Text

Annual Progress Rept of Univ of Fl Training Reactor for Sept 1992 - Aug 1993
	ML20072P714
Person / Time
Site:	05000083
Issue date:	08/31/1993
From:	Vernetson W; FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
	NUDOCS 9409080188
	Download: ML20072P714 (257)
	v • d • e

_

e b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

~

Nmear Reactor t icility 202 Nuclear Science Center Nuclear Engineering Sciences Departrnent Gainesville, FL 32611-2055 (904) 392-1429 Fax 392-3380 August 29,1994 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sir:

Re: Facility License R-56 Docket No. 50-83 In compliance with our Technical Specifications reporting requirements, enclosed is one copy of the 1992-1993 University of Florida Training Reactor Annual Progress Report.

~

This document.is intended to comply with the requirements of Section 6.6.1 of the UFTR To:hnical Specifications.

Please advise if further information is needed.

Sincerely, -

$1)YN 3 William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities WGV/dms Enclosure Copy: D. Simpkins

/'k g*mannaaPDr o

r. qual Opportunity /Afhrmive Actkm Institution

Contract #DE-AC05-76ER04014 Report # DOE /ER/04014-23 i O l ANNUALPROGRESS REPORT lo OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR g September 1,1992 - August 31,1993 Submitted By Dr. William G. Vernetson U

Director of Nuclear Facilities O ,

( se O

i NUCLEAR FACILITIES DIVISION o

DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES College of Engineering O University of Florida Gainesville .

i

l Contract #DE-AC05-76ER04014 i Report # DOE /ER/04014-23 ANNUALPROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR !

September 1,1992 - August 31,1993 Submitted By :

Dr. William G. Vernetson 4

Director of Nuclear Facilities ;

i NUCLEAR FACILITIES DIVISION '

DFsPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES '

College of Engineering University of Florida '

Gainesville

O Contract #DE-AC05-76ER04014 Report # DOE /ER/04014-23 O

l 1

0 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT i

OF TIIE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA !

O TRAINING REACTOR September 1,1992 - August 31,1993 ,

Submitted By O

Dr. William G. Vernetson !

Director of Nuclear Facilities O

Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences :

O University of Florida Gainesville, Florida o

August,1994 O

l O ;

I l

TABLE OF CONTENTS O FOR 1992-1993 ANNUAL REPORT Page Number I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................I-1 O II. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA PERSONNEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE REACTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 III. FACILITY OPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 IV. MODIFICATIONS TO THE OPERATING O CHARACTERISTICS OR CAPABILITIES OF THE UFTR FACILITY .............................IV-1 V. SIGNIFICANT MAINTENANCE, TESTS AND SURVEILLANCES OF UFTR REACTOR O SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 VI. CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 O VII. RADIOACTIVE RELEASES AND ENVIRON-MENTAL SURVEILLANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII- 1 VIII. EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND TRAINING UTILIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIII- 1 O IX. THESES, PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS OF WORK RELATED TO THE USE AND OPERATION OF THE UFTR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX-1 O

APPENDIX A: DOCUMENTATION FOR NRC/UFTR MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE HELD ON OCTOBER 27,1992 APPENDIX B: DOCUMENTATION FOR UFTR TECHNICAL O SPECIFICATIONS AMENDMENT NUMBER 18

'O ;

O l

TABLE OF CONTENTS l (CONTINUED) l l

APPENDIX C: UFTR EMERGENCY PLAN REVISION 8 DOCUMENTATION '

O APPENDIX D: DOCUMENTATION FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVAL FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL PACKAGES NO. 0578, REVISION 2 APPENDIX E: COMMENTS ON NRC FEE POLICY -

O PROPOSED 0

O O

O

O O ii l i

l o .

l

\

I. INTRODUCTION O

A. Overall Utilization The University of Florida Training Reactor's overall utilization for the past reporting O year (September,1992 through August,1993) continued to be at historically high levels of quality usage, limited only by unavailability of the reactor or necessary personnel. The diversity of users and usages was among the best in the history of the facility. In addition, O

availability this year returned to a relatively high level of 87.2%. Unlike in years prior to 1990-1991, this availability accounts for lost availability for administrative reasons as well as for repair and maintenance related reasons. Otherwise availability for this year would O

be over 90.0%.

The University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR) continues to experience a high rate of utilization in a broad spectrum of areas with total utilization continuing near the O

highest levels recorded in the early 1970's and most usage indicators moving upscale with quality usage occurring whenever system and operator availability permits. This broad based utilization has been supported by a variety of usages including 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 Department of Energy (DOE) Reactor Sharing Program and several externally supported usages. Several science O

projects were also accommodated. Significant effort has also been devoted to facility i

enhancement where a key ingredient accounting for this usage has been the licensing of two ;

I new part-time Senior Reactor Operators (SROs) for the entire year. Personnel associated with the UFTR are listed in Section II; facility operations for all usages are delineated in Section III indicating the diversity of usage.

iO 11 l i I

1

O -

The yearly total energy generation of 33.94 Megawatt-hours for the 1992-1993 0 reporting year represents a significant nearly 55% increase over the previous reporting year.

This energy generation value ranks only fourth in energy generation in the last ten years; however, it ranks 5 out of 24 in the operational history of the UFTR licensed at 100 kW O during which time energy generation has averaged 23.2 Megawatt-hours per year. The increase in energy generation this year was primarily due to the increased availability of licensed operators, increased reactor availability and a number oflarger research projects O requiring lengthy irradiations.

The run time, time when the reactor is running at any power level, has also increased similarly by nearly 46.5% from the previous year. This increase is again attributed to O increased reactor availability and availability 4 licensed operators. On a further positive note, this increase is also indicative of the large amounts of time used to run classes and other educational activities, especially for institutions using the facility under the Reactor O

Sharing Program either for classes or training, where reactor operadon is only part of the educational or training activity, as well as for University of Florida classes. The extended low power usage for education, as well as for operator training, neutron transmission and O

radiography contributes significantly to total reactor operation time but in a limited way to total energy generation during the year.

Additional significant time and resource commitments were made for efforts related O

to conversion of the UFTR from high enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU). A total of 1200 SPERT fuel pins were transferred for shipment to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) on May 17,1990; subsequently, the " storage only" license was O

revised and the fuel moved to a new location in the Nuclear Research Field Building involving considerable upgrade of the new facility as well as commitments of time for O I-2

O assuring decontamination and security requirements were met. This year weekly facility checks and continued efforts to request permission to ship the fuel to a secure Department O

of Energy facility along with preliminary review of final fuel drawings involved over 70 hours8.101852e-4 days 0.0194 hours 1.157407e-4 weeks 2.6635e-5 months of experiment time.

O Although there were no extended outages this year, periodic failures and repairs related to surveillances and the need for modifications continued to cause lost availability. ,

Because there were no really large outages during this year, the total time spent on O maintenance activities is manageable though significant, especially for the replacement of a failed tach-generator for the stack diluting fan RPM indicator in the Reactor Vent System accounting for over a week of unavailability in August and for Point #4 core area O thermocouple connection repairs in July,1993 accounting for nearly a week of forced outage time. For the latter, partial implementation of a modification involving installation of terminal strips and quick disconnects should begin to facilitate future repairs of this nature O while minimizing dose commitment. There was also significant time spent on corrective and preventive maintenance on the nuclear instrumentation circuits, replacement of a failed control blade drive motor, replacement of a leaking pipe on the secondary cooling system, O

replacement of the shield tank demineralizer system pump motor, for multiple repairs on the blade position indicator circuits and on the stack and area radiation monitoring system, with most problems not recurring to demonstrate effectiveness of corrective action for most O

failures. These repairs accounted for a large portion of all unavailability. These and other failures also caused lost facility usage and hence negatively affected energy generation and run time. Because of unscheduled shutdowns due to repeated failures in the blade position O

indicator system circuits, this is the one system evaluated as most in need of replacement O I-3

O with such planned to occur in the next reporting year with design already underway at year's O end. ;

As indicated above, the total run time for the facility was increased about 46.5% from the previous year indicating considerable increases in facility usage at all levels from O research to class utilization both from within and external to the University of Florida. With the licensing of two new SROs for the entire year and with the appoir. .ient of a permanent Reactor Manager at year's end, the availability of operating personnel this year was greatly O increased and should be even better next year. 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.

O Analysis of facility utilization shows that the diverse usage and relatively high energy generation continuing from the previous two years are attributable to continuing supportive conditions as in the last year. As noted previously, the continuing refurbishment of the O

Neutron Activation 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 O

sample-handling " rabbit" 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. Implementation of the standard rabbit capsule size with larger carrying O

capacity 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 spectium analysis and data reduction has been a key factor supporting reactor O

utilization during the last seven reporting years for education and training uses as well as research projects, several of which constitute large ongoing but promising seed projects to O 14

O support proposals. Indeed, the 1987-1988 reporting year was the first full year for O 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 1987-1988 reporting year and in the 1988-1989 year saw O implementation of a 4.5 digit electronic balance to provide two complete lab sample preparation facilities. In addition to continuing effons to provide proper switching and computer control software for the automatic sample changer first installed in the 1989-1990 0

year, the previous year saw implementation of the new ORTEC OMNIGAM software and spectrum analysis package to speed up as well as simplify spectrum analysis. During the 1991-1992 reporting year, additional computer storage capacity and a new monitor were O

added along with a new spectroscopy system and multichannel buffer. In addition, an integral shield was added for one detector and a desiccator station was added for storage of standards and processed samples, as every effort is being made to supply accurate and O

reliable trace element analysis for a wide range of projects from high school students working on science fair projects to doctoral students using trace element analysis for their research.

O Dudng the 1992-1993 reporting year, an entire new spectroscopy system was obtained and implemented to incbde an integral shield and detector as well as the computer-based O an lyzer system with University of Florida funding. 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 resultant increase in interest by potential users. The implementation of these facilities has given UFTR management the capability to promote it among University of Florida users and among researchers at other universities and colleges around the State of Florida. As the availability of this high I-5

O technology facility becomes better advertised through its users, its usage continues to O 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 total throughput as well as the rate of processing of samples for trace element analysis after irradiation in O the UFTR, though this was improved at year's end with the hiring of a recent graduate to work in the NAA Laboratory and expand programs.

In addition to support from the College of Engineering through the Nuclear O

Engineering Sciences Department, the primary catalyst for maintaining facility usage continues to be the Department of Energy's Reactor Sharing Program. This reporting year was the tenth consecutive year in which the UFTR was supported as part of DOE's Reactor O

Sharing Program.

This program is designed to increase the availability of university reactor facilities such as the UFTR for non-reactor-owning educational (user) institutions ranging from high O

schools to colleges and universities. Basically, this grant provides funds against which reactor operating costs may be charged when the facilities are 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, twenty-three different outside academic institutions ranging from high schools to universities around the State of Florida and across O the country made use of this program to utilize the UFTR for research (primarily via neutron activation analysis to determine trace element composition), for reactor facility demonstrations, experiments and course work related to various aspects of operation.

Further usages include training of students in various community college programs such as nuclear medicine technology and radiation protection technology and for research and training programs for high school students for which a number of senior level science fair O

I-6

O projects are still in progress. Again this year, several of these projects received local and regional awards with a number of these outstanding students from previous years now attending upper division programs in the College of Engineering here at the University of Florida.

O At year's end, several unsupported research projects were still awaiting availability of the UFTR under the Reactor Sharing Program as UFTR usage attributable to this DOE-sponsored program continues to grow. Despite considerable cost-sharing by the University O of Florida, all of the reactor sharing funds allocated by the Department of Energy for this reporting year were fully utilized. Indeed, the funds were all utilized by the ninth month.

Fortunately, this program has been increasing as it has been renewed at 8% and 11%

O increases for the past two years and nearly 7% for the next reporting year so limited further expansion of this usage may be possible. In expectation of better future availability of funds, Reactor Sharing users have always been and willcontinue to be accommodated as much as O

possible during this next reporting year since the UFTR is the only such facility in the State of Florida and one of only four in the southeast. t Reactor use by University of Florida courses and laboratories continues at the O

substantial level established in the last several years. Course and department usages within !

the University range from the Environmental Engineering Sciences Department inits Health Physics courses to the Chemistry Department in a graduate level radiochemistry laboratory O

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 O

in recent years is for senior level design projects of which there were a number again this 1 year, each directed to provide some improvement in the physical facility,in the reactor O I

i O l I

experimental capabilities or in NAA Laboratory operations. The existence of an operating O facility for such design projects is a unique educational opportunity for engineering students who get immediate feedback on the viability of their design work. This year also saw usage l to conclude a large project on quantifying the uptake of mercury into laboratory rat brain 0 and kidney tissue from bone implantation of amalgams. Other continued research projects this year included analysis of oyster shells, stoichiometric analysis of sic fibers for the Materials Science and Engineering Department, irradiations for nuclear quadrupole O dosimetry measurements for the Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department and copper activation for the Pharmacy Department. A new project this year isin the Materials Science Department to investigate corrosion properties in weathering steel patinas. Additional new O

experiments are planned for the upcoming year. 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 plus O

physics courses at Florida Community College in Jacksonville and Santa Fe Community College.

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 Reactor Sharing Program support at an increased level, facility utilization and energy generation for the upcoming year should show continued growth in diversity. The latter augmentation is O

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 continue to indicate O

interest in using the reactor facility and its experimental systems. Several other state-wide users are in the process of preparing proposals hopefully to provide funded usage of the O 1.g

O UFTR within the next year. The large usages for groups at Florida State University and O another at the University of Wisconsin at Eau Clair / Southeast Missouri State University, aie primarily to demonstrate capabilities to support proposals seeking external support as an outgrowth of the DOE Reactor Sharing Program support. Therefore, expectations of O 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. In addition, the DOE University Reactor Instrumentation Program has been instrumental in O

providing support for much needed instrumentation such as the console two-pen recorder, the new air particulate detector and a backup reactor safety channel in previous years.

During the 1991-1992 year it supported acquisition of a high speed chart recorder to O

facilitate certain UFTR console surveillances and thereby reduce personnel time commitments as well as a portable neutron survey meter essential to support neutron transmission and radiography as well as other experiments but the acquisition of an electronic maintenance tool kit was the key item of support as it has facilitated much facility maintenance. The electronic maintenance tool kit along with the NAA Laboratory items such as the integral shield have greatly facilitated facility response to potential users by O

improving reactor availability and laboratory results. During the 1992-1993 reporting year, the grant was used to obtain a new multipoint temperature recorder for the reactor, a new O telescoping high dose rate instrument and a microR survey meter. At year's end, a new area radiation monitoring system bought on this grant is on order to arrive early in the next year.

Both the temperature recorder and the area radiation monitoring system will require considerable effort to be implemented in the next year. The Instrumentation Grant has also

.O i been renewed for the next year.

l O I-9

l l

O B. Facility Improvements O For facility enhancement, the neutron radiography facility was available during the last four years. Attempts at further optimization have not been successful during the last two reporting years. A major effort was devoted to installing a semi-permanent shield structure

't and a movable table for positioning objects and the film cassette for applications of neutron radiography in the 1988-1989 reporting year. As a result thes.: improvements have not only reduced the radiation levels associated with radiography but have also reduced the time and O

effort required to implement the radiography facility as one of the UFTR experimental capabilities. The neutron radiography facility continues to provide a strong base for growth and diversification of usage during this year and should continue to do so during the O

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 utilized the facility for over 160 hours0.00185 days 0.0444 hours 2.645503e-4 weeks 6.088e-5 months of usage 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 university O

user is interested in using neutron radiography for research on layered materials.

Plans have also been formulated for installation of a prompt gamma analysis facility O at the UFTR to complement the NAA Laboratory capabilities. This is a multiyear enhancement project; work in progress since last year includes characterization studies on a suitable beam port to complement a preliminary design of the facility performed as a summer research project by a high school student several years ago. During the upcoming )

year funds will again be solicited to support equipment purchases for this facility with installation and initial implementation possible by late in the next reporting year provided l 1

,O I-10 l l

l l

l o I the necessary furiding is obtained. There is already one researcher at the University of O S uth Florida (Tampa) and one industrial firm who would use such a facility as well as one researcher in the Materials Science and Engineering Department on our campus. Indeed, two users went to another facility for such usage during the last two reporting years.

O Another area of enhancement receiving considerable attention last 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-O tics to ratios of neutron and gamma field dose parameters. As indicated above, some of this work has supported the preliminary efforts for design of a prompt gamma analysis facility.

It had been hoped that a masters' level student would be able to bring this program to O fruition during this year, though data to date has been sufficient to support continued plasma kinetics research for 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 O

University. Further work is needed to support interests expressed by several users in performing radiation damage studies on electronic components, including one group at the University of Florida. This work is also needed to support the planned UFTR HEU-to-O LEU fuel conversion.

Other significant facility enhancements during the year are the result of the DOE i

Instrumentation Grant to include the telescoping survey instrument and the microR survey '

i O

meter. Another enhancement has been in the NAA Laboratory facility for the installation of an automatic sample changer, developed as part of a senior project. At the end of the 1989-1990 reporting year, the device was completed but would only change a single sample. l l

0 ;

During the last three years, the timing circuit and computer software system have been in !

the process of being modified and redesigned to provide a fully automated sample changer O I-ll 1

O to allow counting multiple samples without technician attention. This improvement promises to improve laboratory throughput and assure the laboratory remains competitive O

with other facilities but is not yet ready for implementation at year's end. As part of the same effort to maintain competitiveness, the next generation software package for the PC-based analyzers as well as additional computer MCB modules were obtained and implemented during the 1990-1991 year to improve the speed with which analysis is performed. Enhancements in the NAA Laboratory facility during the 1991-1992 reporting y ar in luded a new spectroscopy system and the external multichannel buffer to speed data O

processing. Finally, the implementation of a low background integral lead shield has greatly improved sample counting efficiency as well as reduced counting time and improved element O sensitivity. During this last reporting year the biggest enhancement in the NAA Laboratory was the acquisition of a complete new spectroscopy system to include the detector and integral shield assembly as well as the computer-based analyzer.

O All of these improvements increase laboratory throughput while enabling facility staff to spend more time addressing experiment design as well as student and faculty training.

These improvements willfurther enhance the reputation of the facility and our effectiveness O in serving users of the facility, not only for University of Florida students and researchers but also students and faculty from other educational institutions as part of the Reactor Sharing Program.

O C. Staffing Considerations After the loss of the full time SRO/ Reactor Manager and the Acting Reactor Manager for all but consulting purposes in the 1990-1991 year, two new part-time student SROs were O licensed early in the 1991-1992 reporting year. As a result, staffing conditions during this past year have generally been supportive of the considerable broad-based increases in I-12 1

O facility usage for education and training of students as well as research by faculty at the University of Florida and other schools. Nevertheless, all staff personnel have been part-time employees, which always necessitates detailed planning for some usages of the facility.

Near the end of the reporting year one of the new SROs was appointed as a full-time Reactor Manager and a new student part-time SRO-trainee hired in the previous year is O

nearing licensing to further alleviate personnel problems. With all the part-time personnel available combined with careful planning of activities, impact on facility operations by O availability oflicensed operatcrs was minimized during this reporting year with the resulting .

high usage numbers quoted elsewhere in this report, especially in Section III.

Although such part-time employees provide a good experience base for operations, the O lack of other full-time licensed staff members during the reporting year has occasionally necessitated limitations in the growth of some usage programs. It is expected that these limitations willbe considerably less restrictive during the upcoming reporting year with the O availability of both SROs for the full reporting year and one designated as the permanent Reactor Manager. It is also expected that the new trainee will be licensed early in the upcoming year.

O D. 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. The facility received no O

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspections during the reporting year. However, ,

there was an NRC/UFTR Management Meeting in October,1992 with the facility receiving a generally favorable evaluation in the interchange. Documentation for the NRC/UFTR

'O Management Conference is contained in Appendix A. Activities in response to the i

NRC/UFTR Management Meeting as well as various efforts to maintain facility compliance i I-13 O

O l I

and responsiveness occupied significant facility management and staff time during the reporting year.

O Development and submission ofTechnical Specification Amendment 18in September, 1992 (approved in March,1993), Emergency Plan Revision 8 in December,1992 (approved in July,1993), renewal of the UFTR Reactor Operator Requalification and Recertification O

Program (submitted as information not requiring approval in May,1993) along with subsequent incorporation in the master documents following approval, each required O considerable time commitments as did efforts to clarify the State of Florida's needs regarding the Emergency Plan. Quality Assurance Program for Radioactive Material Packages No. 0578, Revision 2 was submitted in September,1992 (approval received in O October,1992). Documentation for UFTR Technical Specification Amendment 18 is in Appendix B while documentation for UFTR Emergency Plan Revision 8 is in Appendix C.

Documentation for Quality Assurance Program Approval for Radioactive Material Packages O No. 0578, Revision 2 is in Appendix D.

Finally, a large commitment of time and resources was devoted to generating replies and comments from the University Research Reactor community in response to the NRC O

proposed imposition of fees on such facilities. The facility comments on the proposed imposition of fees are contained in Appendix D. At year's end the facility has bills totalling close to S70,000 retroactive for the previous year and additional bills to come for the next O

year if the facility is to maintain its licenses. (Based on strong arguments for externalized benefits of this and similar facilities, the NRC decided not to impose fees early in the next reporting year.)

O Though no new Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) were generated during the year, considerable administrative efforts were involved in making minor changes to ten O I-14

O' procedures. Though no new procedures or procedure revisions were produced in this year, it is expected a number will be needed in the upcoming year to meet the requirements of O

revised 10 CFR Part 20 to be implemented January 1,1994.

Some additional time was also spent updating the estimated cost of decommissioning to meet the new requirements of 10 CFR 50.33and 50.75first promulgated in the 1990-1991 O

reporting year.

As required, the updated cost was produced and documented in a memorandum dated July 29,1993 to the UFTR Decommissioning Information File showing the estimated decommissioning cost has been increased to $2.245 million. These special responses to and communications with NRC were in addition to the usual information supplied periodically via telephone calls, the quarterly safeguards reports, the updated HEU O to LEU Conversion Proposal submitted in March,1993 to meet the requirements of10 CFR 50.64(c)(2), as well as the responsds to NRC advisories and completion of an Economic Survey ofNRC Materials Licenses. In general, these various submittals and communications O with NRC resulted in a commitment of more time in the 1992-1993 reporting year than in most previous years despite not having to respond to a major inspection of facility operations.

O Other regulatory agencies also affected the UFTR in the reporting year, though less than in most years as there were no it.spections by American Nuclear Insurers (ANI).

Considerable time was also spent to provide a survey on reactor upgrade and O instrumentation needs to the DOE for incorporation in a report to Congress.

During the 1992-1993 reporting year,less effon was spent in following up the decision made not to utilize the pin type SPERT fuel for conver.sion of the UFTR from HEU to O LEU fuel. Efforts continued to arrange shipment of this unneeded fuel to a secure DOE facility like Oak Ridge National Laboratory without success as the Department of Energy I-15 O

apparently has no room for the SPERT fuel. Since it will be necessary to remove the remainder of the SPERT fuel to another facility eventually, the hope was that it could be accomplished in this past year. Since it was not, the hope is now to do so in the next reporting year since the QA Program was renewed in October,1992 effective for five years. ,

O In addition, with the previous completion of static neutronics calculations and production of a masters project, as well as near completion of thermal hydraulics analysis as a 14-plate fuel bundle of standard silicide fuel plates was selected as the final design for the LEU core, o the thermal hydraulic analysis was essentially completed during the previous year. Some calculations remain as does documentation of proper evaluation of selected fuel design as well as generation of a final report. Another extension for the submittal of the safety O analysis to NRC was noted in the proposal submitted in March,1993 to NRC. One other area requiring considerable time was for partial review of the final fuel drawings and other EG&G Idaho design documents. The unique difficulties involved in trying to check the O UFTR core and sub-core connections and dimensions due to the unstacking of. shielding and the removal of fuel requirement may necessitate making a complete dummy core. ,

The level of administrative work dedicated to regulatory and licensing activities is O

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 willcontinue as willreview and evaluation of SOPS and other facility documents. Of course, considerable facility 0 ,

management effort will be devoted to performing calculations and preparing the license amendment package for HEU-to-LEU conversion during the upcoming year, though the safety analysis submittal may have to be delayed to the following reporting year. In C addition, it islikely that shipment of the remaining fuel from the SNM-1050 SPERT facility, as well as shipment of waste from the UFTR willinvolve considerable administrative effort.

I-16 O

i

l 0

The net result is that administrative efforts directed at compliance with NRC requirements willne be reduced but willlikely be significantly increased during the next reporting year, i

especially as efforts begin to prepare for the implementation of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 1 l

in January,1994.

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

license, Technical Specifications and other regulatory requirements also contributed significantly to usage and personnel commitments. Details on these surveillance and O maintenance usages are 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 been considerably reduced from last year with no really O large outages. Despite the lack of any single large outage during this year, and despite elimination of some previously recurring problems such as console two-pen recorder failures, the total time spent on maintenance activities is significant, especially for a failed O tachometer-generator to indicate RPM on the stack diluting fan motor in August,1993 and for one repair of the thermocouple #4 connection in the core area in July,1993 accounting for nearly two weeks of forced outage time, though partial implementation of a modification O

involving terminal strips and quick disconnects should begin to facilitate future repairs of the thermocouples while minimizing dose commitment. The objective here is to meet the intent of keeping radiation doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). There was O

also significant time spent on corrective and preventive maintenance on the nuclear instrumentation circuits for various failures as well as for the annual nuclear instrumentation calibration check, on the secondary cooling system to replace a leaking pipe, on repairs of O

the control blade position indicating circuits, on the stack radiation monitor and on the area O I-17

. - _ =_

O radiation monitoring system with most problems not recurring to demonstrate effective corrective action for most failures.

O E. 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 O

situation is particularly true among high school science departments where reactor sharing supported usage has increased significantly in the last few years with even larger increases 1

o in size and 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 proof of its effectiveness as is the continued generation of proposals to t O obtain external funding based on results of research obtained under Reactor Sharing support.

The description of various projects associated with the UFTR is given in Section VIII; O the listing of projects continues to be quite extensive. Although several projects are listed without having associated reactor use, all had some level of staff and/or facility involvement during the year. The same is true of the list of publications and reports associated with the O

UFTR; the listing given in Section IX of this report is one of the more extensive lists in the last ten years and generally delineates the diversity and quantity of facility usage, including a number of publications in respected journals and transactions.

O With the sustained statewide interest, the facility is being included in several proposals to provide for funded usage of the UFTR and the NAA Laboratory. Several such usages O

O~

l occurred during each of the past seven reporting years (1986-1993). The Reactor Sharing ,

O Program began in late 1983 and is directly responsible for the generation of a number of these proposals. As more of these proposals are submitted and funded, further increases in UFTR usage can be expected. In any case, on-campus research and service usage of the O UFTR is also increasing because of the visibility generated via the Reactor Sharing Program. Each year more faculty utilize the reactor for a significant class-related usage or a research project. Continuity of Reactor Sharing Program funds at the nearly 7% increased O level for the next year gives the facility renewed expectations for increased external usage as does the continued licensing of two new Senior Reactor Operators and expectations to hire a Reactor Manager. In general, the level of interest in the facility is high though O expanded on-campus usage for funded research is a continuing objective. Nevertheless, the role of the facility in attracting quality high school students to seek careers in science and engineering at the University of Florida should not be ignored.

O Finally, it is hoped that more direct industry training will be accomplished in the upcoming year. The last such usage was five years ago and none is scheduled for next year;

]

the lack of utility interest in training programs other than operations usage for SRO 0 I certification makes it unlikely significant growth will occur in this area. With the rabbit !

system and the associated NAA and neutron radiography facilities plus the DOE Reactor j i

Sharing Program and expectations for increased research funding from other agencies, !

.O expansion and diversification in facility usage are realistic expectations and could be significant, especially with the increased number of licensed Senior Reactor Operators continuing for the next reporting year. Implementation of a prompt gamma facility is O 1 perhaps two years away but it too could make a significant impact on usage as several l

individuals would like to use such a facility.

O I-19

7-O The expectations for the 1993-1994 reporting year are positive. Significant PPortunities for expanded education and research usages are apparent. The significant O

possibilities for continued growth in existing and new program areas are a challenge that is being addressed vigorously with the hiring of a permanent Reactor Manager and the O c ntinuation of the NAA Laboratory manager. With sufficient support, there is no limit to possibilities for growth in facility usage.

O O

l l

l 0

l 1

O o I-20

. O:

II. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA PERSONhTL ASSOCIATED WITII TIIE REACTOR O- A. Personnel Employed by the UFTR W. G. Vernetson -

Associate Engineer and Director of Nuclear Facilities / Reactor Manager (September 1,1992 0 - June 30,1993)

Associate Engineer and Director of Nuclear Facilities (July 1,1993 - August 31, 1993)

D. Simpkins' -

Senior Reactor Operator and Acting O_ Reactor Manager (9/10 time) (September 1, 1992 - June 30,1993)

Senior Reactor Operator and Reactor Manager 1 (July 1,1993 - August 31, 1993)

O D. Cronin -

Senior Reactor Operator (1/2 time)

(September 1,1992 - August 31, 1993)

G. W. Fogle -

Reactor Operator (1/3 time) (September,1992

- August,1993)

O y, wolf 2 -

Student Senior Reactor Operator Trainee /

Technician (1/2 time) (September 1,1992 -

August 31,1993) .

T. Downing' -

Student Radiation Control / Facility Technician (1/4 time) (September,1992 -

O February,1993)

Student Radiation Control Technician (1/20 time) (March,1993 - August,1993)

O -

8 After serving as Acting Reactor Manager since August 11,1992, Mr. Simpkins was appointed the Reactor Manager effective July 1,1993.

2 '

At reporting year's end a student senior reactor operator trainee, J. Wolf, with U.S.

O Navy experience is nearly ready to take the SRO license examination. t

'As of March,1993,T. Downing is working in the NAA Laboratory but remains qualiFed and occasionally serves as a Radiation Control Technician.

O II-1 :

O Personnel Employed by the UFTR - Continued P. Men w -

Secretary Specialist (34 dme) (Septen6er, O

1992 - May,1993)

L. Carroll -

Temporary Secretary (1/2 time) (June,1993 -

August,1993)

O B. Radiation Control Offic_c D. L. Munroe' -

Radiation Control Officer (September, 1992 -

O August,1993)

M. M. LaFranzo -

Nuclear Technician (September, 1992 - January, 1993)

Radiation Control Technician (January,1993 -

O August,1993)

M. Raja -

Nuclear Technician (September,1992 - August, 1993)

O Basic routine health physics is performed by UFTR staff; however, assistance from the Radiation Control Office is required for operations where a significant ,

dose (Level I RWP) is expected or possible and where certain experiments are inserted or removed from the reactor ports. These personnel are also required l for certain operations where high contamination levels may be expected. They O also periodically review routine UFTR radiation control records and operations and assist in performance of certain radiation safety and control related surveillances. As a result, a number of radiation control office personnel are noted and though employed 1/3,1/2 or full time, only a small fraction of their work effort supports UFTR activities. Several others with only infrequent contact at the UFTR are not listed though they are available for backup purposes, l O especially when entry into the core area is required. i l

i O

'The specified alternates for the Radiation Control Officer positio are Ms. Kathleen Hintenlang (nee Buckley), and Mr. G. Rawls.

