
Signed:
As a qualified and certified Reactor Operator, I certify that the above named individual-has demonstrated the. understanding of UFTR SOP-B.1, " Radiological Emergency" and UFTR SOP-B.2, " Emergency Proce-
' dure - Fire" required to serve as a qualified second person for run-Jning-the UFTR.
Basis:
Quiz Grade:
Retraining:
Signed:
(Certified Reactor Operator) Date
u. , . < .
.)
ge SOP-D.4: PAGE 1 of 8 1
3. I ii UFTR OPERATING PROCEDURE D.4
' 1. 0 Removing Irradiated Samples from UFTR- Experime'.tal Ports -
~2.0 -A'pproval
R3 actor' Safety Review Subcommittee. . I o -----
~
[0 7 7 ,
98td f Director, Nuclear Facilities. . . . .
Ne j i
/4//[
Dath 1
11:
!IL Y
1' r
I
[
I I.
I
_ _ _ _ _ RE_V 5g.,10/89 _ _ . .
f SOP-D.4 PAGE 2 of 8 3.0 Purpose and discussion 3.1 This procedure provides requirements and guidelines for the re-moval.of potentially activated-material from the experimental facilities of the UPTR.
L 3.2 This procedure is not intended to address the transfer of radio-active material from the UPTR R-56 License; such transfers are controlled by UFTR SOP-D.6.
-4.0 Limits and precautions 4.1 A reactor operator and a Radiation Control qualified person are required to remove irradiated samples from the core and experi-mental ports.
4.2 Gioves shall be worn while handling or removing irradiated sam-ples from the core or experimental ports. Samples removed from the vertical ports shall not be handled directly during removal; -
they should be handled via the. string used for insertion or by tongs available on the upper level.
4.3 In addition to the required film badges, dosimeters should be worn during experiment removal whenever the expected unshielded I radiation level is over 100 mR/hr in contact.
4.4 A radiation detection instrument shall be used to monitor radia-tion levels of activated material and general area dose rates in the working area when materials are removed from the reactor core or experimental ports.
4.5 Samples may be transferred from the reactor via the Center Ver-tical Port (CVP) or East Vertical Port (EVP) while operating at power levels of 1 Kw or less. The reactor should be on a nega-I 4.6 tive period during the transfer.
p Samples irradiated in the CVP utilizing the quick drop special plug may be quickly lowered into the CVP while at any power LI level, and may be retrieved from the core into the recessed well at the bottom of the plug, also at any power level subject to the shielded radiation levels delineated in Section 7.3. The suspending cord provides the means of controlling the sample.
The special plug is lowered or raised by the crane. The plug
(
itself will not be removed from the CVP for retrieval of the sample unless power is 1 Kw or less. Since activity of the sam-L ple will not be known beforehand, the sample will be dropped l
from the recessed well in the plug bottom into one of the large pigs atop the reactor when transferred. ;
I
~
SOP-D.4 PAGE 3 of 8 4.7 Samples containing-liquid _or volatile' materials shall'not have ]
their containment devices (plastic' coverings, etc.)_ removed in !
the UFTR_ cells-removal of packaging material should occur under l controlled conditions in a laboratory fume exhaust-hood. J
'I 4.8 This procedure _doesinot apply to gaseous offluent samples pro-cured from the Core Vent and Dilute System, or water samples ac- i complished for surveillance and monitoring purposes.
5.0 References 5.1 UPTR Safety. Analysis Report B '
5.2 UFTR Technical' Specifications l
i m- '5.3 University of Florida Radiation Control Guide 5.4 UPTR SOP-D.1 (Radiation Protection and Control) :
5'. 5 UFTR SOP-A.5 (Experiments) 6.0 Records Required 6.1 Radiation Control-Form RC-1 (Statement of Training and Experi-ence)
6. 21 Radiation Control Form RC-2 (Application For Radioisotope Pro- '
curement)
I 6 .' 3 UFTR Daily Operating Log 6.4 ~UFTR SOP-A.5A-(Run Request Form) 6.'5 UFTR Form SOP-D.4A (Record of Sample Irradiation and Disposal)
'6. 6 UFTR Form SOP-D.4B (Sample Record Index) l . ~6.7 UFTR Form-SOP-D.6A (University of Florida Training Reactor / Uni-
'versity of Florida Radioactive Material Transfer Record)
6. 8 - UFTR Form SOP-D.6B (University of Florida / University of_ Florida Training Reactor Radioactive Material Transfer Record) 6.9 UFTR' Form SOP-D.6C '(University of Florida Training Reactor / Uni- .,
versity of Florida' Activated Foil Transfer Record) 6.10 UFTR Form SOP-D.6D (University of Florida Training Reactor / Uni-versit of Florida Neutron Radiography Film Cassette Transfer Record 6.11 UFTR Form SOP-D.6E (University of Florida Training Reactor / Uni-versity of Florida Rabbit System Package Transfer Record) >
-)r, .
I SOP-D,4- PAGE 4 of 8 +
i 7~.0 Instructions 7.1 Samples may be removed from the reactor and placed in a shielded.
lI1 container provided that the shielded container contact radiation level with the sample in place is less than or equal to 200 mR/hr.
7.2 Samples may be removed from any of the reactor experimental i ports _to a shielded container by a reactor operator and a Radiation Control qualified person provided:
7.2.1 The unshielded sample radiation level is.less than or equal >
to 1.5 R/hr at'(1) one foot, and 7.2.2 Transfer or storage-container contact radiation level with the sample in place is less than or equal to 200 mR/hr. ,
7.3 If it is necessary to remove samples with unshielded-radiation levels in excess of 1.5 R/hr at (1) foot, the Radiation Control Officer or his designated alternate may authorize the transfer' of the radioactive material per SOP-D.6. This authorization is only allowed provided the radiation level at the surface of the transfer or storage container is <200 mR/hr.
CAUTION A UFTR Staff member who is Radiation Control qualified shall not authorize such transfers of radioactive materials with radiation levels in excess of 1.5 R/hr at (1) foot, or with radiation levels higher than 200 mR/hr at the surface of the
. transfer container. The radiation level at the surface of all transfer containers shall be <200 mR/hr.'
7.4 UFTR Form SOP-D.4A (Record of Sample Irradiation and Disposi-I tion) should be completed for all samples irradiated in the UFTR beam ports and thermal column.
7.4.1 If samples from either (1) more than one run, or (2) more I. than one date of irradiation are stored at the same physical-location in the UFTR cell, an identifying marker or tag with
-a specifying label should be affixed to the sample, with the label number noted on UFTR Form SOP-D.4A.
7.4.2- More than one sample may be processed on UFTR Form SOP-D.4A provided:
7.4.2.1 The number of samples or sample packages, as is appropri-ate, is specified on UFTR Form SOP-D.4A, 7.4.2.2 The samples are all irradiated under the same Run Request number, and
1 l
REV 5, 10/89
1
-l 1 SOP-D.4 PAGE 5'of 8 7.4.'2.3 The samples are transferred as a unit.
7.4.3 The total' number of individual samples in each sample package should be noted on UFTR Form SOP-D.4A when multiple samples >
are irradiated in a single containment package.
t E; 7.5 While completing UFTR Form SOP-D.4A, applicable information 3 should be logged on UFTR SOP-D.4B to provide an internal record
'to control and track sample distribution.
I CAUTION The transfer of samples or other radioactive material acti-vated in the UFTR from the UFTR R-56 License to the University of Florida 356-1 State License shall be controlled using UFTR SOP-D.6, " Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers."
'7. 6 Samples irradiated via the pneumatic rapid sample transfer (Ra-bbit) system are not required to have a completed UFTR Form SOP-D.4A or UFTR Form SOP-D.4B processed provided the samples do _!
not leave the UFTR Building complex.
7.7 Samples irradiated for final destination outside the UFTR build-ing complex shall be transferred from the R-56 License following the requirements of UFTR SOP-D.6.
7.7.1 Samples are removed from UFTR ports following SOP-D.4.
7 '. 7 . 2 Samples are removed from the UFTR license following SOP,D.6.
,I
I I.
j ., ,
3(
l,L . ,
9' SOP-D.4= PAGE 6 of 8 '
1 a
.h
)
Ir.g b
! 5 f
9 l - r I 'y t
1 APPENDIX:I IRRADIATED SAMPLES ,
E I
1 4
I I
5 l
i i
e d
I I
'h i
?
iW l
i' l
SOP-D.4 PAGE 7 of 8 ;
It .
1 (PIR FGDI SWH).4h
, IBODIID CF SMEP!JC IIIRADIATIGi AIE) DISPOSITIGE PAGE: i l
RUN REQUEST NUMBER ' TAG ID (if used)
EXPERIMENT TITM'
~STARIUP. TIME /DATE SHITIDOWN TIME /DATE
' AT 100 KW (TIME /DATE)
NUMBER OF SAMP 2 PACKAGES' NUMBER OF SAMPLES 1s LOCATIONS. 2. EDCATION:
TIME /DATE: TIME /DATE: .
RADIATION GVEM RADIATION GVELS METER TYPE /SER.- 10. METER TYPE /SER. NO.
A. CONTACT: A. ODNTACT:
l .B.. 3 in/l ft: B. 3 in/1 ft:
C. CONTAINER SURFACE: C. CONTAINEP, SURFACE:
SURVEYOR: SURVEYOR: e FINhL DISEQiITIGi -
TRANSFER RADIATION MVELS TRANSFER IDCATIONS: METER TYPE /SER. NO:
TRANSFER TIME /0 ATE: A. CONTACT:
[ CARRIER: B. 3 in/1 ft:
' SURVEYOR:
C. TRANSFER CONTAINER SURFACE:
!lL i
. . . . . . . . .- m Ll@AL-__-_ i
n SOP-D.4 PAGE 8 OF 8 -
i SAMPIE M M t
(
Irradiation from anactxr strt number oc asaard ,
i l
I
!I I
I 1
l. _
l lI I
l
t. . .
v
b. .
d. .' RADIATION CONTROL TECHNIQUE #31 ;
g .- !
I4 , ,
INSTRUCTIONS'FOR PERFORMING UFTR ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEYS- )
e. . . . .- . . a LI .- PURPOSE: E w .
To ' : establish. standard techniques .Lfor performing environmentari
,3e .
radiation surveys in - and . arcund the UFTR f acility. - To establist -l
!El standard techniques for using-film. badges and'TLD's=for environmenta;R
-monitoring of unrestricted areas.
.II.- PREREQUISITES:-
-A. Portable ~ survey meters (as appropriate)
B.- Thermoluminescent dosimeters:(TLD), film-badges g.: C. , Radiation' survey forms and data sheets LE: - -
D. . Area-maps and; floor plans .
LE' lII
I. PROCEDURE
Precautions.
I.,
1. UFTR power level should be at 100 kw while performing.
radiation measurements for-ease of comparison with previous' +
surveys and to assure results of. surveys will~be adequate for.UFTR operation at all licensed power levels. ;
og 2. . Readings are to be taken at 12' inches from-the radiation-
g1 -source-or at three feet height when survey. location is- ,
greater than 12 from the radiation source. Readings'~taken.-
V at other distances or heights should be noted.
3. -Unusual or excessive radiation' levels should be reported te.
the SRO1or Reactor-Manager as soon as possible. ,
l A.- . Environmental Monitoring -
Unrestricted Area Indoor Rad'iatier Survey and Unrestricted Area Outdoor Radiation Survey.
,1. Proceed to ' survey locations as noted on area map. Use t-micro-R meter.
I 2. Determine radiation level while standing at the approximato '
survey location. Check.for unusual radiation levels'such ac:
~
, , presence of radiation beams or hot spots in arear
, surrounding the survey location. ,g
3. Record highest radiation level noted as .well as any uhiu's'ual
.m conditions.
,[.
4. Survey is to be performed quarterly at intervals not te exceed 4 months between surveys.
B. Environmental monitoring - Unrestricted areas - TLD, Film Badges i.
i[ 1. Place TLD and film badge packet into individual weatherproof Ef packages and identify.
Y ;ppgle:1 of 34 I
e . , ,
I
.~;
_2.- Place TLD/ film badge package at survey point in 'unresitri'ct .
areas surrounding UFTR facility.- Use _ area map- (page 32 ar ,
33)- for survey point' locations. .. ...d__.
3 '. TLD's and film badges are . to be exchanged on a monthi c basis.
t C.. Environmental Monitoring - Unrestricted Area Indoor Radiation Survey (Building 557)
I 1. ~ Proceed to survey locations. as noted on-area map.
micro-R meter and ionization chamber instrument.
= U s e _-
1
2. Determine radiation level while standing:at the approxima-survey location. Check for unusual radiation levels such presence of radiation -beams or hot- spots in are' surrounding the survey location.
3. Record highest radiation level noted as well as any unusur conditions.
4. Survey is to be performed quarterly at intervals not' -
exceed 4 months between surveys. 4 D.. Environmental monitoring.- Restricted Area Radiation survey- -;
1. Proceed to survey locations as noted on area map (page,34);
2. Determine radiation level while standing at the approxima- '
survey location. Check for. unusual radiation levels such -
presence . of radiation beams or hot spots in are:
surrounding the survey location.
3. Record highest radiation level noted as well as any unusua_
conditions.
4. Survey is to be performed quarterly at intervals not to exceed 4~ months between surveys.
IV . - RECORDKEEPING:
A. Record data on survey forms and data sheets.
1. Required data includes: UFTR power level, survey met <
model # and serial #, date, surveyor, specific conditione etc. -
B. Data Analysis.
~
1. Compare survey results with results of last surve' Differences in radiation levels of greater than 50% must h evaluated with explanations documented. Any othe significant changes should be evaluated with explanation I, documented.
2. RadiationlevelsinunrestrictedareasmustbelessthIn2.
mR/hr.
.- .. . . - - . . . ~ .
t .,
-., j j . , -
~
g' t
Assure that proper posting is used in-restricted areas., ..
.o
. i
3. Radiation j .
lternate)_for; Assure survey results are transmitted to theC
~4.
review and: concurrence on evaluations. >
W
REFERENCES:
3.9.2, Ra.diological Specifications: Section 1.. UFTR Technical Environmental Monitoring I< a.
Paragraph (1)' for monthly monitoring using personne l
monitoring devices.for. quarterly.suveys measuring radiation ..
Paragraph (3) (a)
.b.-
doses in the restricted area (UFTR Q-5 Surve Paragraph (3) (b) for quarterly' surveys measuring rad (UFT
~
c.
doses in the unrestricted areas for Performin Technique #4, Instructions
2. Radiation Control Radiation Surveys.
I:.
/
It
\l:
d il .
l l
c "
fl-
- i
,o' ..
.1 Q-4 SURVEILIANCE UNRESTRICTED AREA INDOOR RADIATION SURVEY lcate or Last Survey. . . b .. _ .
LE7 UFTR~ Power Level: kW :l
g; ' Current Survey Date:
-Survey Instruments:-(A)
Make and Model Serial #
f. Surveyor (s):
Radiation Levels.(uR/hr 9.3' height)
' Building #
Location 634 131 24' 184 30 i
,l G-A G-B j ~, 's G-C ,
1-A .
1-B 1-C 2-A
, t 2-B 2-C l
3-A -[
3-C 4-A 4-B 4-C 5-A /