O 11-2 l

O C. Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS)

O M. J. Ohanitn -

RSRS Chairman (Associate Dean for Research, and Administration, College of Engineering and Professor, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences W. G. Vernetson -

Member (Reactor Manager and Director of O Nuclear Facilities)

J. S. Tulenko -

Member (NES Department Chainnan)

W. E. Bolch -

Member-at-large (Professor, Environmental g Engineering Sciences)

D. L. Munroe -

Member (Radiation Control Officer)

~O D. Line Responsibility for UFTR Administration J. V. Lombarci -

President, University of Florida W. M. Phillips -

Dean, College of Engineering O

J. S. Tulenko -

Chairman, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences W. G. Vernetson 5 -

Director of Nuclear Facilities / Reactor Manager (September, 1992 - June,1993)

Director of Nuclear Facilities (July,1993 -

August,1993)

D. Simpkins -

Acting Reactor Manager (September 1,1992 -

June 30,1993)

O Reactor Manager (July 1,1993 - August 31, 1993)

O I 1

3 Dr. W. G. Vernetson continued to serve as Director of Nuclear Facilities and I Reactor Manager until Mr. D. Simpkins was appointed Reactor Manager on July 1,1993. l

'O II-3

O E. Line Responsibility for the Radiation Control Office l l

0 J. V. Lombardi -

President, University of Florida G. Schaffer -

Vice President, Administrative Affairs i W. S. Properzio -

Director, Environmental Health and Safety D. L. Munroe -

Radiation Control Officer O

O t

O O 1 0

O l l

I O 11 4 l 4

l l

HI. FACILITYOPERATION <

l O

The UFTR continues to experience a high rate of utilization as total utilization continues at or near the highest levels recorded in the early 1970' sin most areas; nearly O every indicator is up for the year because of the good availability oflicensed operations staff during the reporting year as well as a low outage rate. This contination of a high rate of UFTR facility usage has been supported by a variety of usages ranging from research and O educational utilization by users within the University of Florida to research, educational and tmining utilization by users around the State of Florida through the support of the Department of Energy Reactor Sharing Program with over half of the costs of this latter O usage not covered by Reactor Sharing. Again this year, several externally supported usages have also continued to impact reactor utilization and support the continued diversification of facility activities and capabilities, especially through the hiring of part-time laboratory O assistants for support work in the analytical laboratory and to provide funding for facility improvements. A Department of Energy Instrumentation Grant also provided support for instrumentation upgrades during the year. :

O l As noted over the last nine years, the refurbishment of the Neutron Activation l Analysis Laboratory has impacted favorably on all areas of utilization from research projects l using NAA to training and educational uses for students at all levels especially for student O

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 though always less quickly than O

hoped over the last nine years. Implementation of the standard rabbit capsule size with larger carrying capacity, the subsequent additional implementation of two state-of-the-art O III-1

'O PC-based spectrum analyzer systems with complete ORTEC software packages for spectrum l analysis and data reduction, the installation of an independent sample and standards drying facility as well as improved shielding around the pneumatic sample insertion (rabbit) system i

are all improvements that have been key factors in supporting facility usage by assuring an e sier and f ster turnaround of samples submitted to be irradiated for Neutron Activation O

Analysis.

The experimental neutron radiography facility was also upgraded during the 1988-0 1989 reporting year. With installation of a semi-permanent shielding cavity as well as design and implementation of a movable table to position objects to be radiographed along with movable shielding blocks, the UFFR neutron radiography facility reached a level of mature '

O application with much reduced installation time and more reliable results. Not only has it been used for several demonstrations, exercises and experiments for university classes, as well as for visitors from other educational institutions (Reactor Sharing) and for two senior O projects to document implementation, but, perhaps more significantly, it has been used extensively for one externally funded user with reasonably consistent results over the past few years. Further improvements were implemented in the radiography facility during the O

1990-1991 reporting year to improve the beam quality in an attempt to reduce the exposure times needed for various types of radiography with further improvements planned to improve beam quality, reduce installation time and standardize exposure time during the O

upcoming year. This work was at a much reduced level in the last three years due to the i need for funding to support the effort as well as efforts to train new personnel in radiography techniques.

O During the 1989-1990 reporting year, a senior project was completed to design an automatic sample changer for the NAA Laboratory. This device had been partially I

O III-2 l

i

O implemented but its timing circuit would only allow it to insert a single sample. During the 1992-1993 reporting year, plans were finally implemented to redesign the timing circuit to provide a fully automated sample changer to eliminate technician time to change samples l overnight, thereby greatly increasing the sample throughput in the analytical laboratory.

This redesign is only partially complete at year's end as the effort has been refocused to l

complete software development for the attached computer system and to redesign the segmented shield for this detector to assure samples are properly counted and the data ,

i O stored for later analysis. This effort is now complete but some work remains to be completed on the timing circuit to make the software and the sample changer compatible.

During the 1990-1991 reporting year, the new ORTEC software package lc (OMNIGAM) was implemented in the NAA Laboratory.

During the 1991-1992 reporting year, further NAA Laboratory improvements were made. First, additional storage capacity was obtained for the laboratory computers to

.O improve the speed with which analysis is performed along with a new monitor to replace a failed one. A 92X Spactrum Master spectroscopy system was obtained to provide computer-controlled gamma spectroscopy with user friendly, yet sophisticated capabilities. A model O 919 Spectrum Master multichannel buffer was also obtained for high performance data acquisition in nuclear spectroscopy applications. It interfaces with a personal computer and up to four (4) HPGe detectors for data processing, giving the laboratory the capacity for O

future expansion. An analysis upgrade package was also obtained. The SyncMaster 3 is a key multifaceted analysis upgrade package to provide extensive graphics capabilities, high resolution, easy-to-read commands, and the ability to alternate back and forth between O programs during analysis. The most important was an integral shield for one of the PC-based detector-analyzer systems to improve the sensitivity that can be reached in analyzing O III-3

O samples by reducing interferences from external radiation sources, lowering detection limits and reducing counting time. In addition, a desiccator station was obtained for the NAA

'O Laboratory as a donation from another researcher to increase the capacity to store both !

standards and samples with the added assurance of preventing moisture intrusion. All of these improvements were designed to increase laboratory throughput while enabling laboratory workers to address experiment design, improve student laboratory experiences and generally assure better results with optimal effort.

O Several ther significant items were also obtained in the 1991-1992 year to include -

an electronic maintenance repair tool kit which has saved hundreds of hours of maintenance effort over the past two years as well as a high speed chart recorder to facilitate time o allocated to several surveillances. A portable neutron-sensitive survey meter has also reduced delays when the previously borrowed instrument was not available.

During the 1992-1993 reporting year, a new area radiation monitoring system as well O as a new multipoint temperature recorder were obtained under a DOE Reactor Instrumentation Grant. Both are in the process of being prepared for installation at year's end. In addition, a new telescoping high dose rate survey instrument as well as a MicroR O low level survey instrument were obtained under the same DOE grant, the first to rephce a frequently failing teletector, the second to provide in-house environmental survey capability. Other acquisitions and facility improvements in the 1992-1993 reporting year O

included asbestos removal and installation of a new main air handler in the reactor building, installation of a touchtone telephone in the Emergency Support Center plus the delivery and implementation of a complete new detector system in the NAA Laboratory includinL an O HPGe detector, integral shield, PC-based analyzer and complete software package. This acquisition gives the NAA Laboratory three detector systems, though one is in need of l

O #

O 4 replacement. Finally, a staff computer for use by the Reactor Manager was obtained to simplify report generation.

j With the continued support of the DOE Reactor Sharing Program in the 1992-1993 reporting year (at a slightly increased level from the 1991-1992 grant year), there was 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 research funding are in progress. During the 1992-1993 reporting year, there has also been continued O 51

growth in reactor usage for both educational and research programs sponsored by the University of Florida but spurred by Reactor Sharing users. One relatively large funded project from the Endodontics Department in the Dental School completed utilizing the O reactor and NAA Laboratory to examine mercury content oflaboratory rat brain and kidney tissues following bone implantation of mercury amalgam. Another smaller project in the pharmacology department has used the UFTR to generate radioactive copper-64 for O calibration of its positron-emission tomography (PET) scanner. The research area shows several other projects with proposals awaiting funding and/or demonstration of feasibility using UFTR facilities. Plasma kinetics research has been an active area in the past but O inactive during this reporting year. There is also a proposal for instrumentation development in this area of plasma kinetics, which still may be funded.

Finally, there were also several commercial research irradiations and related projects O

again this year with one utilizing the radiography facility and beam transmission facilities for over 80 hours9.259259e-4 days 0.0222 hours 1.322751e-4 weeks 3.044e-5 months . When combined with the computational analysis capabilities for NAA, it is hoped more such usage will be forthcoming during this next year to complement O

UFTR research and educational utilization activities whether supported by the University of Florida, Reactor Sharing or externally funded sources.

O III-5

O The level of administrative work dedicated to regulatory activities is expected to be a aSn ar r as V U ng Es ned repo&g year. AMough de fa@y mew O

no NRC inspections during the reporting year, there was an NRC/UFTR Management Meeting held in October,1992 with generally favorable interactions indicated. There was O als an uneventful SNM-1050 SPERT fuel inspection on April 29,1993.

Activities in response to NRC regulations as well as various efforts to maintain facility compliance and responsiveness occupied significant facility management and staff o time during the reporting year. A letter from the State of Florida in September,1992 questioning our Emergency Plan adequacy resulted in considerable commitments of time to demonstrate adequacy, interact with NRC and have State Radiation Control personnel O visit the facility twice, once in October for a detailed tour and then again in December,1992 to observe the annual drill which was generally considered good. The total time devoted to NRC communications was considerably reduced from previous years with no promptly O reportable events occurring during the 1992-1993 reporting year. However, the announcement in June that university reactors would be subject to NRC fees occupied considerable facility time writing letters, making contacts and generating several replies to O

NRC requests for comment. Some time was also spent addressing proposed changes to 10 CFR 55. Finally, Tech Spec Amendment #18 was submitted to NRC via letter dated September 28, 1992. It was approved on March 25, 1993 to update the addresses for O

submittal of annual reports and to extend submittal dates to the end of December each year following the end of the reporting year on August 31. Tech Spec Amendment #18 documentation is contained in Appendix .A.

O Development and submission of Emergency Plan Revision 8 in December,1992 (approved in July,1993) with subsequent incorporation in the master documents following O III-6 1

O l 1

approval required considerable time commitments. Documentation for UFTR Emergency Plan Revision 8 is in Appendix B.

O Another commitment of time was to submit essentially unchanged the UFTR Reactor i Operator Requalification and Recertification Training Program for renewal with a letter O dated May 28,1993 to cover the July,1993 to July,1995 period. The program had been the subject of a major revision in the previous reporting year and the reader is referred to the UFTR facility for a copy of the program.

O Some additional time was also spent updating the estimated cost of decommissioning to meet the new requirements of 10 CFR 50.33and 50.75 first promulgated in the 1990-1991 reporting year. As required, the updated cost was produced and documented in a O memorandum dated July 29,1993 to the UFTR Decommissioning Information File showing the estimated decommissioning cost has been increased to $2.245 million. These special responses to and communications with NRC were in addition to the usual information O supplied periodically via telephone calls,the quarterly safeguards reports, the updated HEU to LEU Conversion Proposal submitted in March,1993 to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.64(c)(2). With the submissions and concerns about licensing fees extending into the next

]

O i year, the commitment of time and resources to address the NRC has been more extensive l

in the 1992-1993 reporting year for responses and communications with NRC than in most previous years despite not having any NRC inspections during the year.

.O Other regulatory agencies also affected the UFTR in the reporting year as there was one inspection relative to the Americans for Disabilities Act as well as an annual RSRS audit and an annual safety survey by an inspector from the Environmental Health & Safety O

Division. There was no American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) inspection during the year.

O III-7

l O I During the 1992-1993 reporting year, considerable effort was also spent in following up the decision made four years ago not to utilize the pin type SPERT fuel for conversion O

of the UFTR from HEU to LEU fuel which is now stored in a westerly room attached to the Nuclear Research Field Building. In the 1990-1991 reporting year this effort was l

l reduced to about 60 hours6.944444e-4 days 0.0167 hours 9.920635e-5 weeks 2.283e-5 months though considerable administrative effort was expended in I O

attempting to arrange shipment of this unneeded fuel to a secure DOE facility like Oak Ridge National Laboratory without success. Similar efforts were expended in the 1991-1992 and this past reporting year with no success as the Department of Energy apparently has no room for the SPERT fuel and had even requested to be allowed to return the 1200 pins i from ORNL. This latter request was denied in the 1991-1992 year as the current storage facility does not have sufficient room for accepting the 1200 pins back.

O After the loss of the student performing the neutronics safety analysis for the UFTR HEU-to-LEU conversion at the end of the 1988-1989 reporting year, there was also O considerable management effort involved in training a new student and then rechecking the computational methodology and essentially starting from scratch on the actual core calculations to support the HEU to LEU conversion. Although this project had been O further delayed, real progress was made in the 1990-1991 reporting year in essentially completing the static neutronics calculations based on efforts in the previous year to assure the computational methodology is adequate to walyze the existing core as a benchmark for O further calculations. With the previous completion of static neutronics calculations and production of a masters project, efforts during the 1991-1992 reporting year were directed toward thermal hydraulics analysis as a 14-plate fuel bundle of standard silicide fuel plates l

O was selected as the final design for the LEU core with near completion of calet;!ations and j beginning of the documentation package byone student wholeft the university. Completion III-8 O

O of final calculations and documentation of the analysis for the license submittal has not been completed this year. Another no cost extension of funding for this work was submitted to O

DOE in April,1992. One other area requiring time in 1991-1992 was for Eileen Yokuda from EG&G Idaho to visit for two days in December,1991 to see the unique difficulties inv Ived in trying to check the UFTR core and sub-core connections and dimensions due O

to the unstacking of shielding and removal of fuel required plus review of fuel drawings sent by Ms. Yokuda in August,1992. It now appears a complete dummy core may be necessary O to assure the fuel will fit in the core. Little progress was made in this area in the 1992-1993 reporting year though potential corrosion problems were identified by Iowa State in April, 1993 with new LEU fuel on a close pitch. This corrosion is apparently only a problem when O water is dumped off the core and capillary action keeps the plates wetted. The final UFTR conversion fuel drawings were delivered in April,1993 as well but have not yet been signed and returned to DOE as another extension for the submittal of the safety analysis to NRC O was noted in the proposal submitted in March,1993 to NRC. l Shown in Table III-l is a summary breakdown of reactor utilization for this reporting period. The list delineates UFTR utilization divided into ninety (90) different educational, O l research, training, tests, surveillances and facility enhancement operations and general tour / demonstration and educational activities. The total reactor run-time was just under !

586 hours0.00678 days 0.163 hours 9.689153e-4 weeks 2.22973e-4 months while various experiments, surveillances, maintenance and other projects used O

nearly 2150 hours0.0249 days 0.597 hours 0.00355 weeks 8.18075e-4 months of facility time, not counting a large block of time devoted to routine daily and weekly checkouts. In addition, there were many concurrent usages during the year to optimize utilintion of available personnel. The run time represents a significant increase j

.O of over 46%from last year due primarily to the licensing of two senior reactor operators for the full reporting year plus a low outage rate, though the lack of a full-time Reactor l O III-9

O Manager for nearly all of the year continued to limit usage. The large increase in run time is in agreement with an increase from the relatively low availability for the last two years O

(74.00% and 72.91%, respectively) to a closer-to-normal level of availability this year (87.19%) despite continuing to account for lost availability for administrative reasons.

Otherwise, the value would be about 90.34% availability.

O With the efforts to finish training one new senior reactor operator (SRO) during the year plus administrative activities and the usual large educational component of facility usage not requiring or involving only minimal reactor operation, the size of the increase in O

run time was surprising. The experiment time also represents an increase of 13.50% without accc'.mting for over 955 hours0.0111 days 0.265 hours 0.00158 weeks 3.633775e-4 months of concurrent experiment time in a variety of areas. This concurrent time is one of the highest ever showing good use of facility personnel especially for educational activities, many involving the Reactor Sharing Program. The increase in experiment time is primarily attributed to the high reactor availability (87.19%) for the year, O Pl us effective utilization of part-time personnel. The sustained level of 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 tour groups, and over 67 hours7.75463e-4 days 0.0186 hours 1.107804e-4 weeks 2.54935e-5 months for project O w rk with the LEU SPERT fuel for checks at the Nuclear Research Building.

Despite the lack of any single really large outage during this year, the total time spent on maintenance activities is significant, especially for one repair of thermocouple #4 in the O

core area in July,1993 (5% days) and the replacement of a failed tach-generator (7M days) accounting for nearly two full weeks of forced outage time though partial implementation of a modification involving terminal strips and quick disconnects for the thermocouple O system should begin to facilitate future repairs of this nature while minimizing dose commitment. There was also significant time spent on corrective and preventive III-10 0

O maintenance on the nuclear instrumentation circuits for various failures as well as for the annual nuclear instrumentation calibration check, on the secondary cooling system to replace O

a deep well pipeline that had developed holes, on the shield tank demineralizer system to replace the pump motor, on the safety-1 blade drive system to replace the drive motor, on the stack radiation monitor and on the area radiation monitoring system and on the control blade position indicating system, with most problems not recurring to demonstrate effective corrective action for most failures.

The large increase in run time along with no real decrease in experiment time are O

directly attributable to the combination of reasonably good reactor availability (87.19%) for the year coupled with the availability of operators and the continued high interest in the O usage of the UFTR for education, training, research and service activities. The outlook is reasonably good for increased run time in the next year also as both new SROs are to be present for the full year with one SRO trainee nearing licensing at year's end. In addition, O the new Reactor Manager (SRO) will be available for the full year.

In summary, these figures in Table III-l indicate continued high and diverse utilization of the UFTR facility with research and educational usage maintained in most O arcas and increased in many areas despite the inability to hire a permanent Reactor Manager until July,1993 and overall availability at 87.19% including administrative shutdowns. The design and implementation of various new facilities as well as the O

refurbichment of existing facilities continue to play a key role here to enhance and promote educational, training and research utilization at all levels. It is hoped that the donation by l

Rhone-Poulenc of various vacuum cassettes and gadolinium sweens can be effectively used I O during the upcoming year to acquire better quality radiographs. Of course, the Reactor l

Sharing Program is planned to continue to play a key overall support role in encouraging O

III-l1

O facility usage in all categories as this support has been renewed, again with an increased 1 v 1 after the decreased budget levels in the 1989-1990 reporting year and this past year -

O following the previous peak level in the 1988-89 reporting year. This increase is small but well-deserved considering that the past four years have seen the most diverse facility usage O in the I st twenty years, primarily due to the synergistic effect of the Reactor Sharing Program as it causes others to also investigate usage of the facility. As in the current year, the facility expects to utilize the UFTR facilities for reactor sharing supported activities for ,

O 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 ofits unique capabilities.

O Table III-2 summarizes the different categories of reactor utilization: (1) college and university teaching, (2) research projects, (3) UFTR operator training, requalification and recertification, experimental facilities enhancement plus UFTR testing, maintenance, O surveillance activities, (5) HEU-TO-LEU fuel conversion related efforts, and (6) various tours, reactor operations demonstrations and educational activities which is a final category l l

to account for all other planned usages. The absence of any utility operator training is a O

point that continues to be noteworthy versus ten years ago; efforts continue periodically to interest utilities in usages and will continue during the upcoming year but, other than an I l

1 occasional SRO requiring a few hours of usage-type training for a utility management O

position, there is little interest by utilities in training programs. This is not a likely area for large scale increases in facility usage, especially with the installation of multi-million dollar sim'ulators at all power reactor sites and the inability of utility training departments in O

Florida to include such minimal training costs at the UFTR in their budgets.

I l

0 III-12 l

o College course utilization involved 27 different courses, some many times to account for over 141 hours0.00163 days 0.0392 hours 2.331349e-4 weeks 5.36505e-5 months of actual run time, an increase of more than 350% over the previous 1991-1992 year, which had itself shown a significant increase from the 1990-1991 reporting year. The research utilization consisted of some 28 projects using nearly 600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months of actual reactor run time exclusive ofinternal research into reactor characteristics. This number of O

usage hours is also increased significantly by over 100% from the previous year, primarily because of increased availability of the reactor and facility personnel to meet diverse O Operational needs while also addressing other activities including regulatory agency needs, requalification program training activities for operators and one new SRO trainee as well as various UFTR facility administrative, surveillance and maintenance efforts. Both of these O categories include considerable 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 training area with two senior reactor operator trainees O licensed for the entire year and another SRO-candidate nearing completion of training at the end of the year. As indicated earlier there was no significant change in the maintenance, testing and surveillance activities, though maintenance activities involved much O

less forced outage time than in most recent years.

As indicated earlier, the most significant maintenance efforts this year included the repair of thermocouple #4 connections in the core area plus partial implementation of a O

modification to simplify future repairs plus corrective maintenance on the nuclear instrumentation circuits, the blade position indicator circuits, replacement of a leaking deep well pipeline, replacement of a shield tank demineralizer system pump motor, replacement O

of the Safety-1 control blade drive motor, multiple repairs on the control blade position indicating circuits and work on the stack and radiation monitoring systems. No other O III-13

O maintenance effons required large commitments of resources or extensive outage c mmitments. Though the only maintenance efforts that involved more than four (4) days O

was the work associated with the repair of thermocouple #4 connection and associated modification and the replacement of the failed tach-generator on the RPM indicating o system, the other projects did involve some unavailability though there were few recurring failures this year. The remaining surveillance and maintenance time for the year was at a relatively low level.

O The HEU-to-LEU fuel conversion related efforts also involved relatively low though significant levels of efforts involving reactor facility time as shown in Table III-2; nevertheless, continuing analysis efforts were expended in advancing this project. Finally O the last category of reactor tours and demonstrations in Table III-2 showed another significant increase as the number of university-sponsored groups as well as pre-college classes visiting the facility for substantive demonstrations and experiments continues to O

increase.

Of course, the training and operational programs supported under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program, the large amount ofinternally supported usage for education and research O

plus several service activities all contribute to maintain the total facility utilization at high levels especially since growth in University of Florida course usage continues at a slower rate. With many educational and several large research projects (including several O

sponsored by Reactor Sharing and several others possibly deriving from within the university) already scheduled for the upcoming year, this next year promises to produce facility utilization at a higher level than that experienced during this most recent reporting O

year, again dependent on availability oflicensed personnel as well as personnel trained to work in the NAA Laboratory to support reactor operations. A single utility operator O III-14

O training program could also produce a substantial increase in usage time by itself, though this is unlikely. With several significant maintenance projects completed and performed O

during past years, replacement of the two-pen recorder two years ago plus significant maintenance on the nuclear instrumentation circuits and the thermocouples in the core outlet cooling lines with plans to replace several key systems dominating maintenance activities during the upcoming year, this high usage expected for the 1993-1994 reporting year is realistic especially in the areas of educational usage for college courses and for research and service activities, both on and off campus.

O Table III-3 contains a breakdown delineating the 27 schools and their 124 usages of the UFTR facilities which were sponsored under the Department of Energy Reactor Sharing o Program Grant DE-FG07-83ER75103. These Reactor Sharing usages account for over 146 hours0.00169 days 0.0406 hours 2.414021e-4 weeks 5.5553e-5 months of run time in Categories 1,2 and 6 in Table III-2 with nearly 100 additional hours of concurrent run time, exclusive of the even larger quantities of non-run, facility usage O experiment time involved, especially for visiting classes in categories 1 and 6 of Table III-2.

Reactor Sharing usages have resulted in maintaining and fostering improved visibility for the UFTR around the State of Florida and also among researchers and other users at the O University of Florida, many of whom are beginning to recognize the unique capabilities of the UFTR facilities. The total experiment time for Reactor Sharing usage, not counting concurrent usages, was over 430 hours0.00498 days 0.119 hours 7.109788e-4 weeks 1.63615e-4 months ; with over 160 hours0.00185 days 0.0444 hours 2.645503e-4 weeks 6.088e-5 months of concurrent usage which -

O makes the renewal of the Reactor Sharing grant funds at a higher level for the next year all the more encouraging. Several new inquiries for involvement in the Reactor Sharing l

Program have been received again this year; several new users have also been I

.!O accommodated. In all, the 124 usages represent an increase from last year in both diversity and length ofindividual usages with the total of 88 participating faculty being at an all time

O III-15 i

O 1

1 high level. The 806 students involved also represents a large nearly 100% increase from the !

large number generated in each of the last two years and with the diversity of groups O :

involved again demonstrating the broad based role of the Reactor Sharing Program as a key factor in UFTR utilization and education in nuclear science and engineering around the State of Florida.

O Much of the increased diversity is due to the effort to involve high school science students in research and education programs at the UFTR, which received continued emphasis for the fifth straight year resulting in several high school research projects in O

addition to the usual educational usages. Obviously this DOE Program remains a key driving force behind the continued utilization and growth ofinterest in the UFTR facility.

o This publicity is certainly a key factor in explaining the continued large number of visitors (2053 versus 1432 and 1067 in the previous two years) of all types who toured the facility again this year; this is probably the largest number of visitors in facility history and accounts O for the increase in the sixth category in Table III-2 for substantive demonstrations, experiments and tours, many of which occupied a half day or more. By maintaining and even increasing further the number of visitors this year, the facility is continuing to increase O the number of persons who are familiar with the facility and its capabilities. Therefore, the UFTR facility continues to build and support a base for long-term permanent growth and support of facility utilization with the Reactor Sharing Program serving as the catalyst for O

this growth but by no means the only source of visitors. The implementation of the various facility improvements in the NAA Laboratory and elsewhere in the facility are simply l l

spinoffs from the various e:: pressed needs of those visiting the facility in conjunction with l O staff interests in diversification of capabilities and can only serve to increase opportunities for new usage. The ability and willingness to tailor experimental usages and demonstrations O III-16 i

_.I

O also plays a significant role in fostering interest among high school and college groups.

Similarly, as the neutron radiography facility has become functional, though some O l optimization and final design efforts continue, plans are continuing to investigate the' feasibility of implementing a prompt gamma analysis facility at the UFTR. Interest has been expressed in such a facility by researchers at the University of Florida Materials Science and Engineering Department, at the University of South Florida (Tampa) and by several industry users, all of whom could use such a facility. It would clearly complement the normal NAA capabilities and facilitate further growth and diversification of usage.

O Again, funding support and facility personnel time for design work are the limiting factors.

Detailed in Table III-4 are the monthly and total energy generation figures, as well O as the hours at full-power per month and totals for this past year. The UFTR generated 33.943MW-hrs during this twelve month reporting period, up nearly 55% from last year and the highest level since the 1988-1989 reporting year and the fourth highest in the last ten O years. More importantly, this level is the fifth highest level in the last 24 years since the reactor licensed power level was raised to 100 kW. The energy generation in this reporting year relative to previous years is indicative of high facility usage, especially when compared O to years prior to initiation of the DOE Reactor Sharing Grant in the 1983-1984 reporting year. This fact is emphasized by the high numbers of hours of educational facility usage for which licensed personnel are involved in other than reactor operation and for which reactor O

operation is only a small but integral part. Since there were several research usages such as Neutron Radiography projects and transmission work as well as extensive operations laboratories and operator training seasons where the usage waslengthy but at relatively low O or fluctuating power levels, the power generation could have been considerably higher.

Indeed, even with an 87.33% availability factor for the year, the real limitation on usage has O

III-I7

O been a combination of Reactor Manager / Facility Director unavailability, licensed personnel unavailability, lack of funded support for desired usages especially for some of the reactor sharing projects and time lost for maintenance as well as scheduled surveillances and inspections of all kinds (NRC, RSRS, etc.) as well as for responses to regulatory agencies (NRC, EPA, etc.) for which time commitments continue to increase, especially for the NRC O

component.

Described in Table III-5 is a monthly breakdown of usage and availability data. As O n ted in Section I of this report, there was little outage time during the year with only two relatively large individual outages (just over a week) for repair and replacement of the tach-generator for dilution fan RPM indication plus one smaller outage (just over 5 days) for the o repair of thermocouple point #4 plus partial implementation of a modification to facilitate future repairs. No other forced outages approached a week in length during the year so the overall availability is up considerably from 72.9% in the previous reporting year. Though I O only quoted as 87.3% availability in Table III-5, this availability accounts for lost availability for administrative reasons as well as hardware problems. At 11.50 days of administrative shutdown (3.15%) for vacations, absences of personnel and evaluations of records, this O contribution is not too significant though the 7 day administrative shutdown over the Christmas holidays was the largest such occurrence in several years. If not counted, availability would be over 90% since forced and planned unavailability for maintenance was O

reduced from 76.50 days to only 36.25 days with several months at 100% availability. For the year the availability is comparable to the historically high level of 91.5% recorded in the 1987-1988 reporting year.

O 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 87.19% in

O III-18

O this table is based on days per year and is well above the average of close to 80% over the last five years; however, this value would also be some 3.15% higher if administrative O

shutdowns were not included. Improvement is expected in the upcoming year as several outages were utilized to perform corrective and preventive maintenance projects on various components in the thermocouple system and the nuclear instrumentation and control channels as well as the deep well pump cooling system, the blade position indicating system and the area and stack radiation monitoring systems. As shown in the data in Table III-6, key causes of failures have generally been isolated and corrected to limit recurrences of O

related failures. Such a maintenance philosophy is expected to assure continuing high availability, hopefully exceeding 90% in the next year; nevertheless, funds have been 0 allocated under the DOE Reactor Instrumentation Grant to replace the temperature recorder as well as the area monitoring system as they continued to be significant contributors of unavailability during this next year. Plans are also in progress to replace the O control blade position indicating system as it has been a source of both unscheduled shutdowns and significant outage time during the year.

Described in Table III-7A is an explanation and date for all unscheduled trips for the O reporting period. As explained in the table, there were only two trips during the 1992-1993 reporting year after having three trips in the 1991-1992 year which were the first trips since the trips on September 7 and 15,1989 and the trip on November 29, 1989 which was O

attributed to erratic operation of the bi-stable trip circuit for Safety 2 high voltage. The first trip this past year was caused by the operator accidentally actuating the emergency evacuation siren when bnmping it with his knee. Subsequently, a switch guard was installed O to prevent future trips from such human error. The second trip was caused by building III-19 O

i i

l O

power fluctuations again demonstrating the continued effectiveness of the corrective and preventive maintenance performed for the trips in 1989.

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 Part of the training exercises. It is expected that some trips willbe included in the Reactor O

Operations Laboratory course for the upcoming year as well as for some of the operations demonstrations for other advanced classes in nuclear engineering.

O Several additional incidents (none promptly reportable) other than the trips listed in Table III-7A described as unusual occurrences (and per UFTR Tech Specs sometimes potentially abnormal occurrences) occurred during this reporting year. Table III-8 contains O a descriptive log of eight (8) unusual occurrences with relatively brief descriptive evaluations of each. All of these occurrences were reported to NRC Region IIin their periodic checks over the telephone, some on more than one occasion. None of these occurrences, as the O more significant entries, was promptly reportable or othenvise directed to be promptly reported though Entry 6 for failure of temperature monitoring point #4 was called in promptly to assure good NRC communications.

'O Entry 1 addresses a hole that developed in the piping coming from the deep well secondary coding pump system. The faulty piping was replaced with no subsequent problems. Entry 2 addresses breakage of the primary coolant rupture disk under normal O

operation during a training session. After controlled cleanup of the pit, replacing the rupture disk with a spare and refilling the PC storage tank, the system was restored to normal operations with no further problems.