5-B /
l 5-C / l
~
'Are there differences of greater than 50% in radiation levels between th-survey and the last survey? No Yes, evaluation:
. Are all radiation levels less than 2000 uR/hr? Yes No,
explain:
(A negative. response requires prompt remedial action and special responc-Page 4 of 34 5/89= ._ _
= . - ... . - .. .- __ _ _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ - ._
i
-Q-4 SURVEILLANCE- '
i c UNRESTRICTED AREA OUTDOOR RADIATION SURVEY 4
. I
. . 'Date'of Last Survey: '. a,L . , I Current Survey Date: UFTR Power Level: 'kW
. Survey Instruments: (A)
~
Make and Model Serial # 1 Surveyor (s):
l LOCATION RADIATION LEVEL (uR/hr 0 3' heiaht) _
1 2
3 ,
4 5
6 7
8 9
10' 11
!~ 12 13
~
~ 15 Are there differences of greater than 50% in radiation levels betweeri this survey and'the last survey? No Yes, evaluation: -
Are all radiation levels less than 2000 uR/hr? Yes No, explain:
(A negative response requires prompt remedial action and special response; l Page 5 of-34 5/89,
Q-4 L SUttVEILLANCE 1 UNRESTRICTED AREA 1!! DOOR RADIATION SURVEY !
Building 557 - UFTR Building and Annex- !
Date~of Last Survey:
. Ii_ Current. Survey Date:- UFTR Power Level: kW >
I Survey Instruments: (A)
(B) -v Make and Model Serial f Surveyor (s):
s Radiation Level
_ ' Instrument A Instrument B Location uR/hr mR/hr Position G-A 3' G-B 3i
-G-C 12"
G-D 12" G-E 12n
~'
G-F 1n G-G 12"
! G-H 12" G-I 3i l
G-J 3: +
1-A 3e 1-B 4: !
1-C. 12" I- 1-D 12"
! 1-E 12" l
1-F 3:
I 1-G 3e ?
l 1-H 12" 1-I 12" 1-J 12u Arc there differences of greater th.In 50% in radiation levels between this curvey and the last survey? No Yes, evaluation:
L Are all radiation levels less than 2000 uR/hr?
explain:
Yes No,
?
(A negative response requires prompt remedial action and special response)
Review / Acknowledgement:
Rad Con Officer Date, Rx Mgr./Fac Director Page 6 of 34 5/89 TCN:Da g <
s.
. . , , . i uj s
-""""^""
I -
RESTRICTED AREA RADIATION SURVEY.
~
'Date of Last Survey:
. Current Survey Date: UFTR Power Level: kW.
Survey Instrument (s) A) 1 B) ~ '
l, c) make and model
. serial # l Surveyor (s): l l
.l- SURVEY RADIAT"ON LEVELS '(mR/hr or mrem /hr) )
A B C POSITION l in' LQCAT. ION
g- 1-2
[
3 ,
4
~I 5 6
7-
-8 9
,,,_2 0 11 t 12
! *' 13 14 15 16 . _ _ _ ,
17 18 19 20 21 (
22 23 24 25 26 Are there differences of greater than 50% in radiation levels between thi; survey and the last survey? No Yes, evaluation:
-Are all areas properly posted? Yes No, explain:
REVIEW AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Radiation Control Officer Date Facilities Director / Reactor Manager Date
- Page 7 of 34 5/09
=-u/ q ..- .
< lI.i=- .
[
,i l ,
h d
i t ..a. , = s,-
{
APPENDIX G i- 't UFTR REACTOR OPERATOR
.REOUALIFICATION AND RECERTIFICATION
TRAINING PROGRAM FOR i JULY 1989, THROUGH JUNE,1991. t
~
l' i
I
[ 4-t
.I .,
s ;
~
k- _
I.
e
g ,
[g ' ' NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES DEPARTMENT
&5 Nuclear RocctorFocBity:
UniversityofFlorido l In.s.. e==s Gamesen,Reess 3611 '
Ie.a UFTR Requalification -
Training Program r
May 30, 1989 '
l, n .
l L U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Att: Document Control Desk.
RE: Univeristy of Florida Training Reactor l ,
Facility I.icense: R-56;-Docket No. 50-83 .
L Gentlemen:
l
'l~ The current operator requalification and recertification program training -;
13. cycle .for the University of Florida- Training Reactor as submitted with a letter l
~ dated May 26,1987 ' and. then amended via a letter dated August 19, 1988 is 1 scheduled to end in June ~ 1989. Therefore, we propose to renew the current plan with minor changes. In effect, the revised plan will be essentially equivalent' to that currently being used for the two-year training cycle. This program is siellar to that included as part of our Safety Analysis' Report and relicensing' ,
package, though it has undergone-severa1' changes to meet-batter the intent of 10 CFR 55 as it has been amended. A copy of this revised plan is included:as Enclosure 1.with this-letter for reference purposes. This renewed plan as r
-included here will cover the UFTR operator requalification and _ recertification Is program from July, 1989 through June, 1991.
As usual, we-propose to continue using this proposed program beyond the next two-year cycle; that is, we will automatically restart the same two-year requalification and racertification program training cycle every two years
~beginning in July, 1989.
I If you need' further information on this plan or the proposed usage of it for J all. future two-year training cycles, please let us know.
s Sincerely, William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities WGV/p Enclosure
'g. cc: Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee P.M. Whaley U.S.N.R.C. Region II kunommmew Aemm am -
.4-h o
I UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION AND RECERTIFICATION PROGRAN PLAN (July 1989 through June 1991) ,
O. GENERAL A training program for the periodic requalification of UFTR operators shall be conducted in accordance- with the requirements established by this document. The requalification training for UFTR personnel meets or exceeds the requirements established by 10 CFR 55 Appendix A and draf t ANSI /ANS-15.4
~
s tandard dated September 15, 1977 entitled, " Selection and Training of Personnel for Research Reactors."
l Responsibility - for the administration of the program shall rest .with the Director of Nuclear Facilities of the Department of Nuclear Engineering 4 1 Sciences and his/her duly-designated representative. 8 l
All licensed operators are required to participate in all phases of this program except where specifically exempted.
Persons in training for an operator's . license also participate in the requalification program. An operator receiving a license during a requalification period is required to -
complete only those portions occurring after the effective date of the license received.
The requalification training program in force-at the UFTR shall consist of eight (8) component areac described in the following sections and listed in LI' i:
Ta ble 1. The requirements that must be met in order to complete the requalification program successfully are delineated in these sections.
Table 1 Operator Requalification and Racertification Program L Requirement Areas
1. Requalification Schedule
2. Lectures, Reviews and Examinations l l 3. Operations and Checkouts 4.
Emergency Drills
5. Absence from Authorized Activities L- 6. Evaluation of Operators
7. Requalification Records
8. Requalification Document Review 1
1
- , I
)
1
*~
l 1
~
l 5' I. REQUALIFICATION SCHEDULE The UFTR requalification program shall be conducted- over a period .not to exceed two years and shall be followed by successive t.wo-year programs. To assure that; the program is . ef f ective , the various requirements _ shall, be executed according to the time schedules outlined in this program guide.
The- current two-year; Raqualification Training Schedule (July,1989 ' June, 1991) is contained in Appendix A of this program plan.

II. LECTURES, REVIEWS AND EXAMINATIONS I A. IActures I The requalification program shall be divided into ' the group of topics-listed below in Table 2, for which preplanned training or preparation is scheduled. The schedule is set up so that the entire program-covering the topics listed in Table 2 is completed over the two year period.

Table 2 Requalification Training lecture Program Topics
1. -Nuclear Theory and Principles of Operation
2. Design and Operating Characteristics
3. . Instrumentation and Control Systems i
4. Reactor Protection System '
5. Normal, Abnormal and Emergency Procedures (one per year-minimum, independent of emergency drills)
6. Radiation Control and Safety
7. Technical Specifications and Applicable Portions of Title j 10, Code of Federal Regulations.
B. Examinations An examination shall be administered at the end of each lecture session listed-in Table 2, no_later than four weeks after the lecture or revie.w
session. For designated cases, a final examination covering all topics
. may be substituted for individual examinations. Results of the certified individual's evaluation f rom the examinations and from the on-the-job training described under Section VI, Paragraph B, " Annual
, On-the-Job Training," are used to determine the operator's proficiency, ;
weakness or deficiency.
Examination is encouraged but not required for training sessions given
but not required by this program.
2
y ,
, 4 m ,
c :j
1 4
{},.
L .
i
. l
' C. ' Fuel Handlig .
Frior to any refueling operation and/or fuel handling operation, a-special training session shall be- held discussing / practicing the required operations and . reviewing procedures' to assure proficiency of e
-all personnel involved, including emergency actions.
D. Procedure / Technical Specifications Changes-
.Any changes in procedures, technical specifications, regulations, as "
c .w ell as any change .with safety significance'~ to the f acility shall bo reviewed by every licensed operator. Furthermore, a_ written monthly report summarizing the ' activities in the reactor, including 4
modification, maintenance, results of calibrations and tests, as_well as any procedural changes will be distributed to all . licensed' reactor operators and discussed, as needed.
E. Required Reading List +
Documents, letters and memos pertinent to operational safety shall be.
. maintained in the Required Reading List prior to permanent filing. >
Each operator is responsible for reviewing the list periodically and in a timely manner to remain current with the information contained in the l Required Reading List. This reading list will be indexed with a master ;
I.' listing with spaces provided for initials of all required ' readers.
.This list should be reviewed at intervals not to exceed one month; when.
an item ' has been reviewed, the proper initials should be affixed to acknowledge completion of review. '
Y F. Yearly Review o
=
A yearly review of ' f acility operations,- maintenance , modifications, etc. is conducted with the operating staff by the Director of Nuclear
Facilities or the Reactor Manager using the UFTR Annual Report is a basis for the review.
III. REQUALIFICATION OPERATIONS AND CRECKOUTS tA. Reactivity Control Manipulations i Over the two year requalification period, each certified individual ~
shall perform at least ten reactivity control manipulations in any combination of reactor startups, shutdowns, or significant reactivity changes.
B. Schedule of Operations and Checkouts To insure operator proficiency over a range of ordinary operations, the f ollowing schedule of operations and checkouts shall be maintained by all license' operators when the reactor is operable.
y >
K '
l l'.. Each licensed operator chall perform at least one reactor.startup 1
, quarterly at intervals not to exceed four months.
2. . Each licensed operator shall perform at least one daily checkout quarterly at intervals not to exceed four months.
L 3, Each licensed operator shall perform at least one weekly checkout 1 .
semi-annually at' intervals not to exceed eight months. To maintain L . certification each licensed reactor operator shall exercise his/her -
,f operator's - license for a minimum of four - (4) hours of licensed
. activities during each' calendar quarter.
' C. Credit for Reactivity Control Manipulations
. For the purpose of meeting requalification requirements, each licensed. j operator and senior operator may take credit only for reactivity e control manipulations which they perform themselves. j i
D. ' Records .]
.i L , It is the responsibility of each operator to insure that these j requireuents sre met and logged in the operator's Requalification
folder. Each operator shall also be responsible to ensure that monthly operating hours are logged in the same folder. ,
i
~IV. EMERGENCY DRILLS -
i Emergency drills shall be held quarterly. At least once per year these j drills shall involve the participation of the University Police Department, (I. the Gainouville Fire Department and other emergency assistance teams as ;
. a pp ropriate for the drill in question. Each operator-is required to l participate in two . emergency drills per year at intervals not to exceed i eight , months'. A review of the drill and applicable emergency procedures .j shall' ba performed with all certified individuals within seven days af ter completion of the drill.
I V. ABSENCE FROM AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES i An operator who has not been actively performing certified functions for a period in . excess of four months shall be required to demonstrate to the Reactor Manager or duly authorized representative that his/her knowledge
and understanding of the operation and administration of the facility are i satisfactory before returning to certified duties. This shall be accomplished through an interview and evaluation or a written, oral or
operational examination or a suitable combination thereof. Any
': deficiencies uncovered must be corrected before the individual resumes authorized functions.