O Entry 3 addresses an unscheduled shutdown caused by failure of the linear (red) pen on the two-pen recorder to respond. After evaluating this event and cleaning the contacts I

O III-20 l

'O on the linear channel of the two-pen recorder to restore proper recorder operation, the

]

reactor was restored to normal operations with no further problems noted. Entry 4 addresses another unscheduled shutdown due to loss of the temperature recorder with the function restored by the manual switch during the shutdown. After servicing the magnet Power off/on switch, proper automatic operation of the temperature recorder with operation O

of the console key was restored. Subsequently, the reactor was restored to normal operations with no further problems noted.

O Entry 5 addresses recurring failure and erratic behavior of the control blade position indicating system, especially for the S-3 blade. In addition to the first failure at shutdown on July 6, there were two subsequent unscheduled shutdowns due to erratic S-3 as well as O S-1 indications. These events were evaluated to have negligible impact on reactor safety or the health and safety of the public; nevertheless, as a result of these events,10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation Number 93-06was approved to control conversion of the blade position indicator O circuits from nixie tubes to light emitting diodes (LEDs). When completed, this conversion will provide better long-term reliability for the blade position indicators.

Entry 6 addresses failure of the connection on thermocouple point #4 (northwest fuel ;

O box outlet line) discovered as a pegged downscale indication on the temperature recorder during a daily checkout. Subsequently, the core shielding was unstacked, all thermocouples on the north side of the core were reterminated with fresh wiring connections for new wire O

running from the core area to the equipment pit area where quick disconnects were ,

implemented, the core shielding was restacked and radiation surveys used to confirm proper replacement of shielding. This event was probably the most serious unusual occurrence !

O during the year; however, with these three conr,ections completed to complement the three -

connections made on the south side of the core in August,1992, no further repairs of this o III-21

. ,- -, ._q. .r_ . , - - . ~ - --

O system should be needed prior to implementation of the HEU-to-LEU fuel conversion when O qui k disconnects will be installed on all thermocouple connections in the high radiation areas of the core involvement. Though not promptly reportable and also discovered during a checkout, this event was communicated to Region IIInspector Craig Bassett on 2 August O 1993. This event was also evaluated to have negligible impact on reactor safety or the health an safety of facility staff or the public, though significant dose commitment was necessary for two staff personnel during the repair operation.

O Entry 7 addresses detection of higher than normal radioactivity levels in two weekly water samples with identifiable Cs-137 peaks in the PC coolant and the secondary heat exchanger. All other indications were normal so fuel failure was eliminated as a possibility O with some kind of cross contamination considered likely because of the Cs-137 peak detected in the secondary heat exchanger sample. Subsequently, investigations showed that the hot plates used for sample evaporation had been used by a student from the O

Environmental Health & Safety Office to evaporate a nanocurie quantity of Cs-137 in a liquid sample with subsequent cleaning of the plates inadequate to assure removal of all contamination. This event was not considered promptly reportable but was evaluated to O

note that it demonstrates that the weekly survey performed at the UFTR was adequate to identify potential contamination problems and was well handled in isolating the source of the problem with one corrective action implemented--to use a lighter grease on the hot O

plates for easier cleaning--to. reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of such a cross contamination problem in the future. This event was evaluated to have no impact on reactor safety or the health and safety of facility staff or the public.

O Entry 8 addresses loss of the stack dilution fan RPM indication required in the control room as a limiting condition for operation. The problem was traced to a failed tach-O III-22

I O 1 I

generator in the indicating circuit. An identical replacement was acquired and installed with O Proper RPM indication in the control room verified. This event was also evaluated to have negligible impact on reactor safety or the health and safety of facility staff or the public. t Although unusual occurrence Entries 1,2 5 and 6 are probably the most significant, o none was regarded as promptly reportable. Although not treated as such, Entry 6 was promptly reported via telephone as it represents significant dose commitment for repair )

while Entry I represented a partial loss of secondary coolant and Entry 2 represented a l 1

O break in the primary coolant system. Entry 5 for recurring failures of the blade position indication system is significant since it represents a recurrence of failures in a tech spec i

required system. Some of these events, such as Entry 6,were informally promptly reported O to keep NRC updated on UFTR status. They are all officially reported via this report. In some 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 O !

assure proper facility management control of operations and maintenance of good i I

communications with regulatory agency representatives. None of these events is considered to 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 controlled releases remain well within established limits. The personnel radiation exposures for 1992-1993 have been maintained at a relatively low yearly level depite the fact that O

there was one occasion requiring unstacking of the biological shielding near the end of the year to repair a failed point #4 thermocouple. There was also no waste or special nuclear I

material shipped from the reactor this year. Although waste was expected to be shipped to O

prepare the facility for the HEU-to-LEU fuel conversion activities to commence within the next two years, this has been delayed indefinitely. It was also expected that the remainder i

O III-23

O l

of the LEU SPERT fuel would be shipped in the past year under the SNM-1050 license i

O after 1200 SPERT fuel pins were transferred for shipment on May 17,1990,but this did not 1

occur. Because of difficulties in getting DOE to accept the fuel,it willprobably not occur l in this next year. This activity willbe directed and controlled by UFTR personnel assisted O by personnel from the Radiation Control Office. Quality Assurance Program Approval Number 0578, Revision 1 will be available for this transfer to assure meeting all shipping requirements as it was renewed prior to expiration on October 31,1992. The submittal for O

renewal was dated September 30,1992. The new Program Approval dated and approved as of October 20,1992 does not expire until October 31,1997. See Appendix C.

Environmental radioactivity surveillances continue to show no detectable off-site dose O

attributable to the UFTR facility as noted in Section VII. Although environmental film badges and TLDs record occasional exposure, this dose is not attributable to UFTR operations as explained in Section VII since it does not correlate with energy generation.

O The change in the gaseous releases measurement methodology implemented in the 1988-1989 reporting year to account better for the gas standard and counting geometry utilized since August,1988 in response to an NRC Health Physics Radiation Inspection in March, v

1988 continues to be utilized. The current methodology used to measure gaseous releases is much improved and the results obtained have been reasonab.y consistent. Effluent levels f r both the gaseous and liquid releases remain well within required limits with no solid O

waste shipment during the year. Overall, the facility continues to operate within ALARA guidelines with minimal exposure of staff and visitors as delineated in Section VII.

O O

III-24 l

O TABLE III-1 O

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1992 - August 1993)

NOTE: The projects marked with one asterisk (*) indicate irradiations or neutron activations. The projects marked with two asterisks o (**) indicate training / educational use. The projects marked with three asterisks (***) indicate demonstrations of reactor operations. " Experiment Time" is total time that the facility dedicates to a particular use; it includes "Run Time". "Run Time" is inclusive time commencing with reactor startup and ending with shutdown and securing of the reactor.

O Run Experiment Time Time Project and User Type of Activity IIours IIours O * *ENU-5176L -

Dr. Independent Reactor Operations 46.52 120.66 W.G. Vernetson and Laboratory Course for Undergraduate and (2.79) (12.25)

Reactor Staff, University Graduate Nuclear Engineering Sciences of Florida Students O **CFCC Radiation One Semester Long Reactor Operations- 19.69 162.58 Protection Technology Based Radiological Control anc Protection (1.15) (14.08)

Co-op Work Program - Training Program of Cooperative Work Mrs. R. Rawls/Mr. S. Exercises MacKenzie - Reactor Sharing O

ENU-4930 -

Spaial Special Senior Project to Participate in 6.32 37.67 Topics in Nuclear Various Surveillances and Tests as Well as (6.32) (27.25)

Engineering Sciences as Experiment Setup and Controls at the Practical Work - Dr. Reactor Facility as Practical Work W.G. Vernetson, Mr. D. Experience with Production of a Report O Simpkins, Mr. J. Subiry, and Work Notebook for Records University of Florida O

i l

l O III-25 I

'O ,

i T A B L E III-1 I O

SUMMARi OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (Septerv.1 er 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Thne O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours

E G N - 10 0 2 -

Serie s of Lectures, Tours and 6.41 11.00 1ntroduction to Demonstration Exercises / Laboratory (1.56) (2.75)

Engineering - Dr. M. Experiments on Half-Life Measurements, H oit , D r. W .G . Hot Channel Factor Measurements and O Vernetson, Reactor Trace Element Analysis for Freshman Staff, University of Interested in Engineering Florida

*

I D H - 2 9 31 -

Tours and Discussions of Reactor Usage 0.00 1.33 Interdisciplinary Honors and Capabilities to Support a Class O Biological Perspectives, Presentation Project Dr. D. H. Evans, Zoology Department and Mr. D a vid :

Bissonette, University of Florida O

- ZOO-5405 -

Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.55 3.75 Physiology of Marine Reactor Operations with NAA Training (0.25) (0.33) i A nim als/ PC B-5317 Exercises Demonstrating Trace Element Marine Ecology - Dr. Analysis Technique Using the Rabbit o Michelle Wheatley, System and PC-Based I. lalyzers University of Florida

I D H - 2 9 31 -

Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.00 1.75 Interdisciplinary Honors Reactor and NAA Laboratory Operations Science of Energy - Dr. with Discussions of Capabilities Including O Eugene- Dunnam, NAA for Trace Element Analysis and Physics Department, Neutron Radiography University of Florida l

l O- III-26 l

1

O T A B L E III-1

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION

O (September 1992 - August 1993) i Run Experiment Time Time O. Project and U.cer Type of Activity IIours IIouis

Florida Institute of lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.80 6.00 [

Technology Society of Reactor Operations with NAA Training +

Physics Students - Mr. Exercises Demonstrating Trace Element i Tom Czarniak, Reactor Analysis Technique Using the Rabbit ,

O Sharing System and PC-Based Analyzers Plus Robotics Demonstration and Use of ;

Survey M eters for Radiation Field Characterization f

E m b r y-R id d1e Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 1.22 4.17 ,

O Aeronautical University Reactor Operations with NAA Training

- Dr. N. Gangadharan, Exercises Demonstrating Trace Element .!

Engineering Physics Analysis Technique Using the Rabbit Department, Reactor System and PC-Based Analyzers Plus 4 Sharing Robotics Demonstration and Use of ,

Survey Meters for Radiation Field O

Characterization Along with Demonstration of Neutron Radiography ;

Exhibit -

H ilIs b o r o u g h Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.73 3.33 O Community College Facility Operations With Radiation 7 Nuclear Medicine Surveys and Exercise in Use of Rabbit

~

Radiation Therapy System for Trace Element Analysis of Technology Program -

Hair Samples Using NAA Techniques and Dr. M. Lombardi -

Demonstration of Neutron Radiographic :

Reactor Sharing Techniques

O

- Santa Fe Community Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 1.08 4.17 ;

C o 11 e g e Medica 1 UFTR Operations with Radiation Surveys l Radiolc>gical Technology and NAA Training Exercises !

Program -

Mr. S. Demonstrating Trace Element Analysis M archionno/ Ms. Technique Using the Rabbit System and ;

-O Rochelle Sturm -

PC-Based Analyzers Plus Presentation on !

Reactor Sharing Neutron Radiography !

O III-27

O ;

TABLE III-1 O

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experknent Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours

- Central Florida Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.53 4.33 Community College UFTR Operations with Radiation Surveys Radiation Protection and NAA Training Exercises Technology Program - Demonstrating Trace Element Analysis O Mrs. R. Rawls, Mrs. P. Technique Using the Rabbit System and Wainwright, Reactor PC-Based Analyzers Sharing

- Santa Fe Community Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.60 3.33 College (Gainesville) Reactor Operations with Radiation O PhysicsWithout Calculus Surveys and NAA Training Exercises, with Students (PHY-2054/ Demonstrations of Trace Element 2054L) - Dr. A. Ferrari - Analysis Techniques Using the Rabbit Reactor Sharing System and PC-Based Analyzers

*Sant Fe Community Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.83 4.00 O

College (G-inesville) Reactor Operations with Radiation Physics With Calculus Surveys and NAA Training Exercises, with Students (PHY-2049/ Demonstrations of Trace Element 2049L) - Dr. A. Ferrari - Analysis Techniques Using the Rabbit Reactor Sharing System and PC-Based Analyzers O

- Santa Fe Community Iecture, Tour and Demonstration of 1.23 5.42 Col 1ege (Starke) Reactor Operations with Radiation (0.33) (1.50)

General PhysicalScience Surveys and NAA Training Exercises, with Students (PSC-2121) - Demonstrations of Trace Element Mr. L. Iselin - Reactor Analysis Techniques Using the Rabbit O Sharing System and PC-Based Analyzers

*S LS-1101 College Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.43 2.83 Success - Dr. Bruce Reactor and NAA Laboratory Operations Tucker, Santa Fe Including Trace Element Analysis of Hair Community College Samples Using the Rabbit System and PC-O Based Analyzers O 111-2 8

O !

I TABLE III-1

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION O

(September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Time o Project and User Type of Activity Hours IIours "ENU-6935 - Nuclear D e taile d Lecture, Tours and 0.00 1.25 Seminar - Prof. J.S. Demonstration of Reactor Operations and Tulenko, University of Facility Capabilities for Possible Research Florida Projects for Nuclear Engineering Sciences O Graduate Students

E NU-4505L/ E NU- Senior and Graduate Level Nuclear 18.87 58.58 6937L -

Nuc1 ear Engineering Laboratory Exercises and (0.87) (10.17)

Engineering Laboratory Experiments Including Radiation Worker I/II, Dr. N.J. Diaz, Dr. Instructions, Foil Irradiations, Flux-O E.T. Dugan, Dr. W.G. Mapping, Hot Channel Factors, Reactor Vernetson and Mr. D. Calorimetry, Blade Reactivity Worth Simpkins, University of Calibration, Diffusion Length in Graphite, Florida 1/M Approach to Critical and Neutron Activation Analysis O Lecture, Tours

*ENU-4934 - Nuclear Introductory and 0.72 4.58 Engineering Seminar - Demonstrations of Facility Capabilities for (1.00)

Dr. E.T. Dugan, Prof. New Students Entering the Nuclear J.S. Tulenko and Dr. Engineering Sciences Curriculum W .G . Vernetson, Including Demonstration of Reactor O University of Florida Operation and Trace Analysis of Hair Samples Using the Rabbit System

- ENU-5516L - Nuclear Graduate Level Nuclear Engineering 0.78 1.75 Engineering Laboratory Laboratory Experiments Including II - Dr. W.H. Ellis and Experiment Design for Half-Life O Dr. W.G. Vernetson - Measurement and Diffusion Length in University of Florida Graphite O

O 111-2 9

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

O TABLE IH-1 i

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION O (September 1992 - August 1993) l Run Experiment i Time Time .

O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours l CH S-5110/ 5110L -

Senior and Graduate Level 16.26 33.49 Radi ochemistry/ Radio- Radiochemistry Laboratory Exercises and (4.33) (10.67) :

chemistry Laboratory - Experiments Including Lecture, Tour and Dr. K. Williams, Dr. L. Demonstration of Facility Operations, !

O Muga, Dr. W .G . Irradiation of Ag,I and AgI for Half-Life j Vernetson, University of Measurements, NAA forTrace Analysis of :

Florida Dried Milk Samples Plus NAA for Two +

Course Research Projects to Include ,.

Determining the Copper Level in Milk Samples and the Calcium Level in Lake O Water Samples ;

i

PHY-3042 - Modern Class Research Project to Utilize NAA to 8.50 12.83 i Physics - Class Term Evaluate the Trace Elements in Waste (6.37) (8.75)

Project -Dr. Paul Avery, Water Stream Treatment Plant Sediments ,

Physics Department and for Metal Buildup ;

O Mr. D. Henderson, ;

University of Florida l

- EML-4450/ EML4451 Lectures, Tours and Demonstrations and 0.00 2.66 ,

- Energy Conversion - Explanations of Reactor and NAA l

O Dr. Y. Goshwami, Dr. Laboratory Facility Operations and ,

R. Pagano and Dr. W.G. Capabilities Vernetson, University of ,

Florid i

*ENU-4612L/ ENU- Series of Lectures, Tours and Laboratory 8.50 14.25 0 5615L -

Nuclear Experiments to Demonstrate the (3.67) (6.50)

In st ru m e n t a tio n Principles of Gamma Ray Spectroscopy Laboratory - Dr. W.H. Using the Rabbit System for Irradiations Ellis, Dr. G.R. Dalton and PC-Based Analyzers with HPGe and Mr. R. Ratner, Detectors to Perform Trace Element University of Florida Analysis from Gamma Ray Spectra

-O .

l "O- 1I1-30 i

-O TABLE IH-1 O. SUSDIARY OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1992 - August 1993) i Run Experiment Time Time '

O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours

*EN V-6215 Health Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.00 1.33 j Physics -

Dr. C.E. Reactor Operations Emphasizing -l Roessler, Environmental Radiation Monitoring and Protection '

Engineering Science Features of the Facility O Department, Dr. W. G.

Vernetson, Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department

*ENV-4932/ENV-6932 Series of Experimental Health Physics 0.82 5.42 O - Special Problems In Exercises Related to Reactor Operations (0.75)

E n vir o n m e n t a1 Including Demonstration of Reactor Engineering - Dr. W.S. Operations with Emphasis on Radiation Properzio, Mr. D.L. Monitoring and Protective Features, Munroe, Dr. W.G . Development of Accident Scenarios and O Vernetson, University of Emergency Response Plus Florida Characterization and Measurement of Facility Gaseous Effluents

- ENV-4201/ENV-5206 Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.00 3.50 Introduction to Reactor Operations Emphasizing O Radiological Health -

Radiation Monitoring and Protection D r. C .E . R oessler, Features of the Reactor Facility Including E n vir o n m e n t a1 Control of Radioactive Materials, Engineering Science Labelling of Materials / Areas, Traffic Department, Dr. W. G. Flow, Use of the Rabbit System and Vernetson, Nuclear Parameter Indication Changes in Starting O Engineering Sciences Up and Reaching Full Power Department

NAA Research on NAA to Determine Barium and Other 24.03 28.09 Sediments - Dr. John Trace Metal Concentrations in Gulf of (7.90) (9.30)

Trefry, Florida Institute Mexico Sediments from Potential Oil

,o of Technology Field Sites 0 111-3 1

O i

i T A B L E III-1 O

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment i Time Time O Type of Activity IIours IIours Project and User ,

NAA to Determine Whether the Ratio of 9.55 11.00

NAA Research on Sr-90/Sr Ratio - Dr. K. Strontium-90 to Strontium Can Be (4.75) (5.08) ;

Willia m s , Botany Determined in Various Conifer Samples Department Following Uptake of Strontium-90.

O Special High Honors Project to Develop 0.00 5.00

ENU-4905 - Special Problems in Nuclear Various Instruction Level Materials for (0.17)

Engineering - UFTR - UFTR Facility Demonstration Exercises '

Dr. W.G. Vernetson/D.

o DeLeo, University of Florida Special Senior Project on Identification 6.38 12.16

ENU-4905 - Special Problems in Nuclear and Determination of Rare Earth Element (4.18) (7.67) ,

Engineering - NAA - Content of Egyptian Sedimentary Mineral O Research on Sediments - Deposits Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Mr. R. Ratner and Mr.

T. Downing, University of Florida O Special Senior Project to Perform Trace 12.31 15.75

ENU-4905 -

Special Problems in Nuclear Element Analysis on Various Age (6.15) (7.34) :

Engineering for NAA Seashells to Evaluate Possibility of i Research on Seashells - Identifying Key Elements for Tracing the Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Source of Such Shells

r. R. Ramer, Mr. D. ;

-O Farinha, Reactor Staff, i University of Florida i

-O

'O III-32

O TABLE III-1 O

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILI7sATION (September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity IIours IIours

ENU-4905 - Special Special High Honors Project to Continue 15.18 21.17 Problems in Nuclear Benchmarking the ko-Standardization (7.62) (8.83)

Engineering -Procedure Methodology for Neutron Activation Development for k-o Analysis Including Developing a Standard O Standardization Procedure for Its Implementation Methodology - Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, M r. R.

Ratner and Mr. G.

Dalporto O *ENU-4905 - Special Special Junior Project to Collect and 9.42 15.17 Problems in Nuclear Analyze Sediment Samples from Lakes (1.58) (2.25)

Engineering - NAA to Around Coal Power Plants to Identify Identify Trace Metal Buildup of Trace Metal Contamination Contamination Around O Coal Power Plants - Dr.

W.G. Vernetson, Mr. R.

Ratner and Mr. D.

Henderson, University of Florida O ENU-4930 -

Special Special High Honors Project to Evaluate 13.17 31.25 Topics In Nuclear the Independent Reactor Operations (0.58)

Engineering for Reactor Laboratory Course and to Upgrade the Operations Laboratory Course and Laboratory Materials to Upgrade - Dr. W.G. Facilitate Its Effectiveness Vernetson, M r. D.

O Simpkins, Mr. R. Lower, University of Florida O

O III-33

i O

T A B L E III-1

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION O

(September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity IIours IIours

NAA Research for NAA to Evaluate and Identify Elemental 67.42 80.93 Biogeochemica1 Constituents In Second Large Set of (24.42) (30.67)

Assessment of Pollard, Vegetation and Soil Samples Taken From AL Oil Field - Dr. Gary the Pollard, Alabama Oil Field for O Cwick, S.E. Missouri Geochemical Analysis and Correlation State University and Dr. with Satellite Imaging for Geochemical Michae1 Bishop, Analysis and Hydrocarbon Exploration University of Wisconsin, Systematics Eau Claire - Reactor Sharing Research on Properties U se of Neutron Radiography, 100.40 166.99 of Materials - Dr. S. Transmission and Scattering Experiments (8.72) (20.34)

Turner, Mr. J. Wallis, and Other Analytical Techniques to NUSURTEC, Inc. Examine and Characterize Used and Unused Boraflex and Boral Absorber O

Liner Samples and Coupons for Use in Utility Spent Fuel Pools (About One-Third of the Experiment Time is for Experimental Efforts to Improve Radiography System Capability)

O

NAA Research of NAA to Evaluate and Quantify Rare 6.38 12.16 ,

Sedimentary Mineral Earth Elemental Content of Egyptian (4.10) (7.59)

Deposits, Dr. A. Sedimentary Mineral Deposits Dabous, Florida State University Chemistry -

O Department Reactor Sharing

NAA Research to NAA Evaluation for Trace Element 2.49 7.75 Perform Trace Element Analysis of Plant Samples for (1.58)

Analysis of Fertilizer Quantification of Heavy Metal Content O Samples - Mrs. Renae and Buildup From Continued Application ;

Allen, R. Wade, Union of Synthetic Fertilizers to Crop and l County High School - Pasture Lands for Science Fair Project Reactor Sharing O III-34

^O TABLE HI-1 i

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION -

0 (September 1992 - August 1993) I Run Experiment I Time Time ;

o Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours ;

Physics of Materials Fast and Thermal Neutron Irradiations of 0.00 0.50 Properties Research -

Dielectric Materials Including Topaz and (0.50) l Dr. Hans Plendl, Physics Beryl to Determine Optical Effects of ;

Dept., Florida State Trace Elements on Rate and Types of l 0 University and Dr. Peter Color Center Development for . Basic ,

Gielisse - Mechanical Physics Understanding !

Engineering Depart- ,

ment, FAMU/FSU -

Reactor Sharing O

Florida Foundation of Summer 1993 Student Research Program: 6.23 10.67 Future Scientists - NAA Evaluation of Carbonated Beverages for :

Research On Elemental Aluminum Content Under Different Aluminum Content In Storage Conditions Prior to Opening the -

Canned Carbonated Beverage Can and After Opening the Can Beverages -

Mr. R.

O Napier, Mr. M. Skiles -

and Mr. O.J. Ganesh, [

Buchholz High School, .

Dr. W.G. Vernetson, .

University of Florida - f G Reactor Sharing

Florida Foundation of Follow-up to Summer 1992 Student 0.00 0.50 l Future Scientists - NAA Research Program: Evaluation and (0.50)

Research on Mercury Quantification of the Elemental Mercury >

Content of Canned Tuna Content In Canned Tuna Fish i

-O - Mr. C. Coldwell, L. '

Chapman and E. ;

Leonard, Mainland High School, Dr. W.G .

Vernetson, University of Florida -

Reactor Sharing O

l O III-35

O TABLE III-1 O

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours

Florida Foundation of Summer 1993 Student Research Program: 8.55 11.25 Future Scientists - NAA Evaluation and Quantification of the (3.33) (3.33)

Research on Trace Trace Element Content In Various Metal Content of Oranges / Orange Juice with Known Origin O Orange Juice - Mr. M. for Development of Source Certification Herring, E. Kisversaryl Methodology and Ms. S. Moudgil, Eastside High School, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, University of Florida -

O Reactor Sharing

Physics of Super- Neutron Irradiation of Polycrystalline 97.47 110.18 conducting Materials High Temperature Superconductor (58.09) (65.51)

Properties Research -

Material (YBaCuO: 1:2:3;7) to Increase O

Dr. Halinea Niculescu, Pinning Site Density of Fluxoids to Physics Dept., Florida Increase' Critical Current Density to State University and Dr. Determine Possible Improvements In Peter G ie1is s e Shielding Characteristics of the Mechanical Engineering Superconducting Material Dept., FAMU/FSU -

o Reactor Sharing

NAA Research to NAA Evaluative Research to Determine 18.60 22.17 Support Mercury Presence of Mercury in Experimental (13.97) (16.45)

Contamination Study Vacuum Chamber in Preparation for and Cleanup - Dr. G.J. Proper Removal from Experimental O Schoessow, Dr. W.G. Equipment Inventory and Disposal Vernetson and Mr. D.L.

Munroe O

O III-36

O' TABLE HI-1 O

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours

NAA Research to NAA Evaluative Research to Conclude 85.85 102.15 Q u a n tify Mercury Simple Preparation and to Quantify (31.09) (39.09)

Content in Rat Tissues - Mercury Content in Rat Kidneys and Dr. Bamiduro Oguntebi, Brain Tissue Following Bone Implantation O Dr. Karl Soderholm, of Mercury Amalgams Endodontics Dept.,

Dental School, University of Florida

Copper-64 Production Irradiation of Pure Copper to Generate 27.23 35.92 O for PET Scanner - Dr. Copper-64 for Positron Emitting Source (15.62) (17.83)

John Kuperus, Production for Positron Emission Radiopharmacy Dept., Tomography (PET) Scanner Calibration in and Mr. W. Drane, the Radiopharmacy Department at Shands Radiology Dept., Shands Teaching Hospital O

Hospital, University of !

Florida

NAA Research on NAA Evaluative Research on Trace 27.60 34.58 Corrosion Properties - Elements in Corrosion Products to (4.77) (9.17) -

Dr. Ellis Vernick, L. Measure Chromium Migration in O. Wurth, Materia 1s Weathering-Steel Patinas During Wet-Dry Science and Engineering Cycling Department, University of Florida i

NAA Benchmarking Quality Assurance Research on 19.05 23.58 O Research - Dr. W.G. Benchmarking and Implementing the ko- (3.15) (5.50)

Vernetson and Mr. R. Standardization Method After Comparison l Ratner with the Standards Comparison Method of Neutron Activation Analysis 50

.O III-37

e O'

TABLE III-1

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION O (September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Time O Project and User Type or Activity IIours IIours

NAA Service Research NAA Evaluative Research to Determine 13.02 14.84 for Analysis of Carbon Chlorine and Other Trace Element (2.02) (2.58)

Steel Corrosion Products Concentrations in Samples of Carbon Dr. G. LaTorre, Steel Corrosion Products O Advanced Materials Research Center ,

NAA Research to NAA Research Evaluation of Special Pure 22.44 33.50 Evaluate sic Fiber Silicon Carbide (sic) Fiber Samples to (10.26) (14.18)

Samples for Constituents Determine the Capabilities of the INAA O and Trace Elements - Technique forIdentifying and Quantifying Dr. W. Toreki, Materials Macro Constituents As Well As Trace Science and Engineering Elements OfInterest for Various Baseline Department, and R. Material Data Tests Ratner, University of Florida

ENU-6905 NAA NAA Evaluation to Quantify Trace Metal 19.43 24.41 M a s t e r 's Project Elements to Characterize Various (9.72) (12.00)

Research to Charac- Sediment Cores Taken from the ,

terize Trace Metal Everglades in South Florida O Elements in Everglades l Sediment Cores - Dr.

W.G. Vernetson, Dr.

W.E. Bolch and Ms.

Linda Vickers, University of Florida O

Scintillator Irradiation Preparations are Underway to Irradiate 0.00 1.50 for Radiation Effects Scintillator CrystalMaterials to Determine Studies - Dr. J. Harmon, the Effect of Various High Energy Dr. D. Roebuck, Physics Spectrum Neutron Fluences Department, University O f Florida

!O III-38 1

l l

O 1 TABLE III-1

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION I O (September 1992 - August 1993) l Run Experiment Time Time O

Project and User Type of Activity IIours IIours

Materials Research -

Experimental Preparations are Underway 0.00 5.75 Dr. N. Djeu, Dr. B. to Irradiate Sapphire Fibers with High Shaw and Dr. R. Chang, Energy Neutrons to Study Materials Physics Department, Effects 0 University of South Florida, Tampa

Irradiation of Investigation of Effects of Neutron Dose 11.44 26.75 Nitrogeneous Com- on Nitrogeneous Compounds Such as (3.28) (7.75) pounds for Nuclear Urea and Thiourea Using Nuclear O Quadrupole Dosimetry Quadrupole Resonance Spectroscopy to Measurements -

Dr. Correlate Dose and NQR Spectroscopic David Hintenlang, K. Response Including Dose Rate and J a m i1, N u c1e a r Temperature Measurements in Vertical Engineering Sciences Ports Department SPERT Low-Enriched R adiation/ Contamination Surveys, 0.00 67.58 Fuel Conversion Related Property Surveys, Facility Checks, Fire (11.66)

Efforts -

Dr. W.G. Alarm System Maintenance, -LEU SPERT Vernetson, and Reactor Fuel Security System Checks. LEU Fuel St ff Inv nt ry and Visual Inspection Efforts O

and Responses to Security and Fire Alarms.

*High School Merit Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.00 1.00 Scholar Recipients - Dr. Reactor and NAA Laboratory Capabilities O G. Dalton - Reactor for Educational and Research Usage Sharing O III-39 i

l O

T A B L E III-1

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION O (September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Time Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours O

- Duke / University of Series of Lectures, Tours and 0.00 2.00 F1o rid a Ta1e n t Demonstrations of Reactor and NAA Identification Program Laboratory Capabilities for Educational Ceremony High School and Research Usage o Participants - Mr. J.

Massingale, Mrs. S.

Ingram -

Reactor Sharing

Union County High Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.85 7.00 0 School Chemistry Class - UFTR Operations with Radiation Surveys Mrs. Renae Allen -

and NAA Training Exercises Reactor Sharing Demonstrating Trace Element Analysis Technique Using the Rabbit System and PC-Based Analyzers Plus Robotics Demonstration O

Crystal River High Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 2.03 11.17 Schoo1 Chemistry UFTR Operations with Radiation Surveys (3.75)

Classes -

Mrs. A. and NAA Training Exercises B u t1er/ M r. Steye Demonstrating Trace Element Analysis Richardson - Reactor Technique Using the Rabbit System and O Sharing PC-Based Analyzers 1

- Chamberlain High Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.80 4.42 Schoo1 (Tampa) UFTR Operations with Radiation Surveys Advanced Physics Class - and NAA Training Exercises i O Mr. T. Jordan - Reactor Demonstrating Trace Element Analysis I Sharing Technique Using the Rabbit System and PC-Based Analyzers

- St. Augustine High Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 1.02 5.50 School Physics Students UFTR Operations with Radiation Surveys

- Mr. Steven Buell, Mr. and NAA Training Exercises O Roger Gueron -Reactor Demonstrating Trace Element Analysis 1 Sharing Technique Using the Rabbit System and PC-Based Analyzers O IU40

O-TABLE HI-1 O

S OF FACM MMATION (September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours

*

Florida Foundation Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 2.53 20.25 of Future Scientists -Dr. Reactor Facility Operations and (0.50)

W.G. Vernetson, Dr. L. Experimental Capabilities for Six Honors Muga, Ms. S. Ingram High School Students Plus Summer O (Santa Fe High School), Research Project Selection for Two FFFS Mr. R. Napier and Mr. High School Students (Suniti Moudagil of M. Skiles (Buchholz Eastside High School and Omjoy Ganesh High School) and Mr. of Buchholz High School) as Well as M. Herring and E. Overview Lecture on Power Versus Kisversaryi (Eastside Research Reactors (UFTR) for FFFS ,

O High School) - Reactor High School Program Participants Sharing

- * *

Demonstration of Lectures, Tours and Demonstrations of 2.43 7.50 Reactor F a ci1it y Reactor Facility Operations and Use of Op rations - Dr. John Rabbit System and PC-Based Analyzers O Abbitt, D r. W .G . for Trace Element Analysis of Hair Vernetson, University of Samples Emphasizing Facility Capabilities Florida for a Group of College-Oriented Community College Students Identified by SUCCEED ,

O

*H eritage Christian Various Lectures, Tours and 0.77 21.83 High School Science Demonstrations of UFTR Operations with (7.33)

Department Radiation Surveys and NAA Training (Gainesville) - Dr. G. Exercises Demonstrating Methodology of Featherston, Dr. B. Trace Element Analysis Technique Using i

'O Tucker, Mr. B. Jones, the Rabbit System and PC-Based Ms. Juanita DeLott - Analyzers As Well As Radiation Survey i Reactor Sharing and Contamination Control Exercises and Assisting with Judging Science Fair i Projects I

O **P.K. Yonge High Tour to Explain Operations and 0.00 1.67 School Science Class - Capabilities of Reactor Facility Plus (0.75)

Mr. Griff Jones -

Consultations with Several Students to Reactor Sharing Support a Debate on Nuclear Energy

.O III-41

O l l

TABLE HI-1

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION 0- (September 1992 - August 1993) i Run Experiment Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours

*N A A Research Initiation of Training in Neutron 0.00 4.25 Training Program - Mrs. Activation Analysis Methodology to (1.50) ,

Anne-Marie Heller and Support a Student Science Fair Project Mr. Ali Bebahani, O Eastside High School, Dr. W.G. Vernetson and Mr. R. Ratner, University of Florida - ,

Reactor Sharing O "* Third Annual Florida Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.98 2.75 Accelerated Initiatives Reactor and NAA Laboratory Facility ,

Student Seminar On Capabilities and Applications forGroup of '

Energy Issues for Outstanding High School Students Outstanding High School Examining Energy and Other Political Students - Mr. David Issues O Murray, Cocoa Beach ,

High School, Mr. David Krohn - Reactor Sharing of Series of Lectures, Tours and

* *D emonstration 1.42 4.75 O

Reactor Faei1ity Demonstrations of UFTR Operations and '

Operations - Mrs. Joan Capabilities forTrace Element Analysis of ,

Lindgren, Mr. Ken Hair Samples Using the Rabbit System ,

Zeoli, Ft. Clarke Middle and PC-Based Analyzers as Well as '

School-Reactor Sharing Robotics Demonstration ,

o * *

Demonstration of Series of Lectures, Tours and 1.75 18.00 l Reactor F a ci1it y Demonstrations of UFTR Operations and (12.00) ,

Operations - Ms. Cathy Capabilities forTrace Element Analysis of Restivo and Mr. Bob Hair Samples Using the Rabbit System Short, Lakeview Middle and PC-Based Analyzers as Well as School-Reactor Sharing Robotics Demonstration

)

O-i l

l l

I

\

lg III-42 j l

- - = __ - .

O I 1

J T A B L E III-1 )

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION O

(September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours

- - Demonstration of I.ecture, Tours and Demonstration of 0.00 1.25 Reactor Facility Capa- Reactor and NAA laboratory Facility bilities and Usage for Operational Capabilities for Innovative Industrial Arts Program Industrial Arts Industry-Oriented High O Mr. Jim McMullen, Mrs. School Technology Program Anne-Marie H eller, -

Eastside High School -

Reactor Sharing

*

Demonstration of Series of Lectures, Tours and 0.00 4.75 O Reactor and NAA Demonstrations of Reactor and NAA ,

Laboratory Facility Laboratory Facility Operational )

Capabilities and Usage - Capabilities for Teachers and Students as )

Mr. R. McNealy - Part of Hispanic Outreach Program J

, Reactor Sharing O ** Science Fair Project - Science Fair Project to Use Gamma 0.00 1.50 Mrs. J. Daniel and Ms. Irradiator to Irradiate Seeds to Various (0.50)

M. Vernetson, Ft. Levels for a Science Fair Project on How Clarke Middle School, Germination Is Affected by Gamma Mr. D.L. Me'iroe and Radiation Dose Levels O Dr. W.G. Vernetson, University of Florida -

Reactor Sharing

*

SUCCEED Project Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.43 4.00 for Middle School Reactor and NAA I2boratory Operations

O Students -

Mr. W. Including Trace Element Analysis of Hair Steffen r_nd Ms. E. Samples Using the Rabbit System and PC-Miller, P.K.Yonge High Based Analyzers School

O O III-43

._ _. _ _ = _ _ __ _. ___

o !.

i T A B L E III-1 i O

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1992 - August 1993) ;

i Run Experiment Time Time ;

O' Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours

* *Flo rid a Regional Series of Lectures, Tours and 0.35 5.75 Junior Science, Demonstrations of Facility Operations and i Engineering and Capabilities for High School Students, ,

Humanities Symposium - Teachers and Other Professional O Dr. W.G. Vernetson/Dr. Participants in 30th Annual Florida B. Abbott, Reactor Staff Science, Engineering and Humanities '

Symposium.

- - DOE R ob o1ics Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.75 1.75 {

Student Conference -

Reactor and NA.A Laboratory Operations (0.75) (1.42)

O Dr. H. Alter, DOE, and Including Use of Rabbit System to Prof. J .S . Tulenko, Irradiate a Hair Sample for Trace l University of Florida Element Analysis

- - Cub Scout Troop Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.00 3.75-

461 Mr. D. Simpkins, Reactor and NAA Laboratory Operations

-O University of Florida as Well as Use of Radiation Survey Meters and . Robotics Equipment

- - Student Chapter Lecture, Tour and Demonstration of 0.50 3.50 l Mining, Metals and Reactor and NAA Laboratory Operations i o Materials Society - Dr. and Capabilities for Research Including R. Connell, Ms. T. Use of Rabbit System and PC-Based Russell, University of Analyzers for Trace Analysis of Hair Florida Samples

"* University of Florida Lectures, Tours and Demonstrations of 0.92 7.75

'O Engineer's Fair - Dr. Reactor and NAA Laboratory Operations (0.67) (4.50)

W .G . Vernetson/ for Various Visitors to the 1993 College of i Reactor Staff Engineering /Benton Engineering Council Engineer's Fair l

.O 1

O III-44

O TABLE III-1 O

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1992 - August 1993) i Run Experiment Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours

- - Miscellaneous Tours Miscellaneous Tours Involving Facility 6.19 64.01 and Demonstrations -

Demonstrations for Various Visitors (5.44) (22.34)

Including Groups of Students Dr. W. G. Vernetson Representing Various Special Interests, ,

O Alumni, Potential New Staff Members, ,

Potential New Nuclear Engineering i Sciences (NES) Students, NES Seminar i Speakers, ANS Executive Director Jim Toscas, a Student to Get UFTR Drawings and Information for Argon-41 Simulation, O a Group from Gainesville's Sister City of '

Novorossiisk, Russia, Radio and Other Reporters, Two Groups from the :

Technical University of Budapest, ;

Hungary, University Police Department g Officers, NRC Visitors, Visits by Potential or Actual Facility Users and Various :

Other Interested Individuals and Small ;

Groups Including Salespersons, Utility i Recruiters, and Various Physical Plant and ,

other Maintenance Worker Individuals o and Groups Involved in Service of UFTR '

Facilities as Well as Their Supervisors ,

*U FTR Reaetor Individual Reactor Operator License 73.80 214.41 l Operator Candidate Training for UFTR Reactor Operator (63.29) (139.67) ,

Training - Dr. W.G. Candidate O Vernetson/ Reactor j Staff / Radiation Control 1 Staff !

O j

O III-45 :

i

O TABLE III-1 O

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity IIours Hours

Licensed Operator NRC Requalification and Recertification 5.77 168.60 Requalification and Training Requirements Including Lectures, (1.07) (32.08)

Recertification Program Practical Training, Examinations, Startups, Training Including Staff Shutdowns and Reactivity Manipulations O P1a n nin g/ R evie w as Necessary to Maintain Operator Meetings - Dr. W.G. Qualification and Assure Operator V e r n e t so n / 'R e a c t o r Recertification PlusVarious StaffPlanning Staff / Radiation Control and Review Meetings Staff C * *Special Training for Training on Radiation Worker Instructions 0.30 44.17 UPTR Facility Support (10 CFR Part 19) for Support Staff (0.30) (20.34)

Staff, External Support Including Radiation Control Personnel, Groups and Contractors Contractors, Physical Plant Division

- Dr. W.G. Vernetson/ Personnel and Non-Licensed Facility Staff, O Reactor Staff Training as Radiation Control Technician for One Staff Member, Training On Rabbit System for NAA Laboratory Personnel, and Second Person Qualification Training for Radiation Control and Other Support Personnel, O Training on Chemical Hazards and Right-To-Know for All Facility Personnel, Training on Emergency Response and Security for University Police Department and Other Personnel

. O NRC, AADAG and Biennial NRC/ UFTR Management 0.00 17.58 Other Inspections -

Meeting, Reactor Safety Review (3.50)

W.G. Vernetson, Mr. Subcommittee Annual Audit, Fire D.L. Munroe, Reactor Marshall Inspection and University and Radiation Control Environmental Health and Safety Division Staff Laboratory Safety Survey Plus Inspection O for Americans for Disabilities Act

O III-46

O i

TABLE III-1 f l

0

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September 1992 - August 1993) 2 Run Experiment -

Time Time O Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours i i

Facility Upgrades - Dr. Various Facility Upgrade Efforts to 0.00 72.34 .

W.G . Vernetson/ Improve Facility Operation to Improve or (32.75) :

Reactor Staff Expand Experimental Capabilities and to Better Meet Regulatory Requirements to !

O Include Installation of Push Button -

Telephone in the Emergency Support :

Center, Installation of a Complete New -j Detector System, Computer and Integral i Shield in the NAA Laboratory, Installation of a Staff Computer, Acquisition of O MicroR Survey Meter, Planning for :

Acquisition of New Area Radiation ,

Monitoring System, Asbestos Removal and

Replacement of Ex-Cell Air Handler and Ceiling Fan Coil Units Plus Development O f Promotional Package for Florida Educational Technology Conference ,

Maintenance Activities Maintenance Efforts to Preserve and 0.50 211.83 to Preserve the Reactor Refurbish Appearances Plus Various (0.50) (59.25)

Cell Appearance and Housekeeping Efforts in the Cell and O Maintain Good Control Room Including Updating Status Housekeeping -

Dr. Boards and Operations Logs, Performing W .G . Vernetson/ Property Inventory, Performance of Reactor Staff Special Surveys and Other Non-Operations Facility Activities O Emergency System Scheduled Surveillances of Facility Fire 0.00 27.15 Surveillances - Dr. W. Protection Equipment, Quarterly Manual (3.17)

G. Vernetson, Reactor Checks of Fire Alarm System and Staff, Physical Plant Inspections by Physical Plant Division Personnel, Representatives and State Fire Marshall University Police Plus Periodic Responses to Security and

!O Department Personnel Fire Alarm Actuations III-47 O

l

O l TABLE III-1

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION O (September 1992 - August 1993) i Run Experiment Time Time Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours Test, Surveillance and Scheduled UFTR Facility Component and 61.68 307.90 Checkout Activities -Dr. System Tests, Surveillances, Calibrations (23.99) (102.52)

W.G . Vernetson/ and Related Measurements and Reactor Staff Verification Activities Required by

'O Technical Specifications, Procedures, NRC Commitments or Good Maintenance Practices ,

Maintenance Activities - Preventive and Corrective Maintenance 7.15 262.02 Reactor Staff and/or Replacement of UFTR Facility (5.75) (75.99) :'

O Components Excluding Minor Maintenance Items and Those Listed i Individually to Include System Testing as !

Necessary :

Maintenance Activities Maintenance Activities, Checks and 0.00 41.33 :

O for Installation of New Preparations with Necessary Modifications (24.00) -

Temperature Recorder - for Installation of New Digital Twelve Dr. W.G. Vernetson/ Point Temperature Recorder Reactor Staff O

O l

l l

O III-48 O

I

O TABLE III-1

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION 0 (September 1992 - August 1993)

Run Experiment i Time Time Project and User Type of Activity Hours Hours O

Maintenance Activities Corrective Maintenance to Reterminate 2.10 32.08 to Repair Temperature the Leads to Thermocouple Number 2 (4.08)

Monitoring System - Dr. (Northwest Fuel Box Outlet) with W.G . Vernetson/ Modifications Installed (Partial Only) for O Reactor Staff ALARA Considerations for Future Failures r

TOTAL 955.73 3104.62 (369.82) (955.04)

O TOTALACTUAL 585.91 2149.58 NOTE 1. Values in parentheses represent multiple or concurrent facilityutilization (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 O 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 1992-1993 reporting year is 585.9thours, an increase of nearly 46.5 % over the previous year. The actual experiment time for the 1992- t 1993 reporting year is also increased, though less at 2149.58 hours6.712963e-4 days 0.0161 hours 9.589947e-5 weeks 2.2069e-5 months , an increase of 13.5 % indicating excellent ;

utilization of staff time this year for reactor usage and other projects including good record keeping of project times and other activities using the facilitybut not the reactor, especially maintenance and support-related efforts. Indeed, over 65 hours7.523148e-4 days 0.0181 hours 1.074735e-4 weeks 2.47325e-5 months of experiment time was devoted to non-reactor services such as work O with or related to the LEU SPERT fuel. The run time and experiment time before the reduction for concurrent usages shows many simultaneous multiple usages assuring optimal application of staff time despite no full-time SRO Reactor Manager until August,1993. Of course, the experiment time continues ,

to include considerable reactor usage for corrective maintenance and surveillance activities but at a reduced i level; however, the numbers this year also indicate high levels of quality facility usge directed to research, education, training and service, especially as driven by the Reactor Sharing Program usages. The other driver tMs year was a large reduction in reactor operator traWng as one new SRO is ready to take Ms O examination early in the next reporting year. -

NOTE 2. Experiment time is run time (total key on time minus checkout time) plus set-up time for experiments or other reactor or facility usage including checkouts, tests and maintenance involvingthe reactor facility.

O .

l O III-49 !

i I

O TABLEIII-2 UFTR UTILIZATION

SUMMARY

Ptemkr, N - Augud, N)

O Run Time Experiment Time Utilization Categories IIours Hours O 1. College Courses and L.aboratories (26) 141.39 (27.64) 515.96 (106.17)

2. Research Activities (27) 633.89 (228.96) 876.92 (301.37)

3. UFTR Operator Training and Requalification for Recertification O Plus Support Staff and Other Training (3) 79.96 (64.66) 427.18 (192.09)

4. UFTR Maintenance, Testing and Surveillance Activities, Plus Various Extended Inspection Activities (8) 71.43 (30.24) 972.23 (305.26)

O 5. HEU-to-LEU Fuel Conversion Related Efforts Including SPERT Fuel Checks (1) 0.00 67.58 (11.66)

6. Reactor Tours and Demonstrations Including High School Classes (24) 29.06 [18.32) 244,7,5 (38.49)

O TOTAL 955.73 (369.82) 3104.62 (955.04)

NOTE 1: The same meaning is attached to values in parentheses in Table III-2 as in Table III-1. Values in parentheses adjacent to topic areas indicate the number of entries from Tabb III-I that were C ll8Psed into this utilization category.

O NOTE 2: The first two categories of College Courses and Laboratories as wellas Research Activities plus the last category for high school group demonstrations include significant usages sponsored under the Department of Energy UFTR Reactor Sharing Program wnich allowed 27 schools to have 124 usages of the UFTR facilities as delineated in Table III-3. This usage by 27 schools is one of the most diverse usages yet recorded under the University of Florida Reactor Sharing O Program and represents by far the most total time commitment of UFfR facilities of any effort other than maintenance / surveillance activities and training of operating staff as wellas research usage for the University of Florida.

NOTE 3: In some cases the assignment of items to one of the six (6) 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 s phisticated usage of the facility.Indeed, a number of the high school O projects have won awards at regional and state science fairs.

NOTE 4: Routine preoperational checks are generally excluded from this Utilization Summary but are

( estimated to account for about 20 hours2.314815e-4 days 0.00556 hours 3.306878e-5 weeks 7.61e-6 months additional utilization per month or approximately 240 l additional hours per year with much ofit concurrent.

O III-50

O TABLE III-3 REACTOR SIIARING PROGRAM

SUMMARY

OF USAGE OF UFTR FACILITIES (September,1992 - September,1993) 0 Users 2

School' Usages Faculty Students Buchholz High School (BHS) 7 1 1 :

O Chamberlain High School (CHS) 1 2 25 Central Florida Community College (CFCC) 31 4 42 Crystal River High School (CRHS) 2 1 41 Eastside High School (EHS) 7 3 31 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) 1 2 8 FFFS Science Engineering & Humanities Symp. (High School) 1 6 30 0 Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) 5 4 6 Florida A&M University (FAMU) 10 1 1 Florida State University (FSU) 14 3 1 Fort Clarke Middle School (FCMS) 3 9 78 Heritage Christian High School (HCHS) 3 5 75 Hillsborough Community College (HCC) 1 1 19 O Hispanic Outreach High School Program Students 2 10 88 Lakeview Middle School (LMS) 3 12 86 Mainland High School (MHS) 1 1 2 P.K. Yonge High School (PKYHS) 2 3 26 St. Augustine High School (SAHS) 1 2 15 Santa Fe Community College - Gainesville (SFCC-G) 6 5 81 Santa Fe High School (SFHS) 1 1 18 O

Southeast Missouri State University (SEMSU) 6 1 1 SUCCEED Honors Symposium for Community College Students 2 2 30 1 Summer Science Research Training Program (High School) 1 1 6 Talent identification Program Ceremony Participants (High Sch.) 1 3 86 ,

Union County High School (UCHS) 5 1 7 University of South Florida at Tampa (USF-TA) 1 3 1 O University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire (UWEC) 6 1 1 TOTAL 124 88 806

1. School abbreviations in parenthesis can be used elsewhere in this report to determine appropriate user ,

O designations in the details of usage delineated in Table 3.

2. Usage is defined as utilization of the University of Florida Training Reactor facilities for all or any part of l a day with the average being over four (4) hours. In many cases, a school can have multiple usages but all )

related to the same research project or training program such as one project for Florida State University 1 that involved long term irradiations as did others such as for the Union County High School or the multiple l usage training programs conducted for Central Florida Community College students and Union County High

~O School students.

l III-51

O i

O TABLEIII-4 MONTIILY REACTOR ENERGY GENERATION' O (September,1992 - August,1993)

Energy Generation IIours at O Monthly Totals Monthly Ranking 2 KW-IIrs Full Power September, 1992 1 4,123.183 40.932 October, 1992 6 3,092.145 30.418 November,1992 7 2,552.437 25.284 December, 1992 9 2,525.046 24.751 O January,1993 11 2,015.167 19.499 February,1993 8 2,541.458 24.115 March,1993 3 3,519.577 31.817 .

April,1993 2 3,738.733 36.268 May,1993 5 3,151.575 30.950 June,1993 10 2,267.999 20.000 O July,1993 4 3,291.103 30.550 August,1993 12 1,124.141 10.799 YEARLY TOTAL 33,942.564 5 330.383 0 1. The yearly total energy generation of 33.94 Megawatt-hours for the 1992-1993 reporting year represents a significant 55.0% increase over the last year's total of 21.904 Megawatt-hours, while the 330.38 hours4.398148e-4 days 0.0106 hours 6.283069e-5 weeks 1.4459e-5 months at full power represent a similar 57.4% increase over the previous yearly total of 209.96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months . These values for the 1992-1993 reporting year are among the highest in recent years. Due to the lack oflarge outages, with only two outages being of any significant length,i.e.,a failed tach-generator on the diluting fan and a failed north core side thermocouple connection, facility availability was excellent for most of the year. With two mw seni r perat rs available for the fullyear and one acting as Reactor Manager, operations were much O

less constrained by operator availability,though a full-time Reactor Manager is still needed to assure full facilitycapability. With such an appointment made at year's end, the expectations are for still higher levels of operation and energy generation in the next year.

2. This column showing the ranking of monthly energy generation is included for potential correlation with results of environmental monitoring in Chapter VII.

O

3. 'Ibe 33,943kW-hrs energy generation is one of the highest values for the past decade, ranking fourth for this period and fifth for the last twenty-four years. This latter ranking shows how growth in usage has been greatest over the past decade.

O o III-52

O' TABLEIII-5 MONTIILY REACTOR USAGFJAVAILABILITY DATA

. O_

(September,1992 - August,1993)

Monthly Totals Key-On Time Exp. Time' Run Tirne: Availability' i

O September, 1992 63.60 hrs. 174.58 hrs. 58.57 hrs. 99.17 %

October,1992 46.50 hrs. 160.75 hrs. 43.07 hrs. 100.00 %

November,1992 38.70 hrs. 162.75 hrs. 31.97 hrs. 80.00 %

December, 1992 36.90 hrs. 167.25 hrs. 32.27 hrs. 76.61 %

January,1993 53.90 hrs. 151.50 hrs. 48.33 hrs. 87.10 %

February,1993 55.20 hrs. 189.42 hrs. 51.40 hrs. 100.00 %

O March,1993 66.70 hrs. 202.75 hrs. 60.92 hrs. 84.68 %

April,1993 55.20 hrs. 166.83 hrs. 49.78 hrs. 98.75 %

May,1993 51.30 hrs. 188.75 hrs. 47.02 hrs. 100.00 %

June,1993 75.10 hrs. 218.17 hrs. 65.57 hrs. 82.08 %

July,1993 65.20 hrs. 209.08 hrs. 59.37 hrs. 75.81 %

August,1993 41.80 hrs. 157.75 hrs. 37.65 hrs. 63.71 %

TOTALS 650.10 hrs. 2,149.58 hrs. 585.92 hrs. 87.33 %

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

2. The three categories of facilityusage data in this table show significantincreases over the previous year, especially those related to reactor operations. Key-on time is up 42.6 % while run time is similarly up nearly 46.5%,primarily due to increased availabilityof the reactor and the availabilityof two new senior reactor operators for the full year together with the continued growth of interest in the facility; experiment time is also increased by 13.5%, showing no great changes though the experiment time is much better used for research, training and education during this past year versus maintenance efforts.

O

3. Monthly Average availability is 87.33% as shown above. As in the previous year, this availability accounts for lost availability for administrative reasons as wellas for repair and maintenance related reasons. This unavailability has significant contributions due to administrative unavailability caused by unavailability of personnel (11.50 days or 3.15 %) with forced unavailability a. : .h 22.63 days or 6.20 %

and planned unavailability at only 12.63 days or 3.46%. On the basis of days of forced outage for the Q year, the forced unavailability is only 6.20% as indicated in Table III-6. The yearly availability has increased from the value of 72.68% in the last year to 87.19% for this reporting year though half of the unavailability is planned or administrative in nature in this year's total. Overall the availability represents a significant improvement of the average availability recorded for the last reporting year.

This is due to avoiding any long outages, though the outages for a failed north core side thermocouple connection and for replacement of a failed tach-generator on the diluting fan were significant in length l with the first over five days and the second the lengest for the year at almost eight days. Other than j these outages, the remainder of the year saw the usual variety of maintenance activities and equipment '

O failures in several systems including the nuclear instrumentation systems, the stack diluting fan system, the deep well pump, the blade position indicating system plus the radiation monitoring system.

O 111 53 l

l l

O TABLE III-6 UFTR AVAILABILITY SUhm1ARY (September,1992 - August,1993)

O Days Primary Cause of Month Availability Unavailable Lost Availability September, 1992 99.17 % 0.25 days Maintenance to adjust setpoints on

-O the stack radiation monitor plus maintenance to reterminate wiring to restore power to the auxiliary alarm panel stack alarm as well as repair the meter cover (1/4 day).

O' October,1992 100.00 % 0.00 days No lost availability.

November,1992 80.00 % 6.00 days Maintenance to check out and replace part of the deep well pump piping line that developed a hole o (1 1/2 days).

Maintenance to adjust two area monitors and the stack monitor, to replace the temperature recorder ink pads and to refill the primary O coolant storage tank (1/2 day).

Administrative shutdown for Thanksgiving Holiday (4 days).

December, 1992 76.61 % 7.25 days Maintenance to replace leaking O fittings on the shield tank demineralizer system and to refill the shield tank (1/4 day).

Administrative shutdown for Christmas Holidays (7 days). -

O January,1993 87.10 % 4.00 days Maintenance to reroute the cell air handling system condensate drain line to the holdup tanks and to relamp the reactor cell and replace several ballasts (3/4 day).

Maintenance to repair a small city water line leak (1/4 day). ;

i O

III-54 I

l

i O

TABLE III-6 UFfR AVAILABILITY

SUMMARY

l (September,1992 - August,1993)

O Days Primary Cause of Month Availability Unavailable Lost Availability Administrative shutdown for the O New Year Holiday.(3 days). ,

February,1993 100.00 % 0.00 days No lost availability. i March,1993 84.68 % 4.75 days Maintenance to repair the two-pen :

O recorder by replacing a chip (1/4 !

day). !

Maintenance to repair the :

regulating blade position indicator -

circuit (1/4 day).

O

, Maintenance to refill the primary ;

coolant storage tank and install a switchguard on the evacuation alarm manual switch (1/4 day).

i O Maintenance to adjust nuclear instrumentation and repair Safety Channel 1 for annual calibration (4 days).

April,1993 98.75 % 0.38 days Maintenance to decontaminate 'the 'l O pit, replace a broken rupture disk ,

and refill primary coolant storage l tank (1/4 day). ;

t Maintenance to replace the ink f o pads on the twelve-point .

temperature recorder (1/8 day). j May,1993 100.00 % 0.00 days No lost availability.

June,1993 82.08 % 5.38 days Maintenance to repair the Safety Channel 2 high voltage power .

O supply test module (21/2 days). !

i

O 111-5 5 ,

l l

l .. .-

O ;

TABLE III-6 UFTR AVAILABILITY

SUMMARY

(S Ptember,1992 - August,1993)

O Days Primary Cause of Month Availability Unavailable Lost Availability O Maintenance to clean contacts of linear (red) pen on two-pen recorder (1/4 day). .

Maintenance to replace failed Safety 1 control blade drive motor O (1 1/4 days).

Maintenance to repair Safety 3 control blade position indicator (5/8 day).

O Maintenance to install / replace suction breaker foot valve on the secondary water line (1/4 day).

Maintenance to ref.il the primary lant storage tank (1/4 day).

O Maintenance to adapt strip chart recorder for measuring control blade drop times (1/4 day).

O July,1993 75.81 % 7.50 days Maintenance to repair all blade position indicator (BPI) circuits and replace failing capacitors on the S-3 BPI (2 days).

Maintenance to evaluate and O isolate the failure of thermocouple point #4 and then allow the reactor to cool awaiting the start of shield unstacking with subsequent repair of the north core thermocouple system and O replacement of shielding (5 1/4 )

days).

l O 111 56 l

l

O TABLE III-6 UFTR AVAILABILITY

SUMMARY

(September,1992 - August,1993)

O .

1 Days Primary Cause of Month Availability Unavailable Qst Availability Maintenance to check out and O adjust the secondary well cooling scram device (1/4 day).

I ,

August,1993 63.71 % 11.25 days Maintenance to order, receive and

]

install a replacement tachometer- I generator to restore stack diluting 1 0 fan RPM indication (7 3/4 days).

Maintenance to remove shield tank pump / motor and replace it with an on-hand spare (2 days).

O Administrative shutdown for vacation (1 1/2 days).

TOTAL ANNUAL UNAVAILABILITY (Availability at 87.19%): 46.75 days = 12.81%

O

1. TOTAL FORCED UNAVAILABILITY: 22.63 days = 6.20%

2. TOTAL PLANNED UNAVAILABILITY: 12.63 days = 3.46%

3. TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE UNAVAILABILITY: 11.50 days = 3.15%

b'9 I E 1. This availability summary neglects all minor unavailability for periods smaller than one eighth day.

O In most cases these periods are for much Ir.ss than an hour as some minor problem is corrected, usually during or after a preoperational checkout. This availability summary also neglects unavailability for scheduled tests and surveillances except where noted when maintenance becomes necessary.

NOTE 2. The 46.75 days unavailability,were basically for forced outages (22.63 days,down from 72.25 days) and planned utages (12.63 days,up from 4.25 days) due to maintenance for repairs, delay awaiting O parts arrival, trip evaluations, etc.,plus an additional 11.50 days of administrative shutdown (down from 23.50 days) delineated in this table for holidays and associated personnel vacations or unavailability of management to approve operating where the reactor was or could have been made operational if needed.

NOTE 3. It should be noted that only Category 1 and 2 unavailability values were listed under repair and maintenance related (loss of reactor) unavailability prior to the 1991-1992 year. The total O unavailability in these categories is down considerably this year from the past two reporting years frotn 94.25 days (25.82 % unavailability) to 76.50 days (20.90 % unavailability) and now to 35.25 days (only 9.66% unavailability). The lost availability for administrative reasons has also dropped dramatically from the past two reporting years from 23.25 days to 23.50 days and now to only 11.50 days.

O III-57

O I l

l TABLE III-7A UNSCIIEDULED TRIPS g

During this reporting year, the UFTR experienced two unscheduled trips described below.

After three unscheduled trips occurred in the first three months of the 1989-1990 reporting year, none occurred during the 1990-1991 reporting year, and in the last reporting year, O 1991-1992, three unscheduled trips occurred in November,1991, December,1991 and May 1992. It is worth noting that in the current 1992-1993 reporting year, the first unscheduled trip occurred in March,1993,and was the first experienced in nearly ten months. As with two of the three trips in the 1991-1992 reporting year, one of this year's trips was due to an electrical transient while the other was due to inadvertent operator action as was the third trip in the 1991-1992 reporting year. Neither of this year's trips is considered to have O significantly affected reactor safety or the health and safety of UFTR personnel or the public. All safety systems responded properly for each trip and a full review was conducted prior to restart in each case with neither considered to be promptly reportable. It is also worth noting that the two trips described and evaluated in this table are the only trips for the current reporting year and neither is evaluated to be due to equipment failure.

Although a number of failed components were replaced to complement replacement of O degraded components along with preventive cleaning and repair of circuit connections in the 1989-1990 reporting year, as well as in the past three years, these efforts clearly have represented time well spent with no trips due to facility equipment failure in nearly four years.