\
1 a c i, VI.- EVALUATION'0F OPERATORS
,gl A. ' Biennial Evaluations l5' An -in-depth evaluation of the operating performance of.each licensed operator shall be- performed and documented biennially and/or prior to their re-certification anniversary to insure-- that they have the a knowledge, competence and dexterity to operate the. reactor safely and -l to take appropriate actions in response to abnormal situations that may .
-arise.
The evaluation shall include results from the examinations, the annual-on-the-job evaluation of operational proficiency (as delineated under Paragraph- B of this Section), and any other available indications of the operator's capability to discharge- his/her - duties in a safe and competent manner.
B. Annual On-the-Job Training <
[g '- Each licensed Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator shall 3- demonstrate satisfactory understanding of the operation of the facility systems, operating procedures and f acility procedure license changes during an annual walk-through examination administered-by a designated I- Senior Reactor ' Operator. Each Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator is also required to take an annual operations test to demon-strate -proficiency in startup, changing powers and shutting down the reactor.
.C. Grade Requirements All operators are required to complete each examination satisfactorily according to the following requirements:
1. A grade higher than 80% requires no additional training.
2.- A grade in the range - of 65%-79% requires additional training in L those areas or topics where weaknesses or deficiencies are indicated. This training shall be completed within 60 days from i the date the examination was administered. J f 3. With a grade of less than 65%, the individual shall be placed in an accelerated retraining program in those areas where weaknesses or deficiencies are indicated.
Additional appropriate training requirements in the form of formal lectures, tutoring, self-study or on-the-j ob training shall be based on the results of examinations conducted.
l l
l e 1
3,.g )
i i ~ ~N '
f j d
g j D. Accelerated Training I l
Accelerated training programs shall _be ' completodiwithin' four months '
f o11owing the grading of the examinations.' Furthermare, within one month after the grading of. the examination, there shall' be an evaluation by .the. Reactor Manager' or a designated representative ' to s
determine - if the deficiencies uncovered warrant _ withdrawal = of _ the
, : individual's certification pending completion of the accelerated ;
training program. The evaluation shall consider the individual's past=
performance. record, the supervisor's evaluation and past test scores as well as current deficiencies. An oral' exam may also be given:to aid in ,
the evaluation. Regardless of the score , if the individual's test ,
indicates a deficiency in a critical area that affects safety, a f training program shall be administered to correct the deficiency.
promptly. '
E. Additional Training Requirements Additional training shall be provided whenever needed to correct weak--
nesces or deficiencies. uncovered. Such additional training shall be completed prior to the conclusion of the specific requalification program or application . for renewal of operator's license, .hichever w
-occurs first.
F. Additional Evaluation An. evaluation shall be made of an operator at any time his/her physical or mental condition appears impaired in a manner that his/her performance of duties as an operator appears -to be affected. Any g exemplary performances or additional duties performed by an operator g' shall- be noted in his/her Requalification Folder to aid later ,
evaluations.
-VII. REQUALIFICATION RECORDS A. Operator Requalification Records
Operator requalification records shall be kept to assure that all the l
requirements of the "UFTR Operator Requalification and Recertification Program Plan" are met.
Each operator shall have an individual folder or notebook containing
. signature blocks for lectures attended, prepared or assigned self-study I sessions, reactivity manipulations performed, weakly and daily checkouts performed, and quarterly drills participated in by the L
operator. The folder shall also contain copies of written examinations administered, the answers given by the operator, results of any evaluations and documentation of any additional training administered in areas in.which an operator has exhibited deficiencies. The j
performance of, or participation in, special activities such as fuel 1 -
handling by the individual operator, shall also be logged in the applicable Requalification Folder.
6
h 1
6 B. Recualification Training Manual '
+
A Master Requalification Training . Manual . pill be used to organize-l3 _ training requirements; this manual shall contain a J schedule of all
!5 r*9uired 1*ctur**. reviews. *=*rsancy drills, and other exarcia**- Tha
date the item is performed shall be indicated in this manual. A section-of this manual shall be designated to contain completed training items, attendance sheets, master copies of tests given and
' lecture outlines if available. .
A separate section of this manual shall also indicate operator license ;
_m amendment commitments and the dates for each including relicense dates _,
for all licensed operators.
.- _i 1
C. Facility Records 1
Required documents and records pertaining to the Requalification .
Program shall be maintained at the UFTR as part of the facility _ records -
for a period of'five years.
VIII. REQUALIFICATION DOCUMENT REVIEW AND AUDIT
.g- The individual Requalification Folders or Notebooks shall be reviewed ;
-E on a semi-annual basis by a' designated Senior Reactor Operator and shall be noted ' by the inclusion of the SR0s dated signature. Any deficiencies noted during ' the review shall be brought to the attention of: the Director. of Nuclear Facilities or the Reactor Manager .w ho will -then insure that