Number Date Description of Occurrence

1. 10 Mar 93 On 10 March 1993, the SRO at the console turned his chair to observe the temperature and radiation monitoring panels during a reactor run for the annual nuclear instrument calibration (A-2 Surveillance). In so doing, at 1105 hours0.0128 days 0.307 hours 0.00183 weeks 4.204525e-4 months he inadvertently hit O the manual evacuation alarm switch resulting in a trip of the reactor due to the evacuation alarm initiating which secured the stack vent and dilute fans as the immediate cause of the trip or limiting safety system setting actuation. All safety and other systems responded properly with the reactor secured by the SRO at 1105 hours0.0128 days 0.307 hours 0.00183 weeks 4.204525e-4 months . Completion of UFTR Form SOP-06.A

.O (Unscheduled Reactor Trip Review and Evaluation) indicated the event was not reportable and only a daily checkout would be needed to perform a restart which was delayed to the next day since a lengthy run at full power was needed for the A-2 Surveillance. The subsequent daily checkout and restan were successful. Subsequently, under Maintenance Log Page (MLP)

.O #93-06, a switchguard was installed on the manual evacuation alarm switch to prevent future inadvertent trips due to evacuation alarm actuation. This event was evaluated to have negligible safety impact on the reactor and no radiological O 111-5 8

O TABLE III-7A l UNSCIIEDULED TRIPS !

o Number Date Description of Occurrence i safety consequences on reactor staff or members of the public. l Though not a promptly reportable event, this unscheduled trip was val ated as reportable in the annual report. -i O

2. 23 Aug 93 Following startup commenced at 1405 hours0.0163 days 0.39 hours 0.00232 weeks 5.346025e-4 months and operation for blade drops as part of the reactivity measurements for the S-2 Surveillance until 1550 hours0.0179 days 0.431 hours 0.00256 weeks 5.89775e-4 months , the reactor tripped due to an ,

electrical transient noted by lights dimming perceptibly.

Following completion of UFTR Form SOP-0.6A (Unscheduled O

Trip Review and Evaluation) and a successful daily checkout, ;

the reactor was declared ready for restart which was delayed ,

until August 24 since it was near the end of the workday. The ,

restart was observed by an SRO and was uneventful. Though I not promptly reportable, this unscheduled trip was evaluated as.

O reportable in the annual report. This event was also evaluated {

to have negligible impact on reactor safety and no effect on the !

health and safety of facility staff or the public. j l

}

O ,

i l

O

. 0.

i t

o i

~O Ill-59

l l

O TABLE III-7B l

SCIIEDULED TRIPS O

There were no scheduled 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 was anticipated that some training trips would be included in the ENU-5176L Reactor Operations Laboratory course offered during the reponing year to O 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, but this did not occur. It is expected these training trips may occur in the 1993-1994 reporting year. Such trips can also be used to provide training in control i room presence and awareness of changing conditions and responses in training UFTR O operator license candidates and may be utilized as time permits in the next reporting year.

Number Date Description of Occurrence lO O

O O

l o i 1" #

O

O TABLE III-8 LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRIENCES O

During this reporting year there were no events which are considered to have compromised reactor safety or the health and safety of the public. Several events classified as unusual occurrences are described below as they deviated from the normal functioning of the facility and are included here as the nost important such deviations for the reporting year.

O Unscheduled shutdowns are included here as well. Trips are not addressed here since they are included in Table III-7 along with corrective and preventive maintenance and surveillances implemented in response to the trips. Administratively there were no occurrences that were classified as abnormal occurrences and none were considered potential tech spec violations so none were promptly reportable for the first year in some O time. All of these occurrences involved some equipment failure or in one case poor radiological control practice by non-reactor facility personnel (occurrence #7). The most dgnificant occurrences actually were those associated with equipment failures (all except

7) that resulted in unscheduled shutdowns (occurrences #3, #4 and #5 (two)) or significant dose commitment for repair work in the core area (occurrence #6). In terms of effect, the most significant occurrence would be the failure of thermocouple system point #4 O ( curren e #6) because of dose commitment plus the series of three failures of Safety Blade #3 and other blade position indicators resulting in two unscheduled shutdowns (occurrence #5). Overall, none of these eight unusual occurrences is considered to have had significant impact o.n the safety of the reactor or on the health and safety of the public.

In addition, all have been reviewed to assure adequate consideration of their effects with none officially reported promptly to the NRC though all were reported in periodic updates o to Region II.

Number Date Description of Occurrence

1. 2 Nov 92 After a successful daily checkout the LOW FLOW well warning light was noted to be lit prior to reactor startup for O a low power operation. This operation was completed since secondary coolant was not needed for operation below I kW. Subsequently, under Maintenance Log Page (MLP) #92-38, the secondary flow indicator meter was checked and found to be operating properly so Hare Well O Drilling, Inc. was contacted. After removing the well pipe, a hole was noted in one piece of piping which was replaced l

to correct the problem of low flow. After reassembly of l the secondary coolant well piping system, the flow was checked and temperatures during a full power operation on 4 November 1992 were used to verify proper flow and secondary coolant system operations with no further !

O problems noted. This event was evaluated to have negligible impact on reactor safety and no effect on the health and safety of facility staff or the public.

l 0 l III-61 .

_ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - . - - - - ^ - -

O TABLE III-8 1

O OF MSUAL OCCURRKES I Number Date Description of Occurrence

2. 14 Apr 93 At 1550 hours0.0179 days 0.431 hours 0.00256 weeks 5.89775e-4 months on 14 April 1993, early in Reactor O Operations Laboratory Exercise #11, while securing the primary coolant pump per procedure to demonstrate the demineralizer pump interlock with the primary coolant pump, the pit alarm sounded. The primary coolant pump was immediately secured since it was suspected that the rupture disk had broken; the Facility Director and O Radiation Control Officer were also notified. Upon opening the equipment pit, it was found that the rupture disk had indeed broken, apparently from normal operational activity. Under MLP #93-12, the water in the pit (about 60 gallons) was sampled and transferred to the holdup tanks. Subsequently the pit was decontaminated O and verified to be decontaminated with the rupture disk ,

replaced with an in stock spare. At 1733 hours0.0201 days 0.481 hours 0.00287 weeks 6.594065e-4 months the dump valve was closed, the primary coolant pump turned on and the system verified to be restored to normal. Subsequently, fifty gallons of demineralized water were added to the coolant storage tank to restore the level to normal at 24.0 O inches with no further problems noted. A second check for leaks conducted on the morning of 15 April 1993 also showed system operation to be normal with no leakage.

This event was evaluated to have negligible impact on reactor safety and no effect on the health and safety of O f cility staff or the public.

3. 11 Jun 93 Following startup at 0750 hours0.00868 days 0.208 hours 0.00124 weeks 2.85375e-4 months and operation at 1.4 kW power level for neutron transmission tests on boraflex absorber coupons, at the south beam port starting at 0807 hours0.00934 days 0.224 hours 0.00133 weeks 3.070635e-4 months , the linear (red) pen was noted to be nonresponding O at 1028 hours0.0119 days 0.286 hours 0.0017 weeks 3.91154e-4 months with an unscheduled shutdown completed at 1029 hours0.0119 days 0.286 hours 0.0017 weeks 3.915345e-4 months . Under MLP #93-19 the contacts on the linear channel of the two-pen recorder were cleaned and the system checked out and returned to service with no further problems noted after completion of UFTR Form SOP-D.6B (Unscheduled Shutdown Review and Evaluation).

O This event was evaluated to have no impact on reactor safety or the health and safety of facility staff or the public.

4. 16 Jun 93 Following a startup beginning at 0840 hours0.00972 days 0.233 hours 0.00139 weeks 3.1962e-4 months , the reactor

. was at 500 watts on a positive period at 0904 hours0.0105 days 0.251 hours 0.00149 weeks 3.43972e-4 months when O

III-62 ;

O l

i l

TABLEIII-8 LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES i O j Number Date Description of Occurrence the temperature recorder stopped. An unscheduled ;

5 ut Wn was gun prompdy and me reactor was secured O

at 0906 hours0.0105 days 0.252 hours 0.0015 weeks 3.44733e-4 months . During the shutdown the temperature recorder was made to function by the manual switch on the unit. Subsequently, UFTR Form SOP-0.6B (Unscheduled Shutdown Review and Evaluation) was completed. Under MLP #93-23 the magnet power off/on switch was serviced O to repair electrical contact to restore proper automatic operation of the temperature recorder with operation of the console key with no further problems noted. This event was evaluated to have no impact on reactor safety or the health and safety of facility staff or the public.

O 5. 6 Jul 93 Following discovery of erratic behavior of the Safety-3 Blade Position Indicator (BPI) at the beginning of the dav.

MLP #93-26 was opened to control cleaning of cordus.

After completing repairs and verifying propec hPJ operation, MLP #93-26 was closed. Subsequently, af:er *.

successful daily checkout and after reaching the 1 watt ,

O power level, an unscheduled shutdown was requireu in response to recurrence of erratic behavior in the S-3 control blade BPI. After completing UFTR Form SOP-0.6B(Unscheduled Shutdown Review and Evaluation) and l reopening MLP #93-26, the S-3 BPI module was removed to the electronics bench where additional cleaning of O

contacts and circuit checks were completed to assure proper S-3 BPI response. Subsequently, on 13 July 1993, following a successful daily checkout and over five hours of operation, the behavior of the S-3 BPI was again noted to be erratic resulting in a second unscheduled shutdown.

O After shutdown, the S-1 and S-3 BPIs were both noted to be indicating erratically. Again UFTR Form SOP-0.6B (Unscheduled Shutdown Review and Evaluation) was completed. Subsequently, under MLP #93-29, all four BPI ;

modules were removed from the console and subjected to extensive cleaning and resoldering of alljoints and contacts with the failing +15V and -15V capacitors on the S-3 BPI i O

module replaced to restore reliable indication for all four '

BPIs but especially for the S-3 BPI with no further :

problems noted. Though not promptly reportable, these I events were communicated to NRC Region II Inspector

'O III-63 ,

l l

O TABLE IH-8 LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES O

Number Date Description of Occurrence Craig Bassett on 2 August 1993. These events were also O evaluated to have negligible impact on reactor safety or the health and safety of facility staff or the public. However, 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation Number 93-06 to control conversion of the blade position indicator circuits from nixie tubes to light emitting diodes (LEDs) was completed in July with plans in place to make this conversion in the O near future to prc, vide better long term reliability for the blade position indicators.

6. 7 Jul 93 During a daily checkout the temperature indicator forpoint

4 (northwest fuel box exit line) was noted to be pegged downscale. Under MLP #93-27 the circuit failure was O traced to the core area. Subsequently, under MLP #93-27 and RWP 93-1-I,the core shielding was unstacked and all thermocouples on the north side of the core were reterminated with fresh wiring connections for new wire running from the equipment pit to the core area to restore proper response of the temperature recorder. Following O replacement of core shielding, decontamination and cleanup plus completion of contamination and radiation surveys in steps up to full power, the reactor was returned to service with no further problems noted. With completion of these new thermocouple connections on the O three fuel box lines on the north side of the core back to the connection box in the equipment pit to complement the three connections made on the south side of the core in August,1992, it is expected that further repairs of this system should not be required prior to implementation of the HEU-to-LEU fuel conversion when quick disconnects

'O will be installed on all thermocouple connections in the high radiation areas of the core environment. Though not promptly reportable and also discovered during a checkout, this event was communicated to Region IIInspector Craig Bassett on 2 August 1993 and with plans to have it included in the annual report. This event was also O evaluated to have negligible impact on reactor safety or the health and safety of facility staff or the public, though significant dose commitment was necessary for two staff personnel during the repair operation.

O III 64

LO TABLEIH-8 LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES O

Number Date Description of Occurrence

7. 22 Jul 93 Two of four weekly water samples showed higher than o normal levels for this week. Subsequent analysis showed the PC coolant and the secondary heat exchanger samples to have identifiable Cs-137 peaks. All other indications were normal so fuel failure was eliminated as a possibility, especially by the lack of a secondary sample indication with some kind of sample cross contamination considered likely.

O Subsequently, investigations showed that the hot plates used for sample evaporation had been used by a student from the Environmental Health and Safety Office to evaporate a nanocurie quantity of Cs-137 in a liquid sample with subsequent cleaning of the plates inadequate to assure removal of all contamination. This event was not O considered promptly reportable but was evaluated to note that it demonstrates that the weekly survey performed at the UFTR was adequate to identify potential contamination problems which was well handled in isolating the source of the problem with one corrective aClion implemented to use a lighter grease on the hot plates for easier cleaning to reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of such a cross contamination problem in the future. This event was evaluated to have no impact on reactor safety or the health and safety of facility staff or the public.

O

8. 5 Aug 93 During the daily checkout, the stack dilution fan RPM indication required in the control room as a limiting condition for operation was noted to be lost. Under MLP

93-31 the problem was traced to a failed tachometer-generator in the - indicating circuit. An identical O- replacement was located and ordered on 6 August 1993.

After arrival on 9 August 1993, the replacement tach-generator was installed and verified by Physical Plant Division personnel on 13 August 1993 to be indicating RPM properly in the control room with MLP #93-31 closed out on 14 August 1993. This event was evaluated to

'O- have negligible impact on reactor safety or the health and safety of facility staff or the public.

O III-65

O IV. MODIFICATIONS TO TIIE OPERATING CIIARACTERISTICS OR CAPABILITIES OF TIIE UFTR O

A number of modifications and/or changes in conditions were made to the operating characteristics or capabilities of the UFTR and directly related facilities during the 1992-1993 reporting period. These modi 5 cations and/or changes in conditions were all subjected to 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations and then determinations (as necessary) to assure that no unreviewed O safety questions were involved.

Carried over from the 1984-1985 Reporting Year:

(Modi 5 cation 7: Addition of Secondary Water Flow Sensors (Rotameters)

O Carried over from the 1987-1988 Reporting Year:

(Modification 88-24: Installation of Optically Coupled Tachometer for Redundant Stack RPM Indication)

Carried over from the 1991-1992 Reporting Year:

O (Modi 5 cation 92-04: Installation of New Manometers on Core Vent System)

(Modi 5 cation 92-06: Modification to the UFTR Thermocouple System: Implementation of Terminal Strips and Quick Disconnects)

O

1. Modification to UFTR Thermocouple System: Implementation of Terminal Strips and Ouick Disconnects (Permanent - Open Item).

(Modi 5 cation 92-06: Evaluation Completed 17 August 1992)

.O This 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation was generated to address installation of a barrier strip in the equipment pit for the core area thermocouple leads and to replace all six (6) core area thermocouples with quick disconnect leads and then install quick disconnect leads on all six lines in the interest of ALARA to minimize dose commitments for periodic repairs required to this temperature monitoring system in the core area. Under MLP #92-24 :

.O (Failure of Thermocouple #2), RWP #92-2-I and 10 CFR 50.59 #92-06, a terminal barrier strip was installed in the equipment pit and new wire was run to the core where all three south thermocouples (#1,2 and 3) were reconnected. Under MLP #93-27 (Failure of Thermocouple #4), RWP #93-1-I and 10 CFR 50.59 #92-06, new wire was run for the remaining thermocouples (#4, #5 and #6). Quick disconnect thermocouples ,

were not used m either case since the existing thermocouples were left in place. Plans l

O are to eventually to replace all six (6) core area thermocouples with quick disconnect leads and then install quick disconnect leads on all six lines to minimize future dose i

commitments for repairs to this temperature monitoring system in the core area. In addition, it is planned to add an additional quick disconnect to the line below the core

O iy_1

O-to limit flux exposure that embrittles the wire and allow for rapid, low personnel exposure replacement of the embrittled core area thermocouple wiring. Current plans O are to implement the remainder of these modifications under 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation

92-06 when the core is unloaded for the HEU to LEU conversion unless other failures necessitate earlier implementation.

Controlling Documents: Maintenance Log Page #93-27 (Closed: 14 July 1993)

Maintenance Log Page #92-24 (Closed: 21 August O 1992)

Radiation Work Permit #93-1-I Radiation Work Permit #92-2-1 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation #92-06

2. Repl cement of Security System Motion Detector Batteries (Permanent - Closed Item).

O (Modification 92-07: Evaluation completed 10 December 1992)

This 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation was generated to address the replacement of the UFTR O Security System motion detector backup batteries with batteries of the same rating but with a different shape.

The UFTR Security System Motion Detectors have individual backup battery power supplies mounted to the detector frame. New batteries were procured to replace the aging system batteries, but the batteries originally installed in the system were ovular, O while the new batteries, although the same rating, were rectangular. New r_ectangular brackets were designed and obtained from the UF Machine Shop. Under MLP #92-37, the old brackets were removed and replaced with the new brackets on 12 December 1992. Proper operation of the system was also verified under MLP #92-37 with no further problems noted.

O Controlling Documents: Maintenance Log Page #93-37 (Closed 12 December 1992) 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 92-07 i

3. A/C Condensate Drain Line Rerouting (Permanent - Closed Item).

f (Modification 93-01: Evaluation completed 21 January 1993)

O This 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation was generated to address the rerouting of the Reactor Cell Air Conditioning System condensate drain line from the external UF sewer facilities to the UFTR Waste Holdup Tanks. On 25 August 1992, UF Physical Plant workers determined via ink testing that the UFTR A/C condennte drained into the UF sanitary sewer system. The Facility Director and Radiation Control Officer determined this to O be a potential pathway for contamination should a high airborne condition arise in the UFTR Reactor Cell. Under MLP #92-31, UF Physical Plant was contracted to' install an alternate drain line to the UFTR Waste Holdup Tanks. On 13 January 1993, UF Physical Plant workers installed a drain line to the discharge sink in the northwest corner O IV-2

O of the Reactor Cell. The former drain line to the UF sanitary sewer was cut and capped inside the Reactor Cell. Proper condensate flow was verified with no further problems ;

O noted. ;

Controlling Documents: Maintenance Log Page #92-31 (Closed 14 January 1993) 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 93-01

4. Reolacement of Linear Amolifier in Safety Channel One (Permanent - Closed Item).

~ ~ ~

O (Modification Number 93-02: Evaluation Completed 11 March 1993)

This 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation was generated to address the replacement of the Linear Amplifier in the Offset Adjust Circuit in Safety Channel One. On 9 March 1993 during the Annual Calorimetric Calibration procedure (A-2 Surveillance), the offset voltage for O Safety Channel One was found to exceed the maximum voltage. The Linear Amplifier in the circuit was found to be faulty, but the component designation from the manufacturer's specifications had been discontinued several years before. A design engineer from General Atomics stated that the installed Linear Amplifier was the best available when the console was designed. A modern generic type UA-741 Linear O Amplifier would exceed the standards used for the original circuit design. Subsequently, under MLP #93-04 a type UA-741 Linear Amplifier was installed and voltages retested satisfactorily with no further problems noted.

Controlling Documents: Maintenance Log Page #93-04 (Closed: 9 March 1993) 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 93-02 0

5. Temporarv Removal of Smoke Detector in Reactor Manager's Office (Temporary -

Closed Item).

(Modification Number 93-03: Evaluation Completed 10 June 1993).

O This 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation was generated to address the temporary removal of the smoke detector in the Reactor Manager's Office. After several false alarms on the UFTR Fire Alarm System, Physical Plant personnel determined the fault was in the smoke detector in the Reactor Manager's office. Because that model of detector is not stocked by Physical Plant, the smoke detector had to be removed for an extended period of time while P. new detector could be ordered. Since the zone had other fire sensors, O the Safety Analysis Report would allow the detector to be removed while still maintaining adequate zone coverage.

Controlling Documents: 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 93-03 (Closed: 10 June 1993)

O O IV-3

O

6. Temocrary Replacement of Resistor in Safety Channel 2 High Voltage Test Module with Different Rated Resistor (Temporary - Closed Item).

O (Modification Number 93-04: Evaluation Completed 10 June 1993).

This 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation was generated to address the temporary replacement of a resistor in the Safety Channel Two High Voltage Test Module with a resistor of differmt ratings.

O On June 7,1993, the Safety Channel 2 High Voltage Power Supply Test Switch was found not functioning properly during the quarterly scram checks (Q-1 Surveillance).

This malfunction was noted not to impact the scram circuitry itself. Under MLP #93-18, the circuit for the 90% reduction value which initiates a trip was found to have a resistor with approximately one-half of the rated value. Because there was no stocked spare for O this resistor, a supplier was located and the resistor ordered. Since this circuit was designed in-house, the resistor had a power rating of 1 watt, a significant level above the necessary threshold for sustained operation. For testing purposes, a % watt resistor was installed temporarily. The circuit was verified to operate correctly with no further problems. When the 1 watt resistor arrived, the % watt resistor was removed and replaced with the 1 watt resistor. The UFTR Quarterly Scram Checks (Q-1 surveillance)

O and a Daily Check were completed with no further problems noted.

Controlling Documents: Maintenance Log Page #93-18 (Closed 9 June 1993) 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation No. 93-04 O

O O

=0 0 IV-4

O V. SIGNIFICANT MAINTENANCE, TESTS AND SURVEILLANCES OF UFTR REACTORSYSTEMS AND FACILITIES O

A review of records for the 1984-1985 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 1085-1986 reporting year was even more extensive as the problem of a sticking safety blade (S-3) recurred on O September 3,1985.The recurrence necessarily demanded a detailed and complete check of all control blade drive systems to determine finally and correct the cause of the sticking blade internal to the biological shield with the 1986-1987 reporting year involving relatively little maintenance and no large maintenance projects.

For the 1987-1988 reporting year, there were two dominant though manageable O maintenance projects. The first large scale maintenance project during the 1987-1988 reporting year involved an extensive effort to clean the control blade drive motor gear assemblies to free them of hardened grease and replace worn bearings. The second large scale project involved 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). This was the largest maintenance effort since O the control blade drive system maintenance performed internal to the biological shield in the 1985-1986 reporting year. The 79.2% availability for the 1987-1988 year indicated more or less routine maintenance and surveillance checks and tests throughout the year except for the two large projects cited above.

For 1988-1989, the availability was up to 87.67%. Of the 45 equivalent full days of O unavailability, only 28.25 days were actually due to forced unavailability primarily due to corrective maintenance for repairs. There was no single project dominating unavailability, though multiple maintenance tasks on the two-pen recorder and on the Radiation Monitoring System clearly warranted consideration of replacing these items when funds could be made available.

Maintenance efforts in the 1989-90 reporting year increased again so that total availability for the year was only 68.84%. Especially significant efforts were devoted to checks, repairs, surveillances and other maintenance activities connected with the biennial i fuel inspection resulting in a two-month outage, part of which was due to the final failure and subsequent replacement of the 2-pen log / linear recorder. Though no other single O maintenance effort was really large, there was considerable effort devoted to Safety Channel and other control and reactor protection system-related repairs during the year both for repairs following trips or other failures and for preventive maintenance. Certainly, the 113.75 total days unavailability (31.16% unavailability) was one of the poorer records in l recent years. l O Although availability in the 1990-1991 reporting year was not as high as hoped, it was greatly improved as there were 93 days forced unavailability,1% days planned unavailability and 23% days of administrative shutdown. Primary sources of forced outage time were replacement of seals and connectors on the primary coolant system and extensive O V-1

O l maintenance performed to complete the nuclear instrumentation calibration. These values ;

were somewhat elevated, especially administrative shutdown time, by the lack of a full-time ;

O Reactor Manager and lack of replacement part inventory along with a shortage oflicensed :

personnel, especially senior reactor operators over the last six months of the year.

Although no permanent Reactor Manager was able to be hired in the 1991-1992 reporting year, two new part-time student senior reactor operators (SROs) were licensed and certified on October 17,1992. Although availability in the 1991-1992 reporting year was not O as high as had been hoped, availability was again improved significantly as there were only ,

72.25 days forced unavailability, 4.25 days planned unavailability and 23.50 days of administrative shutdown. The 76% days total unavailability (20.90% unavailability) for maintenance is approximately average for the past decade. Again, these values for unavailability were elevated by the lack of a full-time Reactor Manager, especially early in the reporting year before certification of the two new SROs. With the appointment of a O part-time Acting Reactor Manager on At. gust 11,1992, this situation improved in the next reporting year.

Although there were no large maintenance projects for the 1991-1992 year, several '

major projects contributed to forced unavailability. First, and most significantly, two failures f the thermocouple connections to the south center fuel box were responsible for over 31 O

days of forced unavailability. Similarly, various failures related to the nuclear instrumentation system, including Safety Channel 2 trip indication, Safety Channel 2 meter circuit, Safety Channel 1 +15 volt and high voltage power supplies and the control blade position indicating circuits as well as replacement of bearings and pillow blocks for the stack diluting fan and the motor on the deep well pump were responsible for significant amounts O of forced unavailability. As is indicated, these four areas account for most of the forced unavailability for the 1991-1992 reporting year with the failed thermocouple connections and the safety channels meriting the most concern for preventive maintenance.

Although a permanent Reactor Manager was not hired until July,1993, the availability of part-time operators was good throughout the 1992-1993 reporting year.

O Availability in the 1992-1993 reporting year returned to a high level as there were only 22.63 days forced unavailability,12.63 days planned unavailability and 11.50 days of administrative shutdown. The 35.25 days total unavailability (9.66% unaveilability) for maintenance is one of the best in ten years. With appointment of a full-time Reactor Manager in July,1993 it is hoped this situation can be improved even further in the next year though much will depend on support for part-time personnel. Significant sources of forced unavailability for O the 1992-1993 reporting year were repair of deep well pump piping, adjustment and repair of Safety Channel 1 during the annual calibration and repair of the north side core area

thermocouple connections and replacement of wiring following failure of temperature point

4 plus repeated small outages and several unscheduled shutdowns due to failures of the control blade position indicators / indicator circuits with an effort planned to replace these nixie tube systems in the next reporting year. j O

In the tables that follow,all significant maintenance, tests and surveillances of UFTR reactor systems and facilities are tabulated and briefly described in chronological order; these tabulations also include administrative checks. Table V-1 contains r.ll regularly O V-2

'O scheduled surveillances, tests or other checks and maintenance required by the Technical Specifications, NRC commitments, UFTR Standard Operating Procedures, or other O 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 C mPonent or to prevent a failure of a degraded system or component is presented in Table O

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 can be associated with surveillances, checks or test items listed in Table V-1 since some of these scheduled surveillances are also required to be performed on a system after the system O undergoes maintenance. For example, when the area monitor check sources or detectors are the subject of preventive or corrective maintenance as listed in Table V-2, the Q-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 control system, various surveillances such as drive time and drop time measurements must be performed satisfactorily before the reactor can return to normal operations.

O In Table V-2 the first date for each entry is the date when the Maintenance Log Page (MLP) was opened; in a few cases, this date may be one or more days after the original problem was noted. The date for work completion and the MLP number are included at the end of the maintenance description. As a result, in some years the first items listed in Table V-2 can have a starting date prior to the beginning of the current reporting year as O the maintenance could be completed in a subsequent reporting year. This is the case for the first six entries in Table V-2 which involved maintenance in progress at the end of the 1991-1992 reporting year; indeed the first item was opened during the 1990-1991 reporting year as MLP #91-43 was used to control cell preservation activities until October,1992.

Five of these six entries were closed out during the current 1992-1993 reporting year but MLP #92-22 is still not closed out as work is nearing completion to implement an optical O

tachometer for the stack diluting fan RPM indication. l Similarly, four maintenance log pages remain open at the end of the current reporting year: MLP #92-22 opened on June 29,1992 to control installation of an optical tachometer for the stack dilute fan rpm indicator will be closed as soon as the installed O system is made operational as efforts continue to have the optical tachometer available to j eliminate reliance solely on a mechanical tach-generator as a limiting condition for j operation; MLP #93-10 opened on April 5,1993 to control installation of the new l temperature recorder; MLP #93-32 to control installation of readily visible, permanent l radiation warning / restriction signs on the roof of Building #557; and MLP #93-33 to control converting the fire alarm smoke detector system from 115 Vac to 24 V battery power. It is expected that MLP #93-10 will be open for some time as implementation of O the new temperature recorder is a major modification. However, the other three !

maintenance log pages should all be closed out relatively early in the new reporting year.

O V-3

O TABLE V-1 O CHRONOLOGICALTABULATIONAND DESCRIPTION OF SCHEDULED UFFR SURVEILLANCES, CHECKS AND TESTS Dr.te Surveillance / Check / Test Description 0 Measurement of Argon-41 Stack Concentration (Includes 18 Dece.mber 92 S-4 Measurement of Dilution Air Flow Rate).

22 December 92 S-9 Semiannual Replacement of Well Pump Fuses.

23 December 92 Q-7 Quarterly Check of UFTR Building Fire Alarm System (Zone 4 - Reactor Building Annex).

O 23 December 92 Q-1 Quarterly Check of Scram Functions.

6 January 93 Q-8 Quarterly Report of Safeguards Events (No Events).

11 January 93 Q-6 Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements.

11 January 93 S-12 Semiannual Review ofRequalification Training Program Binders.

O 25/31 January 93 S-10 Emergency Call List Check (Partial Update).

31 January 93 Q-6 Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements. ,

11 February 93 Q-2 Quarterly Calibration Check of Area and Stack Radiation Monitors.

25 February 93 A-1 Instrument and Test Equipment Calibration (Shipment O of Keithley 197A and Beckman 4410).

2 March 93 A-1 Instrument and Test Equipment Calibration (Completed).

4 March 93 Q-5 Quarterly Radiological Survey of Restricted Areas.

6-12 March 93 A-2 UFFR Nuclear Instrumentation Calibration Check and Calorimetric Heat Balance. 1 0 10-11 March 93 Quarterly Radiological Survey of Unrestricted Areas.

Q-4 12 March 93 Q-10 Quarterly Check of Air Handler Condensate for Contamination.

16 March 93 Q-9 Quarterly Calibration Check of Air Particulate Detector.

17 March 93 Q-7 Quarterly Check of UFTR Building Fire Alarm System j O (Zone 1 - UFTR Control Room and Reactor Cell).

17 March 93 A-4 Annual Check / Replacement of Fire Alarm Monitoring Station Batteries.

2/5 April 93 S-6 UFTR/UFSA Semiannual Security Plan Key Inventory.

5 April 93 S-3 Semiannual Inventory of Special Nuclear Material.

^P O~ 0"*# Y *E 'I * "E" * #"

O 8 April 93 Quarterly Radiological Emergency Evacuation Drill.

Q-3 l 16 April 93 Q-1 Quarterly Check of Scram Functions.

30 April 93 S-8 Semiannual Leak Check of Neutron (PuBe/SbBe) i Sources.

O V-5

O TABLE V-1 O CllRONOLOGICALTABULATION AND DESCRIIrrION OF SCHEDULED UFTR SURVEILLANCES, CHECKS AND TESTS Date Surveillance / Check / Test Description 3 September 92 Q-9 Quarterly Calibration Check of Air Particulate Detector.

O 8 September 92 Q-7 Quarterly Check of UFTR Building Fire Alarm System (Zone 3 - Upstairs Offices and 12boratory).

10 September 92 Q-2 Calibration Check of Area and Stack Radiation Monitors.

15 September 92 Q-1 Quarterly Check of Scram Functions.

O 21/26 September 92 S-10 Emergency Call List Check (Extra Due to HRS Letter).

24/25 September 92 Q-4 Quarterly Radiological Survey of Unrestricted Areas.

26 September 92 Q-6 Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements.

29 September 92 A-3 Annual Measurement ofUFTR Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity.

O 3/5 October 92 A-3 Annual Measurement of UFTR Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity (Complete Graphs and Data Reduction).

6 October 92 Q-8 Quarterly Report of Safeguards Events.

6 October 92 S-3 Semiannual Inventory of Special Nuclear Material.

6/7 October 92 S-6 Semiannual Security Plan Key Inventory for UFTR and UFSA.

O 13 November 92 Q-10 Quarterly Check of Air Handler Condensate for Contamination.

24 November 92 S-1 Measurement 'of Control Blade Drop Times.

24 November 92 S-5 Measurement of Control Blade Controlled Insertion Times.

O of Control Blade Clutch 24 November 92 S-11 Semiannual Replacement Current Light Bulbs.

1 December 92 Q-10 Quarterly Check of Air Handler Condensate for Contamination.

O 1/16 December 92 Q-4 Quarterly Radiological Survey of Unrestricted Areas.

1/16 December 92 Q-5 Quarterly Radiological Survey of Restricted Areas.

4 December 92 S-7 Semiannual Check (Replacement) of Security System Batteries.

4-8 December 92 S-10 Emergency Call List Check.

8 December 92 Q-9 Quarterly Calibration Check of Air Particulate Detector.

em er 9 Qumer y a g Emergency Evacuadon M as

'O 12rge Annual Drill Involving Outside Agencies.

16 December 92 Q-10 Quarterly Check of Air Handler Condensate for i Contamination (Repeated).

O y_4 i

i

O TABLE V-1 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATION AND DESCRIITION OF SCIIEDULED UFTR SURVEILLANCES,CIIECKS AND TESTS i

Date Surveillance / Check / Test Description O 10/14 May 93 Q-5 Quarterly Radiological Survey of RestriM Areas.

14 May 93 Q-2 Quarterly Calibration Check of Area and Stack Radiation Monitors.

21 May 93 Q-4 Quarterly Radiological Survey of Unrestricted Areas. .

22 May 93 Q-6 Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements.

Y

~

"*# Y * '* * * ^ ^ "# " ""**

O for Contamination.

9 June 93 Q-1 Quarterly Check of Scram Functions.

13-30 June 93 B-4 Biennial Evaluation of UFTR Standard Operating Procedures (Partial).

O 15 June 93 S-1 Measurement of Control Blade Drop Times.

15 June 93 S-5 Measurement of Control Blade Controlled Insertion Times.

15 June 93 S-11 Semiannual Replacement of Control Blade Clutch -

Current Bulbs.

17 June 93 Q-9 Quarterly Calibration Check of Air Particulate Detector.

O 17 June 93 S-7 Semiannual Check (Replacement) of Security System Batteries.

2-31 July 93 B-4 Biennial Evaluation of UFTR Standard Operating Procedures (Completed). .

6 July 93 Q-8 Quarterly Report of Safeguards Events. t O 7/31 July 93 S-10 Check and Update of Emergency Call Lists.

9 July 93 Q-7 Quarterly Check of UITR Building Fire Alarm System (Zone 2 - Downstairs Offices and I2boratories).

12 July 93 Q-3 Quarterly Radiological Emergency Evacuation Drill.

20 July 93 S-4 Measurement of Argon-41 Stack Concentration (Includes Measurement of Dilution Air Flow Rate - Previously O

A-2 Surveillance). l 26 July 93 S-9 Semiannual Replacement of Well Pump Fuses.

26/27 July 93 S-12 Semiannual Review ofRequalification Training Program Binders.

28 July 93 A-5 Annual Update of UFTR Decommissioning Cost Estimate.

LO 31 July 93 Q-6 Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements.

.O V-6 l

O TABLE V-1 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SCIIEDULED UITR SURVEILLANCES,CIIECKS AND TESTS Date Surveillance / Check / Test Description O 4 August 93 Q-6 Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements (Partial).

16 August 93 Q-2 Quarterly Calibration Check of Area and Stack Radiation Monitors.

16 August 93 Q-10 Quarterly Calibration Check of Air Handler Condensate for Contamination.

23-31 August 93 S-2 Annual Reactivity Measurements (Worth of Control O Blades, Total Excess Reactivity, Reactivity Insertion Rate and Shutdown Margin).

Note: An asterisk on the surveillance tracking designation is used to indicate surveillance was not completed within the allowable interval resulting in reactor unavailability for O n rmal operations; none occurred in the current reporting year.

All required UFTR surveillances, checks and tests are up-to-date at the end of the reporting year. Though the following three surveillances were due in August,1993 and were carried over to the new year, they are all within the allowable interval and were subsequently completed within that interval:

O Q Quarterly Radiological Survey of Unrestricted Areas (Due 21 August 1993).

Q Quarterly Radiological Survey of Restricted Areas (Due 10 August 1993).

Q Quarterly Calibration Check of Air Particulate Detector (Due 31 August 1993).

O i

O O

O y_7

O TABLE V-2 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAIhTENANCE Date Maintenance Description O 7 August 1991 Following discussions and evaluations of how best to improve reactor cell appearance and preserve service, MLP #91-43 was utilized to control and document various cell preservation activities to include cleaning, scraping, servicing and painting the equipment pit and various other reactor structure, shielding and floor surfaces. Work in the O equipment pit and on the pit shield blocks was completed in August, 1991,with various other efforts started. During September, the reactor shield structure and various floor surfaces were prepared and painted with additional coatings to be applied. During October, additional shield structure and floor surfaces were painted. During November, 1991 this work was continued to include painting the control blade O drive pedestals. During May,1992 this work was continued in the northwest corner and along the west wall of the reactor cell with scraping and painting of the floor along the wall. In October,1992, the east and south reactor structure walls were painted to restore the structure appearance following the unstacking and other work conducted in August,1992 with no further work planned in the near O future (20 Oct 92, MLP #91-43).

17 September 1991 During the weekly checkout, the shield tank demineralizer system pump was noted to be excessively noisy, probably due to a bisde hitting the housing, though it was operating properly. Under MLP

91-52, a spare identical pump was taken from storage and O transported to Gainesville Electric Motor Repair, Inc. for overhaul and repair to include replacement of seals. The pump repair was unsuccessful as the first set of seals delivered were incorrect.

Alternatives such as obtaining a new pump / motor assembly were investigated. During January,1992, some used seals were located and taken to Gainesville Electric Motor Repair and were installed in this O

pump. After repair and overhaul this spare pump was returned to inventory in January,1992; in October,1992, an electric plug was !

installed on the pump in preparation for installing the replacement l shield water pump in the demineralizer system. On August 10,1993 i the noisy pump was finally removed from the shield tank demineralizer system and replaced with the spare and the circuit was verified to be O leak tight with a successful operations test conducted on August 11, 1 1993 (14 Aug 93, MLP #91-52). l 1

O V.8 1

.O TABLE V-2 o CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFI'R PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description O 29 June 1992 Installation of an optical tachometer to operate in parallel with the mechanical tachometer to monitor the vent diluting fan motor shaft was approved as a modification via 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation and Determination No. 88-24. During June, 1992 a bracket was manufactured to support the tachometer in the dilute fan room but was not installed. However, MLP #92-22 was opened on June 29, O

1992 to control installation of the optical tachometer monitoring meter in the temperature recorder console in the control room; during July, the bracket to hold the optical tachometer was redesigned, manufactured and installed on the stack wall. At the beginning of August,1992 it only remained to install the optical tachometer and Connecting lines. After July,1992 there was no additional work

. performed until May,1993 when work involved tracing wires from the diluting fan room in preparation for connecting the optical tachometer.

During June,1993 tracing of wires was completed, the wires were run and hooked up electrically but not yet indicating. Subsequent efforts have not yet resolved the problem. At reporting year's end, it only O remained to get the optical tachometer operating and then to operate both in series for some time prior to requesting a license amendment as necessary to allow use of one or the other to meet monitoring requirements and hence reduce outage time due to tachometer failure (MLP #92-22 remains open).

O 25 August 1992 During an ink test to determine the flow path / direction for water draining from the reactor cell air handler condensate line, the route was determined to be the more restrictive flow to the storm sewer manhole in the Journalism Lot. Therefore, MLP #92-31 was opened with MWO #92-5761 issued by work management to control work for rerouting the line to the reactor holdup tanks. The cost estimate for O MWO #92-5761 was performed by Physical Plant Division (PPD) on August 27,1992. Further work was delayed as PPD was reluctant to implement this work because of relatively high cost. Following some confusion by PPD concerning whether this work should be implemented, PPD generated a new estimate for rerouting the air handler condensate line in November,1992. In December the decision O was made to have the PPD conduct this work. Toward this end, PPD technician John Humphries conducted a pre-job inspection on O V-9 i

l O l TABLE V-2 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description O December 23, 1992. Following a pre-work inspection on January 6, 1993, the condensate line was rerouted to the holdup tanks via the reactor cell sink on January 13,1993 with no problems noted with the system (13 Jan 93, MLP #92-31).

31 August 1992 Following installation of the service disconnect on Bnaker #9 (MLP O #92-29) and restoration of cell power at about noon on August 31, 1992, the security system was found to be continuously cycling and alarming so that the system would not be able to be reset when needed. Under MLP #92-32 the source of the problem was isolated to a single component in a system detector; since no spare was O immedively available and the component is not considered essential to the integrity of the security system, the component was temporarily bypassed awaiting repair of the failed component. On 13 October 1992, the component was restored to service with no recurrence of the problem though the electronics engineer recommended near-term replacement of the backup battery supply due to relatively high noise O level which could have caused the problem (13 Oct 92, MLP #92-32).

31 August 1992 During a routine calibration check the probe on the E-140/911 GM detector survey meter was found to be failed. Under MLP #92-33 the survey meter was transmitted to the NES Electronics Shop where a failed probe was replaced. After being checked to assure proper O calibration, the survey meter was returned to service with no further problems noted (2 Sep 92, MLP #92-33).

9 September 1992 Following shutdown from full power on 8 September 1992 when the stack monitoring system had indicated elevated full power stack counts and after a stack sampling to measure the Argon-41 stack O concentration showed normal levels, MLP #92-34 was opened on 9 September 1992 to verify the stack monitor calibration. When the stack monitor calibration was acceptable, MLP #92-34 was closed.

When the indicated level on 10 September was again elevated, MLP

92-34 was reopened to control adjusting all stack menitoring setpoints with subsequent performance of the stack monitor calibration 1 O check (Q-2 Surveillance) again demonstrating satisfactory operation with no further problems noted (10 Sep 92, MLP #92-34).

O V-10

O l

l i

TABLE V-2 O CHRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description O 11 September 1992 During the daily checkout the lights to the auxiliary alarm panel stack I alarm system were noted to be out with power lost to the system.

Under MLP #92-35, a loose wire was reterminated to restore proper I operation. During the maintenance, the meter cover on the adjustable i stack alarm meter was also repaired with no further problems noted (11 Sep 92, MLP #92-35).

O 8 October 1992 During a routine source check of the ESP-2/NRD-1 neutron dose survey meter, the b.kground seemed high. Under MLP #92-36, the detector was transferred to the Radiation Control Office for a !

calibration check. Recalibration was verified with the observation that O this detector requires up to five minutes warmup time per the vendor.

The detector was returned following calibration with no further problems noted (9 Oct 92, MLP #92-36).

29 October 1992 Following restoration of a security system component per MLP #92-32, )

the electronics technician recommended replacement of the backup J

O batteries for these components. Although new batteries were easily obtained, tl eir shape was different requiring the manufacture of new holders fer these security system related batteries. Under MLP #92-37, new holders were designed, machined and then installed to hold the new batteries under 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation Number 92-07. 1 After several spurious alarms requiring use of backups, the new

.O batteries in battery packets were fully implemented with no further problems (9 Dec 92, MLP #92-37).

2 November 1992 Following successful completion of the daily checkout, the LOW FLOW well warning light was noted to be lit prior to reactor startup I O

fI a1W Power operation. After completion of a low power experiment, under MLP #92-38, the meter was checked and found to be operating properly. Subsequently, Hare Well Drilling, Inc.

discovered a hole in one piece of piping which was replaced to correct the problem of low flow. After reassembly of the secondary coolant well piping system, the flow and temperatures were checked during a full power operation to verify proper flow and secondary coolant O system operation with no further problems noted (4 Nov, MLP #92-38).

l O y_13

1 1

l 1

l l

TABLE V-2 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR PREVENTIVE /CORRECTIVEMAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description 0 16 November 1992 During performance of an extra calibration check on the area and stack radiation monitors (Q-2 Surveillance) to check somewhat high readings, especially on the stack monitor, MLP #92-39 was used to control adjustments to the north and east area radiation monitors as well as the stack radiation monitor to give more accurate readings.

After return to service, no further problems were noted (16 Nov 92, O

MLP #92-39).

18 November 1992 Under MLP #92-40, the ink pads on the twelve point temperature recorder were replaced to restore legible indications with no further problems noted (18 Nov 92, MLP #92-40).

O 23 November 1992 During the weekly checkout, the water level in the primary coolant storage tank was noted to be low. Under MLP #92-41, 45 gallons of demineralized water were added to the coolant storage tank to restore the level to the 26 M inch level with no further problems noted (23 Nov 92, MLP #92-41).

O 23 November 1992 In October,1992, MLP #91-43 to address efforts to improve reactor cell appearance and preserve service was closed out. Under MLP

92-42 the shield tank cover was cleaned and painted to restore its appearance. Then the shield blocks around the shield tank on the upper deck along with the floor around the irradiated fuel storage pits

-O were cleaned and painted to greatly improve cell appearance (30 Dec 92, MLP #92-42).

7 December 1992 During the weekly checkout, the sample line on the shield tank was noted to have a smallleak from one of the fittings. Under MLP #92-43, duplicate replacement fittings were obtained and installed with

'O swipe checks used to show no contamination to be present. With restoration of the shield tank demineralizer system, no further problems were noted (7 Dec 92, MLP #92-43).

8 December 1992 Following an earlier inspection by Physical Plant Division (PPD) technicians, the decision was made to replace the backflow preventer O installed in the city water secondary cooling line when time and resources allowed. Under MLP #92-44, PPD plumber Ted Blake replaced the backflow preventer to assure the integrity of potable O V-12

l

'o TABLE V-2 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE )

i Date Maintenance Description O water systems is maintained with no further problems noted (8 Dec 92, MLP #92-44).

17 December 1992 Following the loss of a set of keys allowing access to the NAA Laboratory (key #184) and general access to the lower level building /

laboratory (key #186), the decision was made to rekey locks on all O

doors allowing building / facility access with these keys. Under MWO

96-5304, the locksmith identified locks to be changed and then changed them under direction of the Acting Reactor Manager. Keys were issued as necessary with no further problems noted.

O 23 December 1992 During performance of the quarterly scram checks (Q-1 Surveillance),

MLP #92-45 was utilized to add thirty gallons of demineralized water to the shield tank to restore its full level with no further problems noted. The MLP was not necessary since the surveillance data sheet also controls such water additions (23 Dec 92, MLP #92-45).

o 23 December 1992 During usage of the demineralized water line, an increase in resistivity was noted. Under MLP #92-46, the resins were replaced in the city water makeup line to restore the source of high resistivity makeup water (23 Dec 92, MLP #92-46).

13 January 1993 With planning to reroute the air handler condensate line, it was O decided to schedule relamping of the reactor cell overhead lighting system at the same time. Under Physical Plant Division (PPD) Work Order #8-35-RO, all burned out cell overhead lamps and some ballasts were replaced by PPD electricians to restore the cell overhead lighting system to fullillumination with no problems noted.

O 14 January 1993 During the effort to reroute the reactor cell air handling system condensate line, the city water line was noted to have a small leak from one of the fittings. Under MLP #93-01, the line was replaced with no further problems noted (14 Jan 93, MLP #93-01).

11 February 1993 During the quarterly calibration check of the area and stack radiation O monitors (Q-2 Surveillance), the south monitor was found to be barely responding. Under MLP #93-02, the south ARM contacts were checked and cleaned with the monitor restored to proper operation with no further problems noted (11 Feb 93, MLP #93-02).

O y_13

O TABLE V-2 O CHRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UITR PR EVENTIV E/CO RRECTIVE MAINTENANC E Date Maintenance Description O During performance of the pre-calorimetric portion of the A-2 6 March 1993 Surveillance (UFTR Nuclear Instrumentation Calibration Check and Calorimetric Heat Balance), certain voltages and setpoints were noted to require minor changes. Under MLP #93-03, various voltages and setpoints were adjusted to assure proper nuclear instrumentation O calibration (11 Mar 93, MLP #93-03). ,

9 March 1993 During completion of the pre-calorimetric portion of the A-2 Surveillanc , the Safety Channel 1 linear amplifier offset was noted to need adjustment beyond the maximum setting due to a faulty offset i current. Urder MLP #93-04, the problem was traced to the O operational r.mplifier, a component which is no longer available.

Though the existing operational amplifier was the best available when the circuit was raanufactured, the General Atomics design engineer indicated a standard, modern UA 741 operational amplifier would be a better replacement. Under 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation Number 93-02, ,

UA 741 operational amplifier was obtained and installed in the offset O circuit. Subsequently the linear amplifier offset for Safety Channel #1 was adjusted to assure proper nuclear instrumentation calibration with no further problems noted (9 Mar 93, MLP #93-04).

11 March 1993 Following completion of the power run for the calorimetric portion of the A-2 surveillance, the reactor was shut down and secured. After a O few minutes as the post-calorimetric portion of the A-2 surveillance was beginning, the linear channel module in the two-pen recorder was noted to be smoking. Under MLP #93-05, a shorted chip was located and replaced to restore proper operation to the two-pen recorder with no further problems noted (11 Mar 93, MLP #9-05).

O 12 March 1993 After 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 14 minutes full power operation on 10 March for the A-2 surseillance calorimetry run, the SRO at the control console inadvertently actuated the manual evacuation alarm switch with his ,

knee resulting in a process trip (core vent and stack dilute) of the i' reactor. Subsequently under MLP #93-06, a switch guard wasinstalled on the manual evacuation alarm switch to prevent future inadvertent ,

O trips due to evacuation alarm actuation with no further problems expected (12 Mar 93, MLP #93-06). ,

O V-14 e

1 O

i TABLE V-2 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR PREV ENTIVE/ CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description O 15 March 1993 During the weekly checkout the coolant level in the primary coolant storage tank was noted to be low. Under MLP #93-07, fifty-five(55) gallons of demineralized water were added to the coolant storage tank to restore water level to normal (15 Mar 93, MLP #93-07).

15 March 1993 In preparing to perform a daily checkout, the Regulating Blade O position indicator was noted to be giving intermittent indication.

Under MLP #93-08, a loose connection was resoldered and a pad was replaced on the circuit board for the nixie tube to restore proper control blade indicating function with no further problems noted with the nixie tube (15 Mar 93, MLP #93-08).

O 5 April 1993 During a routine check of the portable digital conductivity meter, it was noted not to be responding. Under MLP #93-09, the batteries in the unit were replaced with no apparent results. Subsequently when actuated, it was responding. After recalibration of the probe including standardization of the conductivity cell using the prime standard, the O unit was returned to service with no further problems noted (7 Apr 93, MLP #93-09).

5 April 1993 Following general checkout of the new temperature recorder obtained under the DOE instrumentation grant, the unit is considered generally acceptable. Under MLP #93-10, maintenance work was performed to O develop a safety evaluation and investigate installation of the new l temperature recorder to include various checks and consultation with )

Professor G.J. Schoessow in April; in May through August,1993, work l continued in design development for installing the new recorder with j considerable computer work completed including work descriptions ,

and evaluations along with proposed changes to the annual nuclear I O instrumentation calibration check (UFTR SOP-E-4) and consultations with NES electronics engineer D. Ekdahl; at reporting year's end the change package is nearing the point for final drafting (MLP #93-10 remains open).

12 April 1993 During a daily checkout, a general degradation of legibility of the O temperature recorder charts was noted. Under MLP #93-11 the temperature recorder ink pads were replaced to restore temperature recorder chart readability to normal with no further problems noted j (12 Apr 93, MLP #93-11). l O y_15 l

O i

l i

TABLE V-2 l

0 CHRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR

! PREVENTIVE /CO RRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description 0 14 April 1993 Early in the Reactor Operations Laboratory Exercise 11,the PC pump I was secured as indicated by procedure resulting in a pit alarm. After securing the pump, opening the equipment pit and making notifications that the rupture disk had failed resulting in - 60 gallons of primary coolant water in the equipment pit, MLP #93-12 was l

opened to control cleanup of the pit, replacement of the rupture disk O with a spare, verification of proper operation and addition of ~ 50 gallons of demineralized water to the PC storage tank to restore the water level to a normal level at 24 inches. Subsequent checks verified there were no leaks with no further problems noted (14 Apr 93,MLP

93-12).

O 15 April 1993 When actuated for a check, the ESP-2/NRD-1 digital neutron survey meter failed to respond. Under MLP #93-13, the meter was checked with the problem considered most likely to be a failed probe. After contact with several vendors, the ESP-2/NRD-1 probe was shipped to N. Wood, Inc. on 26 April 1993 for evaluation and replacement if w rranted and subsequently was identified as the source of the O

problem. The new probe to replace the failed probe was received and installed on 6 May 1993 with the meter transferred to Radiation Control for a calibration check which was successful with the meter I returned to service on 11 May 1993 (11 May 93, MLP #93-13).

O 18 May 1993 After several spurious Zone 2 fire alarms, the sme'ce detector in the !

Reactor Manager's office was noted to be in failure on 18 May 1993 !

after such an alarm. Under MLP #93-14 and 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation Number 93-03, the failed detector was removed and bypassed temporarily by Physical Plant Division technicians while a I new detector was special ordered. On 7 June 1993, the replacement '

O smoke detector was installed by Petrone and Lund with operability checks successfully completed and no further problems noted (7 Jun 93, MLP #93-14).

19 May 1993 When the padlocks on the vertical ports were noted to be nearing the ;

end of useful life, new padlocks were ordered. Under MLP #93-15, o new padlocks were obtained and installed on the vertical ports and on the irradiated fuel storage pit containing the hurricane rods (19 May 93, MLP #93-15).

O V-16

O l

TABLE V-2 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR PREV ENTIVE/ CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description O 4 June 1993 Previously, part of the tens digit on the Safety-3 blade position indicator was noted to be failed. Under MLP #93-16, the tens digit was replaced on the Safety-3 blade position indicator with no further problems noted (4 Jun 93, MLP #93-16).

O 7 June 1993 Previously, several pit alarms had occurred due to small quantities of secondary water emitted from the suction breaker when using the city water line for post shutdown cooling. Under MLP #93-17, a secondary water suction breaker foot valve was installed to prevent ejection of water into the equipment pit with no further problems noted (7 Jun 93, MLP #93-17).

O 7 June 1993 During performance of the quarterly scram checks (Q-1 Surveillance),

the test switch for the Safety Channel 2 high voltage power supply (HVPS) was not responsive. Under MLP #93-18, the problem was evaluated and determined not to be in the trip circuit but rather to be in the HVPS test module which was repaired. Subsequently, the Q-1 O Surveillance was completed successfully as a final test of the repair with no further problems noted (9 Jun 93, MLP #93-18).

11 June 1993 After the reactor was nm at 1.4 kW for over two hours, the linear (red) pen on the two-pen recorder went dead with an unscheduled shutdown completed and the reactor secured. Under MLP #93-19 the O contacts on the linear (red) pen connections were cleaned. Following completion of operability checks, the recorder was returned to normal operation with no further problems noted (11 Jun 93,MLP #13-19).

14 June 1993 During the weekly checkout the primary coolant storage tank water level was noted to be near 21 inches. Under MLP #93-20 forty-eight O

(48) gallons of demineralized water were added to the primary coolant ;

storage tank to restore the normal water level at 27 inches with no further problems noted (14 Jun 93, MLP #93-20).

14 June 1993 Prior to commencing the control blade drop time measurements (S-1 Surveillance), it was decided to increase the recorder needle deflection O for easier interpretation of drop time data. Under MLP #93-21, the internal resistance was varied on the strip chart recorder to obtain a good deflection whereupon the S-1 Surveillance was completed with no further problems noted (15 Jun 93, MLP #93-21).

O y_i7 l l

l

t O

i TABLE V-2 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR PREVENTIV E/ CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description 0 14 June 1993 During control blade withdrawal in preparation for performing the control blade drop time measurements, the control blade drive motor (CBDM) on Safety Blade #1 was noted to be in failure as it was smoking and giving a slow removal rate. The control blade was then -

inserted and the reactor was secured. Under MLP #93-22, CBDM #1 :

was removed and an identical spare motor was installed on the Safety O

Blade #1 system. Subsequently after the safety control blade #1 clutch current bulb was replaced and controlled drive times, controlled removal times and drop times were measured and verified to be correct, the unii was returned to service with no further problems noted (15 Jun 93, MLP #93-22).

O 16 June 1993 Following startup at 0840 hours0.00972 days 0.233 hours 0.00139 weeks 3.1962e-4 months , the reactor was on a positive period at 500 watts at 0904 hours0.0105 days 0.251 hours 0.00149 weeks 3.43972e-4 months when the temperature recorder went dead. .

With the manual override function assured to give temperature .

readings, the reactor was shut down and secured at 0906 hours0.0105 days 0.252 hours 0.0015 weeks 3.44733e-4 months . Under MLP #93-23, service was performed on the magnet power off/on O switch to assure proper contact to restore the automatic operation of the temperature recorder with the console key. Subsequently the temperature recorder was returned to service and the reactor operated with no further problems noted (16 Jun 93, MLP #93-23).

24 June 1993 Prior to performing the daily checkout, the Safety Control Blade 3 0 blade position indicator (BPI) was noted to be malfunctioning. Under MLP #93-24, two burned out resistors were replaced with on-hand spares in the BPI circuit with subsequent checks verifying proper !

operation with no further problems noted (24 Jun 93, MLP #92-24).

2 July 1993 During the daily checkout inconsistent operation of the secondary well O

water cooling system scram device was noted. Under MLP #93-25 the mercury switch was checked out and adjusted to assure proper response with no further problems noted (2 Jul 93, MLP #93-25).

i 6 July 1993 Following discovery of erratic behavior of the Safety-3 Blade Position Indicator (BPI) at the beginning of the day, MLP #93-26 was opened O to control cleaning of contacts. After completing repair and verifying proper operation, MLP #93-26 was closed. After a successful daily checkout, the reactor was brought to 1.0 watts at 0955 hours0.0111 days 0.265 hours 0.00158 weeks 3.633775e-4 months when the Safety-3 control blade position indicator (BPI) began to give erratic O y,33

O \

l l

TABLE V-2 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR PREVENTIVE / CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description O indications again. After completion of an unscheduled shutdown, MLP

93-26 was reopened and the S-3 indicator was inserted in the S-2 slot i

and the S-2 blade withdrawn for a test using the S-3 indicator to isolate the problem to the S-3 BPI module. Subsequently, the S-3 BPI module was removed to the bench where additional cleaning of contacts and circuit checks were completed with removal checks completed with the O '

module in place to assure proper S-3 BPI response. Subsequently, the reactor was restarted on 6 July 1993 and after assuring proper S-3 BPI response for all operations to 1 KW, MLP #93-26 was closed with no further problems noted (6 Jul 93, MLP #93-26).

O 7 July 1993 During the daily checkout, the indicator for point #4 (northwest fuel box exit line) on the temperature monitor was noted to be pegged downscale. Under MLP #93-27 the circuit failure was traced to the core area. Subsequently, under MLP #93-27 and RWP-93-1-I, the core shielding was unstacked, all thermocouples on the north side of the core were reterminated with fresh wiring connections for new wire O running from the equipment pit to the core area to restore proper response of the temperature recorder. Following replacement of core .

shielding, decontamination and cleanup plus completion of contamination and radiation surveys in steps up to full power, the reactor was returned to service with no further problems noted. With completion of these three thermocouple connections on the three fuel O box lines on the north side of the core back to the connection box in i

the equipment pit to complement the three connections made on the south side of the core in August,1992, it is expected that further repairs of this system should not be required prior to implementation of the HEU-to-LEU fuel conversion when quick disconnects for ALARA will be installed on all thermocouple connections in the high O

radiation areas of the core environment (14 Jul 93, MLP #93-27).

8 July 1993 During a check, as part of the three year hydrotesting, the rupture discs in the self-contained breathing apparatus MSA bottles were noted to need replacement. Under MLP #93-28, the old rupture discs were removed from two bottles, new discs were ordered and subsequently O installed in two MSA bottles which were then delivered to l Environmental Health and Safety for hydrotesting. Following successful hydrotesting, the tanks were filled and returned to storage (18 Aug 93, MLP #93-28).

O V-19

O TABLE V-2 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFTR PREVENTIV E/CO RRECTIVE MAINTENANC E Date Maintenance Description I

O 13 July 1993 After a successful daily checkout and over five hours operation, the Safety-3 control blade position indicator (BPI) was noted to be giving erratic readings at 1342 hours0.0155 days 0.373 hours 0.00222 weeks 5.10631e-4 months when an unscheduled shutdown was commenced. After shutdown and securing the reactor at 1344 hours0.0156 days 0.373 hours 0.00222 weeks 5.11392e-4 months , ;

both the S-1 and S-3 BPIs were noted to be responding erratically. l 0 Subsequently, under MLP #93-29, all four (4) BPI modules were removed from the console and subjected to extensive cleaning and resoldering of all joints and contacts with the failing +15V and -15V capacitors on the S-3 BPI replaced with spares to restore reliable blade position ind; cation for all four (4) BPIs but especially for the S-3 BPI ;

with no further problems noted (14 Jul 93, MLP #93-29).

O 22 July 1993 During the weeldy checkout, the demineralizers on the city water ,

demineralized water makeup line were noted to be near the end of life. Under MLP #93-30, the resins were replaced but the gasket was noted to be leaking so the gasket was replaced and later sealed to prevent leakage with later checks showing no further leakage (2 Aug

O 93, MLP #93-30).

5 August 1993 During the daily checkout, the stack dilute fan rpm indication was noted to be lost due to a failed tach-generator. After ordering a spare, it was installed on 9 August 1993 and confirmed to be giving the proper rpm indication on 13 August 1993 with the system returned to O service with no further problems on the next day (14 Aug 93, MLP

93-31).

17 August 1993 Following becoming aware of an event at a DOE facility where workers accessed a roof and received a small but measurable radiation d se, the decision was made as part of ALARA considerations to post O

more readily visible, permanent radiation warning / restriction signs on the roof of Building #557 to assure any workers attempting to access the roof would be warned not to come onto the roof without checking with UFTR facility staff. Under MLP #93-32 sufficient anchors and chain were obtained and posting of the reactor cell roof was completed. At reporting year's end one more anchor is needed before O posting of the annex roof can be completed as part of the UFTR ALARA program (MLP #93-32 remains open).

O V-20

O TABLE V-2 O CIIRONOLOGICALTABULATIONOF UFFR PREVENTI V E/ CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE Date Maintenance Description O

31 August 1993 Following 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation #93-08, under MLP #93-33 various checks were to be performed by PPD technician Paul Fortier and others in anticipation of being able to convert the smoke detector system from 115 Vac to 24V battery power to provide better assurance of backup operation with checks continuing at reporting year's end o (MLP #93-33 remains open).

MLP #92-22 remains open from June 29,1992.

MLP #93-10 remains open from April 5,1993.

MLP #93-32 remains open from August 20,1993.

MLP #93-33 remains open from August 31,1993.