. appropriate action is taken.
'An audit of requalification program records shall be conducted by the Reactor I.. Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS) biennially at intervals not to exceed thirty (30)-months.
References :
10 CFR 55 American National Standard ANSI /ANS-15.4 - 1977 (N380)
I I
4- w ,e, 4", mh~v _
..& 4-.a-Oa,&%p 4 A-r"4" +="a-- .-Mu.a*+a 4 ,a
$. q_
1
.j f.R =p - ,.
. 1
- 'k; q: '
)
l
+ E s ,'P' l,
l?
.(
r :
a f .i;
ia
l n
4 l
l ,
t 'l l
1
( l t
i 1
- .- 4
} j k
.e k
APPENDIX A -
f .
=
,,-,n-- - ~ , ,-- - .., - - . ,- - . . - . - -, ,- -.
M M
~
'M M ~ U L1 =f ?
UFTR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING SCNEDULE 1989-1990 -
JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER (L) Design & (P) Emergency (I.) Nuclear Theory & *EMEGENCY Operating Equipment Principles of' DRILL Characteristics Training Operation EMERGENCY (L) Security Plae DRILL (P) Special (S) Annual Report Equipment Review ANNUAL Training OPERATIONS TEST (Rabbit System, Overhead Crane)
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL .MAY JUNE (L) Normal, Abnormal EMERGENCY (1) Reactor (I) Operator Walk- EMERGENCY and Emergency DRILL Protection throughs DRILL Procedures System (P) Fuel Handling (P) Emergency Training Equipment Training
= INVOLVES POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENT, ETC.
(P) = PRACTICAL TRAINING (S) = STAFF TRAINING (I) = INDIVIDUAL TRAINING (L) - LECTURE
. . . . - - -a .- - - " - "- ' ' ' ' " ~ "
g g 'W: -
M M M - M E E E UFTK REQUALIFICATION TRAINING SCNEDULE 1990-1991-JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMPER (L) Instrumen- (L) Rediation EMERGENCY (L) Technical (L) Emergency tation & Control and DRILL Specifications Plan Control Safety (S) Annual Report Systems Review (P) Emergency
EMERGENCY Equipment DRILL Training
( Specfal
_ P) ANNUAL Equipment OPERATIONS Training TESTS (Rabbit System, Overhead Crane)
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE (I) Operator Walk- EMERGENCY (L) Normal, Abnormal EDERGENCY throughs DRILL Emergency DRILL Procedures (P) Emergency BIEINIIAL Equipment COMPRENENSIVE Training EXAMINATION l
l l
= INVOLVES POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENT, ETC.
(P) = PRACTICAL TRAINING (S) = STAFF TRAINING (I) = INDIVIDUAL TRAINING (L) - LECTURE l
l t
I g NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES DEPARTMENT Nuciocr RooctorFoclWy Universey of Florida l . ._
emmenes ap6ll
.-s l
l lenen somses.uw.i.e.asam UFTR Requalification !
Training Program l May 30, 1989 I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i Att: Document Control Desk j
RE: Univeristy of Florida Training Reactor l Facility 1.icenset R-56; Docket No. 50-83 Gentlemen: !
The current operator requalifIN tion and recertification program training cycle for the University of Florio Training Reactor as submitted with a letter ;
dated May 26, 1987 and then amendes via a letter dated August 19, 1988 is- '
,I scheduled to end in June 1989. Therefore, we propose to renew the current plan with minor changes. In effect, the revised plan will be essentially equivalent
-i to that currently being used for the two-year training cycle. This program is i similar. to that included as part of our Safety Analysis Report and relicensing
package, though it has undergone several changes to meet better the intent of 10 ,
CFR 55 as it has been amended. A copy of this revised plan is included as Enclosure 1 with this letter for reference purposes. This renewed plan as >
included here will cover the UFTR operator requalification and racertification program from July, 1989 through June, 1991.
I r
-As usual,-we propose to continue using this proposed program beyond the next [
two-year cycle; that is, we will automatically restart the same two-year !
requalification and racertification program training cycle every two years '
beginning in July, 1989.
If you need further information on this plan or the proposed usage of it for all futura two-year training cycles, please let us know. '
I Sincerely, William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities WGV/p Enclosure cc Reactor Safety Pa"iew Subcommittee P.M. Whaley U.S.N.R.C. kagion II
_ _ - _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _
_ _ - . - e ,,.w.-,4+w== *--*W-- T"'"-*P -" " " ' - "'-g- F w .r*wr-r
I -
1 I
I I-I I
g- APPENDIX H g DOCUMENTATION FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVAL FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS PACKAGES NO. 0578, REVISION 1 I.
I I
I I
I I.
I
I l
.l
/< f,* UNITED sTATis i
'W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
WASMif*GTON. D. C. 20696 l
n \,***** areasomye se 5: ll0V 0 5 se/
I SGT8:0578 .I
! 1 71-0578 J University of Florida ATTN: ' Mr. W. G. Vernetson
' Nuclear. Reactor Facility )
.l Nuclear Reactor Bldg.
Gainesville, FL 32611
.i Gentlemen:
Enclosed is Quality Assurance Rrogram Approval for Radioactive Material i Packages No. 0578, Revision No. 1.
Quality Assurance Program Approval No. 0578, Revision No. O has been revised to reflect the appropriate conditions of your approval. i Sincerely, l
P L Charles E. MacDonald, Chief ,
Transportatfon Branch '
Division of Safeguards and l Transportation, NMSS .
?
l Enclosure
As stated-
"I
.l k
I .
I. ,
E macsoam m u. s. muctaan Retut.AToRv coanmisston i. AeesovAt Nvuus QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVAL Poa naceoAcTtva saavansat pacKAsas
, ney, Es 1
Pursuant to the I.temic Energy Act of 1664, as amenood, the Energy Reorgeniastion Act of 1974, as amended, and Title 10. Coos of Fooerei Reguieteens. Chapter 1. Port T1. and in reliance on statements and representat60ns heretofore mece en item $ tiy the porton named in item
2. tr.e Que64fy Aneutence Program identified in tiem 5 is heretiy approved. This approvalis issued to notesty the reautrements of Section i1.1ot of 10 CFR Port 71. This approvet is sutisect to sit aposicatiie rules regulations. and oroers of the Nuceer Meguiettc/ ,ommission now of hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified tielow.
""2. Naast 3. E,XPtRATION DATE University of Florida, Nuclear Reactor Facility October 31, 1992 I stasET Nuclear Aconass Reactor Bldg. . ooCxETNuweER CITY STATE ZIP CODE R Gainesville FL 32611 71-0578 E OVAL TY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPUCAtlON DATEiSI September 2, 1987 ICONOlflONS Activities authorized by this approval are use and maintenance applicable to I shipment of SPERT F-1 fuel pins in DOT Specification 6M Shipping Containers.
It shall remain the responsibility of the licensee-user that all transportation activities meet the requirements of 10 CFR 71 Subpart H.
b.I.
y$.%b
,v I N q--* +.
's..;
~
,9 . '$ . . ;,,.
.I3 s .N
%'.~. ..O \ ...~. .
.'. . . rl.; '.- ,
s
~. -Q..h. , t} .
W. 1
r p::. .(-
e< 'y,, s w t+s-r T9...:.w a:
i i,
4 C. .,
l !
k. g,c ,
9 .
~
~ y ! & -i c ;<.'
l q/,y,Q "J Q:>O 9:. m;.<,
5~
W kkY .
l :
E ,, Mon me y.s. Nuet.aAn asout.AroRv cOasuission
i' E "
er es jfL
. MacTT6na
] :
NOV 0 51987 Al F. TRANSPORTATION sRANCH ION CF SAFEGUAROS AND TRANSPORTATION
)FFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFECUAROS DATE g indini. J. E.7 r. r -e - - 7.:.-x r _ _._ _ - : .= y-- -
1
=
s _
APPENDIX I UFTR ENERGY GENERATION / INTEGRATED POWER HISTORY FOR TWENTY YEARS 2
SINCE LICENSING TO 100 KW POWER LEVEL l
_E
]'
4 3.
1
I '
I thBLE 1=1 U,TR ENERGY GENER& TION /I.TEGRATED ,O.BR IISTORY
, .T m - .x m ..x.G 1.. . . -
REPORTING YEAR (SEPT,1 -AUG.31) ENERGY GENERATED fKW-HR)
(1) 1969 - 1970 27,307 (2) 1970 - 1 m u,4o g
(3) 1971 - 1972 29,874 (4) 1972 - 1973 23,040 (5) 1973 - 1974 8,904 (6) 1974 - 1975 43,835 (7) 1975 - 1976 12,389
. (8) 1976 - 1977 25,388 (9) 1977 - 1978 26,376 (10) 1978 - 1979 9,079 (11) 1979 - 1980 9,800 (12) 1980 - 1981 15,200 (13) 1981 - 1982 8,439
g (14) 1982 - 1983 14,480
=
(15) 1983 - 1984 47,287 (16) 1984 - 1985 35,879 (17) 1985 - 1986 19,288
.I' (18) 1986 - 1987 29,749 (19) 1987 - 1988 26,677 (20) 1988 - 1989 35,199 TOTAL kW-HR.* 459,634 I
^
.i. _ _ _---------------
Energy Generation at the UFTR kW-Hours each Reporting Period 0
LA 47287 45 13853 40 3
g 35 -
30 gc 25 - -- - - - - - - - - - - -
0 0 gg _ __ __ _ _ _ . __
r ._ _ _
O I 70 72 74 '6 78 80 82 84 86 88 Repor t ing Per iod
- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------,---r,--- -,-------- - -,,- - , .-------- - - - -- - - - ----- ,,- - - - - - - - , - - - - - -. - - . -
,7- - - - - - , - -
w
% ~
I I
I I
APPENDIX J DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE AND CORRECTION PAGE FOR THE 1987-1988 ANNUAL REPORT I
I I
I:
VII. RADIOACIIVE RELEASES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE l E
_ This chapter summarizes the gaseous, liquid and solid radioactive releases from the UFTR J facility for this reporting year. Argon-41 is the primary gaseous release while there were several low level liquid releases and no solid release at all. Finally, this chapter includes a
_ summary of personnel exposures at the UFTR facility.
5 A. Gaseous (Argon-41)
The gaseous releases from the UFTR Facility for this reporting year are summarized in Table VII 1. The basis for the gaseous activity release values is indicated in Tr.ble VII-
2. These values are obtained by periodic measurements of stack concentrations as required by Technical Specifications following UFTR SOP E.6, " Argon-41 Concentration Measure-4 ment."
TABLE VII-1 3 UFTR GASEOUS RELEASE
SUMMARY
-- Month Release Monthlv Averace Concentration E
September,1987 22.68 x 10' uCi/ Month 7.137 x 10' uCi/ml l October,1987 12.26 x 10' pCl/ Month 3.858 x 10* pCi/ml
November,1987 10.65 x 10' pCi/ Month 3.352 x 10* Ci/ml December,1987 13.42 x 10' pCi/ Month 4.160 x 10' Ci/ml
~
January,1988 9.639 x 10' uCi/ Month 2.988 x 10+ pCi/ml February,1988 9.520 x 10' pCi/ Month 2.951 x 10* pCi/ml March,1988 3.258 x 10' pCi/ Month 1.010 x 10' uCi/mi l April,1988 5.587 x 10' uCi/ Month 1.732 x 10* pCi/ml May,1988 7.149 x 10' pCi/ Month 2.216 x 10* uCl/ml June,1988 6.182 x 10' pCi/ Month 1.916 x 10+ pCi/ml
'l July,1988 16.10 x 10' uCi/ Month 4.989 x 10* pCi/ml August,1988 16.86 x 10' pCl/ Month 5.192 x 10* uCi/ml 1DTAL ARGON 41 Releases for the Reporting Year: 133.58 Ci q
I. YEARLY AVERAGE ARGON-41 Release Concentration: 3.458 x 10* uCi/ml 4 VII-1
4-t- .'
k*l ..
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES DEPARTMENT Nuciocr Reactor FacWty l adh vammen,messer University of Florida namesmeses Rumin met 1 SDe8Be ndsp.teamsteNB August 30, 1989 I
MEMORANDUM To S-4 Surveillance File Argon-41 Concentration Measur9 ment FROM: P.M. Whaley I
l THROUGH: W.G.Vernetson[M
SUBJECT:
Evaluation of Argon-41 Concentration Measurements A review of three sets of Argon-41 c.oncentration determinations since the use of a 1.25 liter Simulated Gas Standard (SGS) was initiated in August, 1988 reveals significantly lower values when using the correct sample volume to determine Argon-41 concentration than have historically been recorded. The SGS based results assuming the 1000 mi volume as reported originally for August, 1988 and I Jar.uary,1989 measurements are presented in Table 1 along with the corrected preferred concentration values based on the actual 1250 ml gas standard volume as recommended based on the attached notice from GA-MA & Associates, Inc.
Results of measurements using both the 1000 al and 1250 ml volumes are also reported in Table 1 for the current measurements (August, 1989).
This change in the measured values reported for August, 1988 and January, 1989 is because previous measurements were more conservative than necessary and I. because results reported for seasurements conducted in August, 1988 and January, 1989 utilize 1000 al/ sample volumes versus the actual preferred sample volume which is about 1250 al.