O O

V-21

O VI. CIIANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, STANDARD OPERATING O PROCEDURES AND OTIIER KEY DOCUMENTS This Chapter contains a narrative description and status report on the various changes to ;

key UFTR license-related documents that occurred during the 1992-1993 reporting year. As t such, this Chapter provides a ready reference for the status of various license-related O documents to include Technical Specifications, Safety Analysis Report, Standard Operating Procedures, Emergency Plan, Security Response Plan, Reactor Operator Requalification and Recertification Training 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.

O A. Changes to Technical Specifications 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 1982-1983 reporting period. As noted in the 1983-1984 Annual Report, the UFTR facility 0

received approval for Amendment No.14 and No.15 to the UFTR Technical Specifications during that reporting year. As noted in the 1985-1986 Annual Report, .

the UFTR facility requested and received approval for Amendment No.16 in that year to correct an error in numbering Section 3.5 which had been incorrectly ,

numbered Section 3.4. l O

Approved license (Tech Spec) Ameadment 17 was received on May 3,1988 per a ,

letter from NRC dated April 27, 1988. The approved amendment consisted of a ;

revision to the Tech Specs to permit conducting certain activities when the reactor is shutdown, the reactor vent system is secured and the stack monitor is reading greater than 10 cps. This amendment 17 is basically a relaxation of UFTR Technical O Specifications in Section 3.4.3as a limiting condition for operation which states that "the vent system shall be operated until the stack monitor indicates less than 10 counts per second." As requested by NRC and submitted by the licensee, the Tech Specs were also revised to include a backup means for quantifying the radioactivity ,

in the effluent during abnormal or emergency operating conditions in addition to 6 administrative changes. The backup core vent sampling system was installed on ;

O May 4,1988 and available for all subsequent reactor operations.

For the 1992-1993 reporting year, Tech Spec Amendment 18 was submitted to NRC with a letter dated September 28, 1992. Approved license (Tech Spec)

Amendment 18 was received on March 29, 1993 per a letter from NRC dated March 25,1993. The approved amendment consisted of a revision to the Tech Specs O ~ to permit submittal of the annual report of activities up to December 31,rather than .

November 30 of each year. Also, the current mailing address for the annual report was changed to correspond to the current NRC mailing requirement. Documentation of Amendment 18 is contained in Appendix B of this report.

.O yI_1

O 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 O 100 kWth. However, one will be necessary to assure compatibility with the revised 10 CFR Pa t 20 requirements when these regulations are implemented on January 1, 1994. It is expected, however, that another substantive amendment to the Technical Specifications will be required before the UPTR can be converted from utilizing high-enriched MTR plate-type fuel to utilizing low-enriched silicide plate-type fuel.

O B. Revisions to UFTR Safety Analysis Report FSAR Revision 5 was submitted to NRC and inserted in the UFTR Safety Analysis Report (SAR) in 1988 to incorporate changes that were the result of ongoing reviews of the UFTR Safety Analysis Report to assure updated accurate contents. Revision 6 of the FSAR comprises a complete updating of Chapter 11 (Radioactive Waste O Management) of the UFTR Safety Analysis Report as part of a continuing effort to assure an accurate document for controlling facility operations. This revision was submitted to NRC with a letter dated September 18,1989. During the 1991-1992 reporting year, Revision 7 of the UFTR SAR was submitted with a letter dated April 3,1992 and consisted of changes to two pages. The first change was on Page 5-8 to allow use of an equivalent deep well pump per the slightly changed but O equivalent description in Section 5.2 describing the UFTR Secondary Cooling System.

The second change was to Page 9-6 in Sections 9.2.3 and 9.2.4 to allow use of an equivalent resin in the Demineralized Water Makeup System and the Primary Coolant Purification System because the Amberlite IRN-150 nuclear grade resins previously specified for use in the purification systems are no longer available.

O There have been no other subsequent revisions of the UFTR SAR in the 1992-1993 reporting year. However, with completion of most neutronics and thermal-hydraulics analyses to support the HEU-to-LEU conversion, other SAR updates are planned as necessary to keep the SAR current and to support the planned HEU-to-LEU fuel conversion.

O C. Generation of New Standard Operating Procedures No new Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) were generated during the 1992-1993 reporting year. This condition marks the maturity of the UFTR Standard Operating Procedures as great efforts have been undertaken to implement good practice O requirements in generating new procedures.

At the end of the reporting year, also in contrast to most previous years, no further new procedures are in progress. The conclusion to be drawn here is that the expansion of procedures at the UFTR facility may be coming to a close which is an encouraging state of affairs.

O O VI-2

O D. Fevisions to Standard Operating Procedures All existing UFTR Standard Operating Procedures were reviewed and rewritten into

.O 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 fimal 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 f rmat.

O Table VI-1 contains a complete list of the approved UFTR Standard Operating Procedures as they existed at the end of the previous (1991-1992) reporting year exclusive of applicable Temporary Change Notices (TCNs) since these do not change procedure intent. Table VI-2 contains a similar complete up-to-date list of the O approved Standard Operating Procedures as they exist at the end of the current (1992-1993) 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 in parentheses for each SOP; Temporary Change Notices refer to minor changes 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-1 and VI-2 indicates O that there were no revisions to SOPS generated during this reporting year for the first time in nearly a decade. The number of revisions should continue to be low in future years, though the implementation of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 will necessitate a number of changes not yet clearly delineated in the upcoming year.

During the 1992-1993 reporting year, a number of minor changes were also 0 incorporated into the UFTR Standard Operating Procedures as needs and/or errors were identified especially in respense to the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS) annual audit and facility evaluations and as a result of training on the Standard Operating Procedures. Eighteen (18) Temporary Change Notices were issued to correct minor discrepancies or better express the unchanged intent of ten (10) different procedures, with only SOP-0.5 (QA Program) and SOP-A.1 O

(Preoperational Checks) changed more than once, including SOP-0.1, SOP-0.2, SOP-0.3, SOP-0.5, SOP-0.7, SOP-A.1, SOP-A.2, SOP-A.7, SOP-A.8, and SOP-E.1. It i

should be noted that the eight (8) TCNs for SOP-0.5 implemented, among other j things, improvements for several surveillances to incorporate better evaluation !

questions for the Quarterly Radiological Survey of Unrestricted Areas (Q-4) and l

O Restricted Areas (Q-5). Other improvements included adding the Annual j Check / Replacement of Fire Alarm System Monitoring Station Batteries (A-4), the l Annual Update of UFTR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (A-5), and the Semiannual Review of Requalification Training Program Binders (S-12), as well as expanding the Quarterly Check of Posting Requirements (Q-6) and the Semiannual Check and Update of Emergency Call Lists (S-10). Several other changes entailed updating and clarifying the Quarterly Check of Scram Functions (Q-1) as well as expanding and M better categorizing RSRS audit topics on Form SOP-0.5E. j O VI-3

l O l The remaining Temporary Change Notices allinvolve similar minor changes affecting one or a few sections of the respective SOP, sometimes as little as a single sentence.

O All were fully reviewed by UFTR facility management and approved by the RSRS.

Because of the quantity of paper involved and the relatively minor nature of TCNs, 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 UFTR facility if desired; they are briefly summarized in Table VI-3. j l

O E. Revisions to UFTR Emergency Plan I One revision to the approved UFTR Emergency Plan was submitted to the NRC during this reporting year. With a letter dated December 10,1992, Revision 8 was l submitted to the NRC. Revision 8 consists of a set of updates and minor revisions to fifteen (15) pages which include ii,v,1-5,all of Chapter 3 (pages 3-1 through 3-8),

O 5-2, 8-2, 8-3, and 10-6.

First, Page 1-5 (Figure 1.3: Second Floor Plan for the University of Florida Training Reactor Building) is updated to reflect new room numbers assigned about a year ago as well as to reflect several changes in how the offices are set up including changes in size and movement of non-load-bearing inner walls to make two rooms in the O former room 105 and to make one room out of the former rooms 102 and 103.

Second, all of Chapter 3 (Organization and Responsibilities) has been retyped with a number of changes. First, on Page 3-1, a reference to " disaster" preparedness is changed to " emergency" preparedness in Paragraph 3.2.lin keeping with preferred terminology. Second, Figure 3.1is unchanged but has been reset to agree with the O

format of the rest of Chapter 3. Third, Section 3.3 has been changed to reference the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, Disaster Preparedness State Warning Point which is to be notified of all radiological emergencies to assure proper communications are maintained with the Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) Office of Radiation Control to afford O its personnel the opportunity for offsite monitoring and assessment and to assure availability and access to resources through this office should they be considered appropriate. Next, Section 3.4 is changed to reflect adding the HRS Office of Radiation Control as a fifth key emergency support organization though response by this Office is not considered essential for the UFTR Emergency Response Plan to be effective. Subsequently, the role of this Office is delineated in a new UFTR O Paragraph 3.4.5which indicates 'that the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management maintains a State Warning Point for radiological emergencies and is informed of all UFTR radiological emergencies; normally they will be notified of all emergency drills as well. The HRS Office of

, Radiation Control maintains a full spectrum of response capabilities for offsite monitoring and dose assessment. The fact that they can be expected to respond to

.O any significant radiological emergency associated with the UFTR basically to assure documentation of offsite monitoring and assessment activities needed to provide such backup radiation protection and control services as may be deemed appropriate O VI-4

O requires that they be included as a key organization for consideration in responding to UFTR Radiological Emergencies.

O The fact that the State of Florida Office of Radiation Control in the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is notified of all radiological emergencies to provide a communication link and the opportunity for offsite monitoring and <

assessment is also added to Section 3.5(Reactor Emergency Response Organization and Extensions), though again it is emphasized that this response is not considered O essential for the UFTR Emergency Response Plan to be effective. Finally, Figure 3.2(UFTR Emergency Organization Including Extensions) is redrawn to include the State Warning Point and moved from Page 3-5 to Page 3-6.

In the last paragraph of Section 3.5 the reference to call lists and their availability ,

is changed to reflect that they are posted on several bulletin boards and in several O copies of the procedure manuals located at various points in the reactor building.

Finally,Section 3.9(Radiological Assessment) isalso changed to reflect that the HRS Office of Radiation Control, through the State Warning Point, willbe notified of all significant radiological emergencies to provide the opportunity for documenting offsite monitoring and assessment and assuring communication channels are established as appropriate. An incorrect reference to Figure 1.2 is changed to O

reference Figure 3.2. The only other changes involved in retyping Chapter 3 are several changes to correct references to positions by gender (he, his, etc.). These references are corrected by using non-gender specific terms such as "the individual" or "his/her."

O Third, Table 5.1(UFTR Emergency Classification Guide) is changed to reflect better the categorization of emergencies allowed by the ANSI /ANS-15.16 Standard.

Specifically, the Class I category will now require two area monitors above 100 mR/hr versus the previous 50 mR/hr. A new Class I event will be fuel damage indicated by high coolant fission product activity or contamination indicating fuel failure. This category indicates the release is well contained. Both of these example O events prevent unnecessary elevation of emergencies to the Class II Alert level. For consistency, the Class II Alert category now references major visible damage to a fuel bundle or other visible failure indicating a major breach of one or more fuel plates with significant release of fission products. Again, this description matches the original intent for a Class II event. Class II now also requires two area monitors to be above 500 mR/hr, again preventing a Class II Alert event from being called O simply from moving a radioactive sample (perhaps dropping it) next to one area monitor. The remaining changes in Table 5.1are only for presentation purposes with references to the decon room changed to the Emergency Support Center as the proper reference.

Fourth, Table 8.11isting equipment typically available from the University of Florida O Radiation Control Office for emergency dose and radiation level assessment and Table 8.2 which lists the equipment typically available in the UFTR facility for dose and radiation level assessment that may also be available from the UFTR depending on accessibility during an emergency event are both updated. These updated tables O VI-5 l

O reflect better actual equipment available to address emergency events to include the removal of failed or unreliable instruments and the addition of new instruments O acquired over the past two years such as the ASP-1 GM Survey meter, the RO-2A ionization chamber and the ESP-2/NRD-1 neutron detector. These tables do not have vertical lines in the margin due to the number of changes.

Fifth, Table 10.3 is updated only to show that the respirators with spare filters (asteris'ked) are stored in Room 108 NSC, not Room 106 NSC as previously O indicated.

Finally, the Table of Contents (Page ii) is updated to reflect page changes per the !

retyped and corrected Chapter 3 and the List of Tables (Page v)is updated to reflect the movement of Figure 3.2 from page 3-5 to page 3-6, O All these changes were reviewed by UFTR management and by the Reactor Safety l Review Subcommittee to assure no decrease in the effectiveness of the UFTR Emergency Plan. In general, these changes make the Plan better suited to assuring a proper response to emergencies at the University of Florida Training Reactor. In ,

a letter dated July 20,1993, the NRC notified the facility of their evaluation that i i these changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the Plan which maintains lO compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix E. Therefore, the approved changes were i

, approved and could be incorporated into the current Emergency Plan. Revision 8 l l

was then distributed to all holders of the Plan with a letter dated August 2,1993.

Revision 8 documentation is contained in Appendix C of this report.

As the Emergency Plan continues to be evaluated, it is likely that additional changes O

willbe implemented during the upcoming year, especially as the Emergency Plan is reviewed for training purposes. At reporting year's end Revision 9 is beginning to be prepared to revise the Emergency Procedures and remove them from the Emergency Plan along with the agreement letters.

lo F. Revisions to UFTR Physical Security Plan Revision 10 to the approved UFTR Physical Security Plan was submitted to the NRC with a letter dated September 18, 1991. The revision was acknowledged and approved by a letter from NRC dated October 29,1991. There have been no further revisions.

O G. Eiennial ' Reactor Operator Requalification and Recertification Program The existing operator requalification and recertification program training cycle for the UFTR was scheduled to end in June,1993. Therefore, renewal of the program with no changes was undertaken by submission to the NRC of the new two-year o program cycle with a letter dated May 28,1993. Since the entire program had been rewritten and approved by NRC in the 1991-1992 reporting year, as contained in Appendix H of the 1991-1992 Annual Report, this renewed training program was not expected to require changes or new approvals with no further communications with

!O VI-6

l 0- ;

NRC concerning the submission. This program is available for review at the UFTR facility.

O H. HEU to LEU Fuel Conversion Documents 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 O April 17,1987 and received on April 22,1987,the NRC claimed the scheduled span of 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 presented in Table VI-4 was then submitted to NRC licensing in Washington with a cover letter dated May 14,1987. During subsequent reporting years, new proposals updating the UFTR conversion schedule and work status per 10 CFR 50.64(b)(2) o requirements were submitted to NRC each March to meet the annual March 27 deadline.

After receiving funding, work proceeded as quickly as possible though a shortage of graduate students to perform the neutronic and other analyses caused this work to lag each year. In addition, because of extensive efforts to decontaminate and O

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 revise 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 was further delayed in the first two years.

The required visual inspection and identification of SPERT fuel pins was completed on September 19,1988. As committed, a sufficient number of SPERT fuel pins was radiographed to provide an LEU core and replacement pins -for the UFTR by March 31,1989,when the SPERT usage license was to expire. As for the SNM-10SO O li ens , a signif ant 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. License No. SNM-1050, as renewed, was dated June 23,1989 and was received on June 29,1989. The renewed license authorized " storage only" conditions and has an expiration date of June 30,1994. The cover letter also specified that any request for amendment to the SNM-1050 license should be submitted in the form of O replacement pages to the renewal application submitted on March 1,1989 with changes or new items clearly identified. Subsequently, in June,1989,an engineering-based decision was finally made not to use the SPERT fuel but rather to use the alternate low enriched silicide plate-type fuel. As a result plans were developed to ship the fuel.

O A proposal for support to provide 1200 SPERT fuel pins for transfer for shipment to Oak Ridge National Laboratory was submitted to Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. in January,1990 in response to Request For Proposal CO378-19 dated December 12,1989. This proposal was submitted to Martin Marietta Energy Systems O VI-7 '

O in January and accepted. Loading of the drums was completed per approved UFSA SOP-U.4 on May 16,1990 and 1200 pins in 19 DOT type 6M drums plus one (1) empty drum were transferred to Mr. Leon Fair of Martin-Marietta Systems Inc. for O shipment by truck to a secure DOE facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory on May 17,1990. Revision 3 of the Physical Security Plan (PSP) for the SNM-1050 License was then transmitted to the NRC with a letter dated June 7,1990 to update the Special Nuclear Material on site following the May 17 transfer of 1200 pins to Martin-Marietta's control. Approval of Revision 3 to the University of Florida SPERT Assembly Physical Security Plan occurred with a letter dated June 20,1990 0 and received on June 26,1990.

An application to amend the storage-only SNM-1050 license to allow storage of the fuel in the North Quonset Hut (Room 6) versus Room 5 of the Nuclear Research Field Building was submitted to NRC with a letter dated June 6,1990. This SNM-O 1050 license amendment making the smaller . Room 6 an allowed storage location was approved per a letter and license amendment dated June 14, 1990. All of the remaining 4200 SPERT fuel pins not previously shipped were then moved to Room 6 on July 30. Revision 4 of the SNM-1050 Physical Security Plan was submitted to NRC with a letter dated September 13,1990 while the response to several security allegations was submitted as a letter also dated September 13, 1990. The next O security inspection was condacted on October 25,1990 by NRC Security Inspector -

Orysia Masnyk, to investigate security violation allegations associated with the SNM-1050 license as well as to consider fm' al approval of Revision 4 to the Physical Security Plan for the SNM-1050 license. In NRC Inspection Report No. 50-83/90-02 dated November 23,1990, NRC Region II did close out the allegation and accept implementation of Revision 4 of the UFSA Security Plan.

O Throughout the 1988-1989 reporting year, the neutronics analysis to support the !

conversion had been progressing at a slow pace with the graduate student involved deciding to leave for another university when not approved to pursue a doctoral degree. This loss greatly hindered analysis work at the beginning of the 1989-1990 reporting year. As a result of the overall slow progress on this work related to O UFTR HEU to LEU conversion and funded by DOE, the proposal submSted to NRC with a letter dated March 22,1989 to meet the annual March 27,1989 and 1990 deadlines per 10 CFR 50.64(b)(2) showed a further lengthening of the schedule.

An updated proposal was submitted to NRC with a letter dated March 26,1991 O explaining that a student thesis project had resulted in good progress in assuring l neutronics methodology is adequate and the modelling of the existing core was nearly complete lacking only several confirmatory calculations and calculations to predict changes caused by temperature effects. NRC was also updated that only scoping calculations had been completed for the proposed LEU core with the number of fuel plates per bundle not yet set in March,1991. It was expected that DOE-supplied funding support of this work would be extended beyond April 30,1991 so this work

,O could be concluded along with basic thermal hydraulics analysis to conclude the required HEU to LEU safety analysis. A no-cost extension of the Department of Energy Grant DE-FG05-88ER75387 entitled " Conversion of University of Florida VI-8 O

O Reactor to Low Enriched Uranium (LEU)" was submitted to Ms. Ann Rydalch via a letter dated April 25,1991 with a copy supplied to Keith Brown. The extension was agreed to be until April 30,1992 with notification of the extension not received O until fall,1991 making some plans and efforts difficult to implement. The updated proposed schedule submitted as required byMarch 27,1991 per 10 CFR 50.64(b)(2) therefore showed a further schedule slippage.

The individual working on the neutronics analysis completed his benchmark calculations on the existing UFTR HEU core in April,1991. Subsequently, he O

completed his thesis work in May,1991 and continued his work until May 23,1991.

After the number of fuel plates per bundle was set at 14 from the neutronics analysis, thermal hydraulics analyses were begun late in the 1990-1991 reporting year. During the 1991-1992 reporting year, a graduate assistant continued working on the thermal hydraulics area on the 14 plate fuel bundle arrangement selected for the conversion O with good progress made to nearly complete this work during the reporting year.

Work on the NRC submission package was also begun with limited progress made.

During the 1992-1993 reporting year, the delay of official grant extension made financial support of this effort more difficult so the latest updated proposal schedule submitted as required by March 27,1993 per 10 CFR 50.64(b)(2) as Revision 7 therefore showed a further schedule slippage as depicted in Table VI-5. This further O delay is because the basic thermal-hydraulics analysis proceeded more slowly than expected and because of DOE questions about fuel and core design arrangements that are requiring staff time to answer in preparation for approving the final fuel bundle design.

I. Ouality Assurance Program A_c oroval For Radioactive Material Package ~

O During the 1987-1988 reporting year, plans were made to ship ~1200SPERT fuel pins held under the SNM-1050 license to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). :

Since ORNL wanted the University of Florida to be the shipper of record, an approved Quality Assurance Program was needed with the University to be responsible to see that the shipment would meet all 10 CFR 71 requirements. ORNL O was planning to have these pins shipped in 6M Type drums on which they would have performed the necessary 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. NRC Quality Assurance Program Approval for Radioactive Materials Packages No. 0578, Revision No. I with an expiration date of O

t er , an ated Novenber 5, W87 was recdved on Nonmkr 9, W81 l

1 These 1200 fuel pins were finally transferred to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory on May 17,1990 under the existing QA Program approval. Efforts are underway to transfer the remainder of the pins but no specific acceptance has ever been received from DOE. Indeed, several inquiries were made by ORNL seeking to ship the 1200 fuel pins back to the University of Florida. Since there was no longer any room to O store them in the smaller storage room, this return was categorically disallowed and documented in a letter to Don Ingersoll at ORNL dated October 13,1992. Even if i some or all of the remaining pins are not wanted by ORNL, the QA Program O Vl'9

O approval will also allow transfer shipment of the SPERT fuel to other secure facilities such as the low power training reactor at RPI. Therefore, it had been hoped that all of these pins could be transferred during this most recent year since O they are no longer being considered for the HEU-to-LEU fuel conversion of the UFTR and since the QA Program Approval was to expire on October 31, 1992.

However, because DOE has been unable to locate space at a storage facility and because RPI will not accept the fuel unless DOE funds a larger storage facility for them and pays m- the fuel shipment, UFTR management is no longer hopeful of O near-term shipment of these pins. Therefore, an amended program dated September 30, 1992 was submitted to NRC on September 30, 1992. Quality Assurance Program approval for Radioactive Material Packages No. 0578, Revision 2, dated October 20,1992 was received on October 26,1992 and has an expiration date of October 31,1997. It is contained in Appendix D of this report.

Nevertheless, the presence of the remaining 4200 SPERT fuel pins in the more O confining North Quonset Hut (Room 6) of the Nuclear Research Field Building promises to make the transfer more difficult, time consuming and costly whenever it <xcurs.

O O

l l

1 o VI-10 1

lO TABLE VI-1 O LISTING OF APPROVED UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES *

(as of August 31,1992) >

O. ADMINISTRATIVECONTROL PROCEDURES ,

O O.1 Operating Document Controls (REV 2,7/91) 0.2 Control of Maintenance (REV 4,5/87) 0.3 Control and Documentation of UFTR Modifications (REV 0,10/85) 0.4 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation and Determination (REV 1,5/86) 0.5 UFTR Quality Assurance Program (REV 2,7/91) 0.6 Reactor Trip and Unscheduled Shutdown Review and Evaluation (REV 0, O 5/87) 0.7 Control of NRC 10 CFR 50 Written Communications Requirements (REV 0, 7/87) ,

0.8 Operator Licensing Requalification Examination Controls (REV 1,10/89)

A. ROUTINE OPERATING PROCEDURES O

A.1 Pre-Operational Checks (REV 14, 12/88)

A.2 Reactor Startup (REV 12,5/87) -

A.3 Reactor Operation at Power (REV 11,5/87) ,

A.4 Reactor Shutdown (REV 11, 10/89)

A.5 Experiments (REV 4,12/88)

O A.6 Operation of Secondary Cooling Water (REV 2,10/89)

A.7 Determination of Control Blade Integral or Differential Reactivity Worth (REV 1,6/85)

A.8 Pneumatic Rapid Sample Transfer (Rabbit) System (REV 0,12/88)

O B. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES B.1 Radiological Emergency (REV 4,12/88)

B.2 Fire (REV 8,5/85)

B.3 Threat to the Reactor Facility (Superseded by F-Series Procedures)

B.4 Flood (REV 1,4/83)

O C. FUEL IIANDLING PROCEDURES C.1 Irradiated Fuel Handling (REV 4,2/85)

C.2 Fuel Loading (REV 4,4/83)

C.3 Fuel Inventory Procedure (REV 3,2/85)

O C.4 Assembly and Disassembly of Irradiatei Fuel Elements (REV 0,9/84)

O VI-11

.o )

l TABLE VI-1 (CONTINUED)

O LISTING OF APPROVED UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES r (as of August 31,1992)

D. RADIATION CONTROL PROCEDURES 4

O D.1 UFTR Radiation Protection and Control (REV 4,7/91)

D.2 Radiation Work Permit (REV 10,3/87) ;

D.3 Primary Equipment Pit Entry (REV 2,5/85) ;

D.4 Removing Irradiated Samples From UFTR Experimental Ports (REV 5, '

10/89)

D.5 UFTR Reactor Waste Shipments: Preparations and Transfer (REV 1,4/92) !

O D.6 Control of UFTR Radioactive Material Transfers (REV 0,12/88) i E. MAINTENANCEPROCEDURES '

E.1 Changing Primary Purification Demineralizer Resins (REV 3,6/85) ,

E.2 Alterations to Reactor Shielding and Graphite Configuration (REV 3,5/87)

O E.3 Shield Tank and Shield Tank Recirculation System Maintenance (REV 2, !

4/83)

E.4 UFTR Nuclear Instrumentation Calibration Check (REV 1,4/90) !

E.5 Superseded E.6 Argon-41 Concentration Measurement (REV 0,1/84) .

E.7 Measurement of Temperature Coefficient of Reactivity (REV 0,5/85)

O E.8 Verification ofUFTR Negative Void Coefficient ofReactivity (REV 0,12/85)

F. SECURITY PLAN RESPONSE PROCEDURES (Reactor Safeguards Material, Disposition Restricted) o F.1 Phys'i cal Security Controls (Confidential, except for UFTR Form SOP-F.1A)

F.2 Bomb Threat (Confidential, except for UFTR Form SOP-F.2A)

F.3 Theft of (or Threat of the Theft of) Special Nuclear Material (Confidential, except for UFTR Form SOP-F.3A)

F.4 Civil Disorder (Confidential)

F.5 Fire or Explosion (Confidential)

O F.6 Industrial Sabotage (Confidential)

F.7 Security Procedure Controls (REV 2,10/89)

F.8 UFTR Safeguards Reporting Requirements (REV 0,9/87) 0 1

I O VI-1'2

O TABLE VI-2 l l

LISTING OF APPROVED UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES l O (as of August 31,1993)

O. ADMINISTRATIVECONTROL PROCEDURES O1 OPeradng Document Controls (REV 2,7/91)

O 0.2 Control of Maintenance (REV 4,5/87) 0.3 Control and Documentation of UFTR Modifications (REV 0,10/85) 0.4 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation and Determination (REV 1,5/86) 0.5 UFTR Quality Assurance Program (REV 2,7/91)

O.6 Reactor Trip and Unscheduled Shutdown Review and Evaluation (REV 0, O 5/87) 0.7 Control of NRC 10 CFR 50 Written Communications Requirements (REV 0, 7/87) 0.8 Operator Licensing Requalification Examination Controls (REV 1,10/89)-

A. ROUTINE OPERATING PROCEDURES O

A.1 Pre-Operational Checks (REV 14, 12/88)

A.2 Reactor Startup (REV 12,5/87)

A.3 Reactor Operation at Power (REV 11,5/87) ;

A.4 Reactor Shutdown (REV 11, 10/89) ,

A.5 Experiments (REV 4,12/88)

O A.6 Operation of Secondary Cooling Water (REV 2,10/89)

A.7 Determination of Control Blade Integral or Differential Reactivity Worth (REV 1,6/85)

A.8 Pneumatic Rapid Sample Transfer (Rabbit) System (REV 0,12/88)

. ERNCUROCEDM O

B.1 Radiological Emergency (REV 4,12/88)

B.2 Fire (REV 8,5/85)

B.3 Threat to the Reactor Facility (Superseded by F-Series Procedures)

B.4 Flood (REV 1,4/83)

O C. FUEL IIANDLING PROCEDURES C.1 Irradiated Fuel Handling (REV 4,2/85) i C.2 Fuel Imading (REV 4,4/83) l C.3 Fuel Inventory Procedure (REV 3,2/85)

O

^ ^ * * *

I* ****

I * * " ***"* )

{

l

'O VI-13

i O

TABLE VI-2 (CONTINUED)

O LISTING OF APPROVED UFFR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES l (as of August 31,1993)

D. RADIATION CONTROL PROCEDURES !

O D.1 UFTR Radiation Protection and Control (REV 4,7/91)

D.2 Radiation Work Permit (REV 10,3/87) i D.3 Primary Equipment Pit Entry (REV 2,5/85)

D.4 Removing Irradiated Samples From UFTR Experimental Ports (REV 5, l 10/89) !

D.5 UFFR Reactor Waste Shipments: Preparations and Transfer (REV 1,4/92) l O D.6 Control of UFfR Radioactive Material Transfers (REV 0,12/88) ;

E. MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES E.1 Changing Primary Purification Demineralizer Resins (REV 3,6/85) i O 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)

E.4 UFTR Nuclear Instrumentation Calibration Check (REV 1,4/90)

E.5 Superseded E.6 Argon-41 Concentration Measurement (REV 0,1/84) l 0 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) ;

i F. SECURITY PLAN RESPONSE PROCEDURES (Reactor Safeguards Material, ;

Disposition Restricted) ;

O F.1 Physical Security Controls (Confidential, except for UFTR Form SOP-F.1A) )

F.2 Bomb Threat (Confidential, except for UFTR Form SOP-F.2A)

F.3 Theft of (or Threat of the Theft of) Special Nuclear Material (Confidential, ,

except for UFTR Form SOP-F.3A)

F.4 Civil Disorder (Confidential)

F.5 Fire or Explosion (Confidential)

.O F.6 Industrial Sabotage (Confidential) l F.7 Security Procedure Controls (REV 2,10/89) l F.8 UFTR Safeguards Reporting Requirements (REV 0,9/87) l I

O O v114 i

O TABLE VI-3 O TABULATION OF UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES TEMPORARY CIIANGE NOTICES ISSUED FOR 1992-1993 REPORTING YEAR SQE TCN Date Affected Panes Summary Descriotion of Channe O

0.1 7/93 12,15,16 Changes requirement to a recommendation to use Form SOP-0.lB to get on distribution list for SOPS, adds 1

Tech Spec Amendments 18 and 19 to review standard list on Form SOP-0.1C O and deletes Piciullo and Simpkins from list of holders of information copies of SOP manuals.

0.2 7/93 8 Changes allow storage of engineering

specifications in control room, clarifies O

that only permanent nuclear safety related changes require RSRS approval subject to conditions of SOP-0.4 and notes that simple modifications may have their implementing procedure be part of the maintenance log page.

0.3 7/93 14 Cleaned up UFTR Form SOP-0.3A and added a space for entering the 50.59 Evaluation (and Determination) Number per an RSRS audit recommendation.

O 0.5 9/92 S-10 Corrects reference to posting Call List #2 ,

at the Emergency Response Center Auxiliary Room. I 12/92 28,29, Updates Q-6 surveillance to recommend O Q-6 (pp 1-3), posting many additional items, adds new S-12 (new), S-12 surveillance data sheet to track A-4 (new) checks of training binders / records, adds A-4 surveillance data sheet to track annual checks of fire alarm system batteries per ANI recommendation, updates list of O surveillances n Page 28 to include S-12 and A-4 and updates listing of latest changer to surveillance data sheets on Page 29.