In Murray's " Evaluation of Volumetric Variations on the Measurements of UFTR Stack Effluent Argon-41 Concentrations" (preliminary draft Table 7), detection I- efficiencies for Argon-41 energy are listed at 0.49% for the SGS and 0.45% for the resia cast astrix (OPM). A direct comparison of values obtained using the new SGS gas standard with those obtained with the old OPM resin standard I (historical data) should therefore include a corroccion factor of 1.09 (0.49/0.45) to account for smaller self-absoption characteristics of the new SGS source.
Since measurements in August, 1988 and subsequently with the new SGS source also include a 1.25 liter geometry for the sample, newly obtained data can be compared to values reported prior to August, 1988 only after a volume correction I,
l I
l
W
~ -
8-4 Surveillance File p Argon-41 Concentration Measurement L- August 30, 1989 Page 2 of 1 25 liter /1.00 liter or 1.25. Alternately, since the use of the new
~ standard provides more accurate results than previous determinations (although less conservative, since over-estimation of Argon-41 concentration is more limiting to reactor operations), values determined with the OPM standard and I reported . prior to August , 1988 should be divided by the comparison correction factor (1.09x1.25=1.36) to obtain a more accurate historical indication of actual concentratioe in the UFTR gaseous effluent and to. provide a basis for evaluation of the current measured concentration. The appropriate correction
i. factors have been incorporated in the historical UFTR Argon-41 concentration values as presented in Table 2. The Argon-41 concentration measurement reported for August, 1989, is within 12% of the 9.08E-8 4C/ml average of the tabulated I values for the SGS standard and therefore is evaluated to be reasonable from the historical perspective.
I I
_ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ' ^ ~ - ~ ~ - ' - ' ' '~ ~ ~ ' - '
4-
~
~ -
F L
F.
Table 1 Tabulation of Argon-41 Concentration Measurement Results Using SGS Standard Date of Argon-41 Argon-41 Measuremenl Concentration RCi/a/)g Concentration (KCi/a/)2 August, 1989 13.5E-8 10.8E-8 January,1989 10.3E-8 8.24E-8 Auguet, 1988 11.IE-8 8.88E-8 Note 1. Values determined using originally specified geometry volume at nominal 1 11ter(1000 ml).
Note 2. Preferred values determined using actual 1.25 liter (1250 ml) gas geometry volume as appropriate per attached notice f rom GA-MA &
I Associates, Inc.
I I
e 9
l Table 2 i Comprison of Historical Argon-41 Concentration Measurements with Application of Corrections lacorporated OPM Based Concentration SGS Based Concentration (1.25 liter)
Determination Corrected Determined Corrected l Date with OPM to OPM with SGS to SGS ]
8/89 -
14.7E-8 10.8E-8 -
z 2/89 -
11.2E-8 8.24E-8 - -
8/88 -
12.1E-8 8.88E-8 -
8/88 11.5E-8 - -
8.44E-8 ,
12/87 11.3E-8 - -
8.29E-8 7/87 12.2E-8 - -
8.95E-8 12/86 13.1E-8 - -
9.61E-8 7/86 11.2E-8 - -
8.22E-8 i 3/86 13.0E-8 - -
9.54E-8 8/85 13.4E-8 - -
9.84E-8 l
l Note is All values are in units of Aci/al. .
' Note 2: The values in Column 3 are all the results of measurements with the Gas Standard SCS using the preferred 1250 al gas volume. t Note 3: Column 1 and Column 3 have the results of actual sessurements lE whila cat === 2 *=d cat === ' hava deriv *d r*==le= ba**d aa
!E measurements and the correction factors provided by Murray's thesis project work.
e l
I
I I a S. 3 e g e EIVED .$.us N 88!
r. R
.?n u
( Q.. Q.5:\.
p g GA-MA & ASSOCIATES, INd, ' ' 8 582 Specialty products for the nuclear industry lam 31_ Expo Center . P.O. Box 322115 100 Milam Dairy Road. No.127 Miami Florida 33152 2115 iami,Flonda 33122 1316 Phone (305) 888 0383 I
I G430GMET I METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINATION OF GAS GA-MA BEAKER VOLUME MODEL G-430G
1) Twenty-five G-430G from stock were utilized to determine the volume of the container. A small hole was drilled into the bottom of the container near the side wall to permit air to escape upon filling with water.
2) The gas GA-MA Beaker. was inverted and weighed without the tygon tubing and funnel on a scale sensitive to 1 gram.
I 3) Two GA-MA valves were inserted in the 1/4 NPT holes of the container lid. A tygon tubing was placed on one of the GA-hA valves on one end and to a funnel on the other end.
4) The gas beaker was filled with water via the funnel.
Complete filling was obtained because the beaker was inverted during the filling process allowing all air to gbe displaced by water through the small hole. 4 5)- The beaker was reweighed again after it was full of water.
The I; original weight of the beaker without water was subtracted from the weight of the beaker with water. An assumption was made that 1 gram of water displaced equals 1 cc of air.
I, I
l.
)
I
-y?*atm:;.#-*
ra.;n-;.c/,Gav. -en:ca:r43:gse#3MmeiM:!JrVMdWidf,?l-l'i2G .QEW3pjy.
t
{} (h) h h' I .
I G-130G Volume Deter:ninstion Test Results on G-130G's Voltane Variance ce ce I #1 1237 -3
2 = 1246 +6
3 = 1245 +5
4 = 1246 +6 l #5
6
=
=
1235 1235
-5
-5
7 = 1239 -1
8 = 1243 43 -
I #9
10
=
=
1239 1239
-1
-1
11 = 1236 -4
.. #12 = 1247 +7 Average Voltane = 1240 cc
13 = 1248 +8 l '
14
15
=
=
1237 1245
-3
+5 4'
g #16 = 1247 +7
17 = 1242 +2
18 = 1251 +11
19 = 1233 -7
20 -4 I
= 1236
21 = 1237 -3
22 = 1239 -1
l. '
23 = 1228 -12
24 = 1235 -5 I l #25 = 1247 +7 s !
i
,- [ krh hi h!:
=
G-4300 Volume Determination Test Results on G-4300's Voltane Variance !
ce ce l
_; #1 = 4603 +4
2 = 4605 +6
3 = 4573 -26
4 = 4598 -01
^
5 = 4611 +12
6 = 4583 -16
7 = 4607 +08
8 = 4596 -03
9 = 4600 0
10 = 4601 +02
11 = '4575 -24
12 = 4574 -25 Average Volane = 4599 E
13 = 4610 +11 I I
14 = 4630 +31 l
15 = 4604 +05 l
16 = 4606 +07 s' ,
17 = 4599 0
18 = 4566 -33 1
19 = 4637 +38 ,
20 = 4624 +25
_- #21 = 4597 -02
22 = 4563 -36
23 = 4613 +14
~?_ #24 = 4585 -14 i #25 = 4616 +17
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

ML20006D549

Contents

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

Enclosures:

Dear Sir:

I. PROCEDURE

REFERENCES:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

ML20006D549

Text

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

Enclosures:

Dear Sir:

I. PROCEDURE

REFERENCES:

SUMMARY

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

Search