O VI-15

O TABLE VI-3 (CONTINUED)

O TABULATION OF UFfR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES l <

TEMPORARY CHANGE NOTICES ISSUED FOR 1992-1993 REPORTING YEAR SOf TCN Date Affected Pages Summary Descriotion of Channe l O l 1/93 26 Updates UFTR Form SOP-0.5E (Annual QA Audit Checklist) to better caxgorize audit topics. ,

)

2/93 A-5 (pp 1-3)(new) Adds new A-5 surveillance data sheet to O track annual update of estimated decommissioning costs.

4/93 Q-4 (pp 1-4) Updates Q-4 and Q-5 surveillance data Q-5 (p 1) sheets for documenting quarterly radiological surveys to implement better O

evaluation questions per updated RCT

31 dated 3/93.

4/93 28,29 Updates list of surveillances on Page 28 to add A-5 and correct titles for S-8 and S-9, O updates listing of latest changes to surveillance data sheets on Page 29.

6/93 28,29, Changes title of S-10 surveillance, expands Q-6 (pp 104) Q-6 surveillance to include essentially all S-10 (title) items posted in various places around the O facility, updates list of surveillances on Page 28 with new title for S-10 surveillance and updates listing of latest changes to surveillance data sheets on

Page 29.

O 7/93 29, Q-1 (p 4), Clarifies Q-1 surveillance data sheet by t S-1 (p 1), noting the trip on well water has 10 S-10 (pp 1-2) second delay, clarifies documentation required for performing the daily checkout for the S-1 surveillance, expands the S-10 surveillance data sheet to include two

,O parts to document checking telephone numbers as well as the posting of current call lists, updates listing of latest changes to surveillance data sheets on Page 29.

O VI-16 :

O

. TABLE VI-3 (CONTINUED)

O TABULATION OF UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES TEMPORARY CIIANGE NOTICES ISSUED FOR 1992-1993 REPORTING YEAR S_Qf TCN Date Affected Panes Summary Descriotion of Chance 0

0.7 7/93 5 Updates telephone communication information to NRC Region II for '

promptly reportable events to include making contacts generic.

O A.1 12/92 26 Corrects a typegraphical error on movement of test switch.

7/93 20,30,33B Directs use of spare pens on two-pen recorder, updates procedure to reflect removal of sola-transformer feeding the O two-pen recorder and console clock several years ago and updates requirements on documentation of energy generation for the month to assure new 10 CFR Part 20 Argon-41 emission limits are not exceeded including lowering the kW-hrvalue requiring the Reactor Manager to be informed prior to startup including a notation on the preoperational checklist.

A.2 6/93 3 Clarifies crane use during reactor O operation to be no more restrictive than the Tech Specs as has been generally understood previously, removes gender-specific references.

A.7 7/93 6 Updates the location of the surveillance i O tracking wall chart in the control room which was moved from the east to the I south wall several years ago. i A.8 7/93 6 Clarifies intent of procedure to prevent misinterpretation of what is meant by 20 O rabbit capsule insertions and when samples are considered transferred from the R-56 to the 356-1 license when using the rabbit system.

O VI-17

\

O :

TABLE VI-3 (CONTINUED)

O TABULATION OF UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES TEMPORARY CIIANGE NOTICES ISSUED FOR 1992-1993 REPORTING ITAR SQE TCN Date Affected Pages Summary Description of Channe O

E.1 7/93 2 Corrects Section 4.5 of procedure to indicate a Radiation Work Permit is required to control changing primary demineralizer resins to agree with other sections of the procedure and facility O practice.

O O

O O VI-18

O O TABLE VI-4 TABLEII (Revision 1)

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR l O

TENTATIVE MILESTONE SCIIEDULE l FOR IIEU TO LEU FUEL CONVERSION l

l O I. Date of Receipt of Funding (expected) September 30,1987 1

II. Date of Full Submittal to NRC of Application to Convert (including all necessary documents) October,1989 III. Date of NRC Order to Convert February,1990 0

A. Date of Completion of All Plans to Convert September, 1990 B. Date of Receipt of LEU Fuel November,1990 C. Date of Completion of Any Final Tests O With HEU Fuel January,1991 D. Date of Removal of HEU Fuel March,1991 E. Date of Shipment of HEU Fuel June,1991 -

O F. Date of Loading of LEU Fuel August,1991 G. Date of Completion of Determination ofInitial Operational Parameters With LEU (Startup and Power Operations Testing) October,1991 O

H. Date of Submittal of Report to NRC/ DOE Summarizing New Operational Characteristics and Comparing With Predictions of Safety Analysis January,1992 0

3/87 O yy_19

'O l

0 TABLE VI-5 TABLEII (Revision 7)

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR O TENTATIVE MILESTONE SCHEDULE FOR HE,U TO LEU FUEL CONVERSION I. Effective Date of Receipt of Funding November,1987 II. Date of Full Submittal to NRC of Application to Convert (including all necessary documents) June,1993 III. Date of NRC Order to Convert September, 1993 O

A. Date of Completion of All Plans to Convert May,1994 B. Date of Receipt of LEU Fuel July,1994 C. Date of Completion of Any Final Tests O With HEU Fuel October,1994 D. Date of Removal of HEU Fuel December, 1994 E. Date of Shipment of HEU Fuel March,1995 O F. Date of Loading of LEU Fuel May,1995 G. Date of Completion of Determination ofInitial Operational Parameters With LEU (Startup and Power Operations Testing) August,1995 O H. Date of Submittal of Report to NRC/ DOE Summarizing New Operational Characteristics and Comparing With Predictions of Safety Analysis October,1995 O

3/93 O VI-20

'O VIL RADIOACTIVE RELEASES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE O 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 was two low level liquid releases and no solid releases at all. Finally, this chapter includes a summary of personnel exposures at the UFTR facility. ;

A. Gaseous (Argon-41) !

0 i The gaseous releases from the UFTR Facility for this reporting year are summarized in 4 Table VII-1. The basis for the gaseous activity release values is indicated in Table VII-2. These ;

values are obtained by periodic measurements of stack concentrations as required by Technical Specifications following UFTR SOP-E.6, " Argon-41 Concertration Measurement".

O TABLE VII-l UFTR GASEOUS RELEASE

SUMMARY

O Month Release Monthly Average Concentration September,1992 6 4 14.6004 x 10 pCi/ Month 4.2721 x 10 Ci/ml 6

October,1992 10.9495 x 10 pCi/ Month 4.2038 x 10* pCi/ml November,1992 9.0383 x 106 pCi/ Month 2.6446 x 10 4 Ci/ml O December,1992 9.5909 x 106 pCi/ Month 2.8512 x 104 pCi/ml i

January,1993 7.6542 x 106 pCi/ Month 2.2755 x 10* pCi/ml l

6 4 February,1993 9.6533 x 10 Ci/ Month 2.8697 x 10 pCi/ml l P

March,1993 6 13.3684 x 10 pCi/ Month 4 3.9742 x 10 pCi/ml !

O 6 4 i

April,1993 14.2009 x 10 pCi/ Month 4.2217 x 10 pCi/ml May,1993 11.9707 x 106 pCi/ Month. 3.5587 x 104 pCi/ml June,1993 8.6146 x 10 6 Ci/ Month 2.5610 x 10* gCi/ml July,1993 14.0648 x 106 pCi/ Month 4.1962 x 10* pCi/ml I August,1993 4.8041 x 106 pCi/ Month 1.4333 x 104 pCi/ml i

TOTAL ARGON-41 Releases for the Reporting Year: 128.5101 Ci O YEARLY AVERAGE ARGON-41 Release Concentration: 3.1718 x 104 pCi/ml h

l

.O Vll-1 l

. . _ -_- , ._ _ _. - . _ _ _ . D

O UFTRTechnical Specifications require average Argon-41 release concentration averaged over a month to be less than 4.0 x 10 8 Ci/ml. All such monthly values are well below this limiting O release concentration and the average monthly release concentration of 3.172 x 10* pCi/ml is more than an order of magnitude below the limiting value. Even with the new 10CFRPart20 values reducing the Argon-41 release concentration limit to 1.0 x 10'8 pCi/ml, there is no problem expected as the highest monthly value listed in Table VII-l is less than 43% of the allowable limit.

O Total rele- 1 average monthly concentrations are based upon periodic Argon-41 release concentration n. ments made at equilibrium full power (100 kW) conditions. 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 results of analyses of a minimum of three (3) samples per UFTR SOP-E.6 using a new gas standard obtained in response to NRC Inspection Renort No. 88-01.

O TABLE VII-2 UFTR GASEOUS RELEASE DATA BASE O Releases Per Unit Instantaneous Argon-41 Month Energy Generation Concentration at Full Power' Sept.1992 - Nov.1992 ~41.06 pCi/kW-hr 7.460 x 10-8 pCi/ml Dec.1992 - June 1993 ., /98.31 pCi/kW-hr 8.130 x 10-8 Ci/ml O July 1993 - Aug.1993 4273.58 Ci/kW-hr 9.180 x 10-8 pCi/ml

1. Values used to assure average release concentration meets 10 CFR 20 limits.

B. Liauid Waste From the UFTR/ Nuclear Sciences Complex 0

There were approximately 156,563 liters discharged from the liquid waste holdup tanks to the campus sanitary sewage system during this reporting period. For this period there were only two discharges as summarized in Tables VII-3A, VII-3B, and VII-3C.

The effluent discharged into the holding tank.s comes from twenty laboratories within the O Nuclear Sciences Center, the University Radiation Control Office as well as the UFTR complex.

The UFTR normally releases approximately I liter of primary coolant per week to the holdup tanks as waste from primary coolant sampling. A total of 51 weekly samples were taken during 4

this reporting year; the average activity for these coolant samples was 4.79 x 10 pCi/ml (p-y) and 7.32 x 10'8 Ci/ml (a) for this 1992-1993 reporting period.

O The only other primary coolant sample released to the holding tanks during the reporting year was the result of a broken rupture disk on April 14,1993, which resulted in approximately 60 gallons being pumped from the primary equipment pit.

O vil-2

'O 1

TABLE VII-3A l LIQUID WASTE RELEASES FROM HOLDUP TANKS l O

Gross Beta ,

Volume Concentration Total Release Date (liters) (pCi/ml) Activity ( Ci) 1 0 1. Sept.18,1992 77,662.5 <LLD(4.26 x 10-') 0.331'

2. Mar. 3. ? 093 78,900 4.60 x 10 O.363 i

l. He activity was determined for this entry using the LLD. Actual activity released in such cases is less than [

this value.

O i TABLE VII-3B {

LIQUID WASTE RELEASES FROM HOLDUP TANKS

.O Tritium ;

Volume Concentration Total Release i Date (liters) (gCi/ml) Activity ( Ci) :

4

1. Sept.18,1992 77,662.5 <LLD(1.85 x 10 ) 14.338' f

.O 2. Mar. 3,1993 78,900 <LLD(5.70 x 10 )

44.973'

l. The activity was htermined for this entry using the LLD. Actual activity released in such cases is less than this value.

t

O TABLE VII-3C !

LIQUID WASTE RELEASES FROM HOLDUP TANKS Carbon-14 !

O Volume Concentration Total Release !

Date (liters) (pCi/ml) Activity (pCi) I i

4

1. Sept.18.1992 77,662.5 <LLD(3.34 x 10 ) 25.940' i

2. Mar. 3,1993 78,900 <LLD(1.70 x 10~6) 134.130' .

O

1. He activity was determined for this entry using the LLD. Actual activity released in such cases is less than this value. ,

o O y113 !

t m . _ __. _ _ . , _ . . _ . _ .

O C. Solid Waste Shinned Offsite O

The UFTR facility made no shipments of solid waste during this reporting year. The last -

shipment was made on December 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 drive systems. The activity of the shipment was approximately 3.125 O curies with the activity primarily attributed to Cobalt-60. Though a similar shipment of two drums was planned for the last three reporting years and again this reporting year to remove all the products resulting from the control blade restoration and maintenance project of 1985-1986, 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 O generated during the UFTR conversion from HEU-to-LEU fuel expected within 2 years. The new Standard Operating Procedure UFTR SOP-D.5, "UFTR Reactor Waste Shipments: Preparations and Transfer" originally generated in the 1986-1987 reporting year and revised in April 1992 during the last 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.

O D. Environmental Monitoring The UFTR maintains continuous film badge as well as thermoluminescent dosimeter monitoring (new for the 1982-1983 reporting period) in areas adjacent to and in the vicinity of the UFTR complex. The badge and TLD cumulative totals for this reporting period from O September,1992 through August,1993 are summarized in Table VII-4. As can be noted, the values for the 12 months of the reporting period are either minimal or very low in all cases.

Overall, the values in Table VII-4 show minimal environmental radiation dose from UFTR operations. The recorded TLD exposures are probably close to background in all cases while those recorded via film badges are also essentially background to within the accuracy of the ,

monitoring instruments.

O Film badge yearly exposures include contributions from July 1993 and August 1993 only.

The accumulation 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 Table VII-5, as well as all the minimal O values, are considered to support the conclusion of minimal environmental exposures from UFTR operation, especially since the months with exposure as recorded in Table VII-5 represent the full spectrum of monthly UFTR energy generation running from August,1993 with 1124.14 kW-hrs ,

generated at the low end (lowest of the year) to July,1993 with 3291.10 kW-hrs generated on the high end (fourth highest for the year). Clearly the occasional exposures registered above minimal are not correlated with UFTR energy generation.

0 i

O VII-4

O In August,1993, all but one of the seven (7) environmental monitoring film badges are listed O in Table VII-5 as having received above minimal dose even though August,1993 was the lowest usage month (1124.141 kw-brs generated), and none of the more accurate TLD's (twelve) are listed as receiving above the minimal or nominal background dose. In addition, for this reporting year, previous months at higher energy generation levels have not yielded a correlated increase, so energy generation is eliminated as a source of the elevated levels in the film badges.

O In summary, the more accurate TLD readings are likely to be the preferred readings and these values recorded on the film badges are evaluated to be acceptable and not caused by any facility problems but badge inaccuracies and/or faulty processing.

Based on Revision 3 of the UFTR Safety Analysis Report submitted to the NRC on May 29, 1987, plans are to eliminate some of the film badges currently used since the thermoluminescent O dosimeters are preferred and were intended to replace the film badges previously referenced in the Safety Analysis Report. No action has been taken on this change to date; current plans to implement this change are on hold.

O O

7 O

O v115

.O l

1

. l l

l TABLE VII-4 I O J CUMULATIVE RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING -)

i FOR THE 1992-1993 REPORTING YEAR i

O. Film Badge Total Yearly Total Yearly Months of 2

Designation Exposure (mrem)' TLDs Exposure (mrem)* Exposure 7 Al 30 1 M 8/93 A2 50 2 M 7/93 and 8/93 g

A3 M 3 M -- >

A4 10 4 M 8/93 A5 10 5 M 8/93 A6 20 6 M 7/93 and 8/93 A7 30 7 M 8/93 O 8 M -

9 hi --

10 M --

11 M --

12 M --

O l

1. Film badge total yearly exposures include contributions from July 1993 and August 1993 as indicated in !

Table Vll-5. !

2. The first seven TLDs are attached adjacent to the corresponding numbered film badge monitors.

3. M denotes minimal (<10 mrem) exposure; film badges normally receive about 30 mrem.during film O handling and processing.

O r

l l

I i

O O V11-6

.l 1

- _ l

O TABLE VII-5 O ENVIRONMENTAL BADGE EXPOSURE RECORD BY MONTII OF EXPOSURE Film Badge Total July,1993 August,1993 Designation Exposure (mrem) Exposure (mrem) Exposure (mrem)

O 1 Al 30 M 30 .

A2 50 20 30 A3 h1 Af hi O A4 10 M 10 A5 10 M 10 A6 20 10 10 A7 30 hi 30 O

E. Personal Radiation Exnosure Maintenance and experimental work requiring significant exposure commitment were O minimized as much as possible during this 1992-1993 reporting year as in the 1987-1992 reporting i years following previous years when major maintenance in the core area involved relatively large i dose commitments. This record is despite the outage for the in-core temperature monitoring system maintenance. UFTR-associated personnel exposures greater than minimum detectable during the reporting period are summarized in Table VII-6.

O Table VII-6 lists the permanent whole-body badge exposures recorded above background for the reponing year for personnel employed directly at the UFTR. These exposures are summarized l for all badged UFTR personnel on an annual basis with no further breakdown because all exposures with two exceptions are below 100 mrem with the highest at 230 mrem. In addition, the largest ;

exposures are generally spread over several months primarily for support of experimental, research and educational projects as well as maintenance and surveillance projects. In this year, most of the

O exposure recorded in Table VII-6 was either to support neutron radiography experimentation or the in-core maintenance on the temperature monitoring system.

O O VII-7

O O TABLE VII-6 ANNUAL UFTR PERSONNEL EXPOSURE' Name Position Permanent Film Badge Exposure (mrem)23 W.G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities 70 D. Simpkins Reactor Manager 150 D. Cronin Senior Reactor Operator 230 0

J. Wolf Senior Reactor Operator Trainee 40 G.W. Fogle Reactor Operator 80 0 T. Downing Student Radiation Control / NAA Technician 10

1. Individuals from the Radiation Control Office periodically assigned to support UFTR-related activities and receiving a non-minimal dose for the year are listed in Table VII-7.

2. M denotes minimal (<10 mrem) meaning background only.

O

3. All exposures reported here are for film badge readings for deep /whole body exposure.

Whole-body badge exposures for University of Florida personnel employed by the Radiation Control Office where the exposure is attributed to radiation control work associated with UFTR O

activities was minimal with no individual receiving a recorded exposure above background for normal work activities. One individual from the 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 Vll-7, tabulated from the self-reading pocket dosimeter log. The exposures for this individual are primarily due to involvement in supporting the in-core temperature monitoring system O maintenance and each is at a very low dose level.

O O y;; g

O o TABLE VII-7 i

EXPOSURE RECORDS FOR RADIATION CONTROL PERSONNEL AS RECORDED ON PROMPT-READING DOSIMETERS Personnel Date Exposure Comments O-M. LaFranzo 2/17/93 3 mR Pre-Radiography Surveys for Run Request 93-05 M. LaFranzo 4/02/93 2 mR Cu-64 Sample Removal from CVP and Subsequent

Transfer for Run Request #93-14 O M. LaFranzo 7/09/93 10 mR Temperature Monitoring System Repairs made under RWP 93-01-1 and MLP 93-27 M. LaFranzo 7/12/93 3 mR RWP 93-01-I and Post-Work Radiation Surveys O

The in-core temperature monitoring system maintenance is typical of the type of project requiring additional radiation control support personnel, usually at widely-spaced intervals. During the 1992-1993 year, the in-core temperature monitoring system maintenance was the only large project requiring the utilization of radiation control personnel not normally assigned to support special UFTR activities t

O All personnel involved in the in-core temperature monitoring system maintenance were monitored by film badge dosimetry with personnel directly involved also monitored by local-use TLD dosimetry and self-reading pocket dosimeters. The activities included shielding removal, disconnecting and reconnecting in-core thermocouples, removal of the old thermocouple wire and 1 running new thermocouple wire in the core area, followed by replacement of shielding. During this O in-core project, four (4) different personnel received measurable exposures, all of whom were from the UFTR operations staff. All exposures listed in Table VII-8 are for film badges, used as whole body monitors, unless otherwise indicated.

O O

O Vll-9 f

0 0 TABLE VII-8 RADIATION EXPOSURE ACQUIRED DURING RWP 93-01-I / MLP 93-27 ,

TO REPAIR TEMPERATURE MONITORING SYSTEM WIRING JULY 1993 ,

O UFFR Personnel: Landauer Siemens' D. Simpkins 70 mR (whole body) 30 mR 220 mR (rt, wrist) 80 mR (rt, foot) 110 mR (head) 0 D. Cronin 40 mR (whole body) 60 mR 220 mR (rt. wrist) 180 mR (rt. foot) 80 mR (head)

O J. Wolf 10 mR (whole body) ,

G. Fogle 40 mR (whole body)

O NOTES:

~ '

1. Siemens film badge exposures listed are for the entire month of July,1993.

2. No film badge exposure was recorded in this project for Radiation Control Personnel.

3. Any and all other personnel involved received negligible dose.

For visitors, students, or other non-permanent UFTR personnel, a few individuals had a non-zero prompt, self-reading dosimeter exposure measurement not above 0.5% of the allowable ,

quarterly limit for the entire reporting period as indicated on Table VII-9. In most cases, the values f ne (1) up to four (4) mrem exposures recorded for self-reading pocket dosimeters are attributed O ,

to uncertainty in reading the devices or having dropped the dosimeter. In most cases in Table VII-9, dosimeters monitoring other students participating in the same exercise or project indicated no exposure. Additionally, in all cases except for radiation control support activities, the projects including weekly and daily checkouts, tours, and operations demonstrations did not involve activities that would be expected to generate significant radiation exposure.

iO ,

=O vii_10

. . __ ~ -.

O :

O TABLE VII-9 i

EXPOSURE RECORDS FOR NON-PERMANENT UFTR PERSONNEL '

AS RECORDED ON PROMPT-READING DOSIMETERS O

Personnel' Date Exposure (mR) . Comments -

J. Michael 10/01/92 6 Evaluated as dose received by four (4) Heritage D. Arnold 10/01/92 3 Christian School students during UFTR tour and ,

K. Smith 10/01/92 4 reactor operations demonstrations including O D. Kelly 10/01/92 2 Cerenkov radiation demonstration.

P M. Gilman* 12/16/92 4 Evaluated as dose received during restricted and J. Hyde

3/04/93 3 unrestricted area radiation survey exercise for Co-op student trainees from CFCC Radiation

O Technology Program.

D. Ingram 4/14/93 4 Evaluated as dose received by one ENU-5176L 4/14/93 2 student while assisting with the replacement of a primary rupture disk under MLP# 93-12 which ,

was broken during the performance of the lab.-

!O G. Drill 5/13/93 2 Evaluated as dose received by one St. Augustine High School student during UFTR tour and reactor operations demonstrations probably due to uncertainty in reading of dosimeter.

O A. Austin 6/11/93 3 Evaluated as dose received by one ENU-5176L

. student during the performance of UFTR Abnormal Blade Configuration Flux Tilt and Hot Channel Factor for Enthalpy Rise experiment operations demonstrations probably due to uncertainty in reading of dosimeter.

O ,

)

1. The personnel labeled with asterisks were involved in cooperative work training exercises at the UFTR as pan of their degree requirements for Central Florida Community College, All were issued film badges which indicated minimal exposure for their 3 month stay at the facility.

I

O >

i ,

4

(

]O vil.11 ;

1

O Table VII-10 is a summary of Sim badge exposures recorded for non-permanent UFTR O pers nn 1 during the reporting year. The NAA Lab Manager and the NAA Lab Technician are the only personnel who have been employed as workers in activities expected to possibly result in a measurable exposure so these readings could be legitimate. However, the exposures recorded for the personnel labeled with asterisks are questionable since both badges were read late and with no appropriate control badge. In addition, the SSTP summer student's activities were strictly controlled to assure no exposure.

O TAllLE VII-10 FILM IIADGE EXPOSURE RECORDS OF NON-PERMANENT UFTR PERSONNEL O

Name Exposure Month of Exposure Activity R. Ratner 10 mR 10/92 NAA Lab Manager A. Austin

20 mR 7/93 NAA Lab Technician O. Ganesh* 10 mR 7/93 SSTP Summer Student t.

The badges for the individuals labeled with asterisks were read late and without an appropriate control badge.

O 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 su 'tificant radiation Gelds are present. Therefore, the lack of signincant visitor exposure is expected and in agreement with ALARA guidelines.

O O

1 O l I

i

O VII-12

O VIII. EDUCATION, RESEARCII AND TRAINING UTILIZATION i

0 NOTE: The participating students are indicated with an asterisk (*). Other participants are faculty or staff members of the University of Florida, unless specifically designated otherwise. A double asterisk (**) indicates those students working on theses, projects or dissertations.

O 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, D. Simpkins, M. LaFranzo, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *,

R. Rdan*, D. Farinha**, Reactor Staff.

O A set of reactor operations based radiation protection health physics cooperative work training exercises have been developed to meet the cooperative work needs of Radiation Protection Technology students at Central Florida Community College (CFCC). Two (2) of these courses were conducted during this reporting year for a total of 18 students with great success. Students who take these courses are well suited to work as radiation control O

technicians and health physics assistants at nuclear power plants. The exercises are also extremely adaptable and some of them have been upgraded and used in the undergraduate and graduate health physics laboratory and other courses at the University of Florida. The development of this course and its subsequent presentation to CFCC students has been 1 partially supported under the UFTR DOE Reactor Sharing Program and has been a O v lu ble resource in the continuing effort to sustain and even increase reactor utilization.

During this reporting year considerable staff effort was again devoted to improving the !

materials used for several of the exercises and to development of variations on several l exercises. I UFFR Reactor Operations With NAA. Neutron Radiography. Shielding. Half-Life. Robotics o and Other Laboratory / Demonstration Experiments and Exercists - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. B. Abbott, D. Simpkins, R. Allen (UCHS), R. Rawls/S. MacKenzie/P. Wainwright (CFCC), Dr. N. Gangadharan (ERAU), Dr. M. Lombardi (HCC), T. Czarniak (FIT), S.

Marchionno/R. Sturm/Dr. A. Ferrari/L. Iselin/Dr. B. Tucker (SFCC), A. Butler /S.

Richardson (CRHS), S. Buell (SAHS), J. McMullen/A. Heller (EHS), J. Daniel /J.

Lindgren/K. Zeoli (FCMS), C. Restivo/R. Short (LMS), G. Jones /W. Steffens/E. Miller I

~0 (PKYHS), Dr. G. Featherston/B. Jones, J. DeLott (HCS), T. Jordan (CHS), A. Arico/C.

Schumaker (PHS), J. Griggs/C. H. Coldwell (MHS), D. Murray (FAIS), R. Napier/N. Skiles (GHS), M. Herring /E. Kisversaryi (EHS), R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, J. LaBelle*, C.

Leipner*, S. R. Wade **, B. Morehouse**, F. A. Chee**, A. Bebihani**, S. Moudgil**, O. i Ganesh**, Reactor Staff. l

o Mini-courses (including lectures, tours, demonstrations, reactor operations, NAA of unknown and standard samples, half-life measurements, radiation field measurements, demonstrations of neutron radiography, robotics, etc.) have been developed and presented as part of the UFTR DOE Reactor Sharing Program to provide practical reactor operations, radiation O VIII-l 1

O protection and health physics training as well as NAA laboratory experience and neutron radiography practice for groups of students from Central Florida Community College Radiation Protection Technology Program, Santa Fe Community College Nuclear Medicine O

Technology / Radiologic Programs, Santa Fe Community College Science Department, the Hillsborough Community College Nuclear Medicine / Allied Health Technology programs, a group of engineering physics students from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and a group of physics students from Florida Institute of Technology. Other participants in all or part of such mini-courses this year include physics, chemistry, biology, science and/or O g vernment students from Santa Fe High School, Chamberlain High School, Crystal River High School, Eastside High School, Heritage Christian School, P.K. Yonge High School, Union County High School and St. Augustine High School as well as individual and groups of students from Gainesville High School, and mixed groups of high school students from the Florida Accelerated Initiatives Seminar, Florida High School Scholars Program and others.

O Reactor Operations Laboratory (ENU-5176L) - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D. Simpkins, R.

Lower *, Reactor Staff.

Students in the reactor operations course spend about two and a half hours weekly at the controls of the UFTR performing reactor operations exercises under supervision oflicensed O 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 oflight water power reactor behavior are included as this laboratory course serves as basic preparation 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 O of exercises designed to assure them of conducting 10 meaningful startups and 10 shutdowns along with a broad usage of reactivity manipulations. A special effort is made to correlate UFTR exercises with various aspects of LWR operations. This stand alone lab course was offered three times during the current reporting year as a separately approved course. In addition, one student high honors special topics project (ENU-4930) was completed in mid-O year f r a student to perform all the laboratory exercises and to rework them into a standard generic format for storage on a computer disk. This student also generated a complete set of questions with answers to be used as a check of understanding for each of the laboratory exercises.

Sfrvice to Florida Foundation of Future Scientists - Lectures, Tours and Demonstrations

.O of Reactor Operations - Dr. B. Abbott, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Prof. J.S. Tulenko, D.

Simpkins, D. Paulin, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, D. Farinha*, D. Henderson*, UFTR 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 annual Junior kience, Engineering and Humanities Symposium jointly sponsored each winter by the Florida Foundation of Future Scientists and the University of Florida for O

promising high school juniors and their teachers. This year the same service was again provided for participant groups of high school students in the FFFS Summer Research Program and was extended to include student participants in the FFFS-sponsored Summer O VIII-2

O i

Future Leaders Seminar as well as a large group of UF Talent Identification Program high school student and parent participants.

O Reactor Operations Demonstrations - Reactor Operations Instruction and Demonstrations for Various Courses Within the University of Florida - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Reactor Staff.

The following courses are identified where one or in many cases as many as four or five classes or labs in a course would be conducted using the UFTR facility. All would begin !

O with the lecture, tour and reactor operations and facility capabilities demonstration with l later classes, where needed, devoted to more detailed lab instruction in one or more areas of UFTR facility operations such as instrumentation demonstrations, radiation surveys and ;

effluent characterization, irradiations forhalf-life measurements, 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:

O Course Instructor (s)

CHS-5110/5110L Dr. K. Williams /Dr. L. Muga/Dr. W.G. Vernetson EGN-1002 Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. M. Hoit EML-4450 Dr. Y. Goshwami O EML-6451 Dr. Y. Goshwami ENU-4505L Dr. W.H. Ellis/Dr. G.R. Dalton /Dr. W.G. Vernetson ENU-4612U5516L Dr. W.H. Ellis ENU-4905 Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. G.J. Schoessow ENU-4930 Dr. W.G. Vernetson ENU-4934 Prof. J.S Tulenko/Dr. W.G. Vernetson O ENU-5516L Dr. N. Diaz, Dr. W.H. Ellis, Dr. W.G. Vernetson ENU-6935 Prof. J.S. Tulenko/Dr. W.G. Vernetson ENU-6937 Dr. W.G. Vernetson ENU-7979 Dr. D.E. Hintenlang/Dr. W.H. Ellis ENV-4201 Dr. C.E. Roessler, Dr. W.G. Vernetson ENV-5206 Dr. C.E. Roessler/Dr. W.G. Vernetson O

ENV-6215 Dr. C.E. Roessler ENV-6932 Dr. W.S. Properzio IDH-2931 Dr. H. Evans /Dr. E. Dunnam PCB-5317 Dr. M. Wheatley PHY-3042 Dr. P. Avery/Dr. W.G. Vernetson O 2 0 0-5405 Dr. M. Wheatley Radiation Protection and Control Health Physics Practice (ENV-4201/5206, ENV-4932/6932, ENV-6215) - Dr. W.E. Bolch, Dr. W.S.Properzio, Dr. C.E. Roessler, Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, D.L. Munroe, M. LaFranzo, R-. Ratner *, T. Downing *, D. Farinha*, D.

Henderson*, Reactor Staff.

O These courses provide students in various disciplines within the Environmental Engineering Sciences curriculum with knowledge of reactor environments, anaJytical methods of analyzing radiation including NAA plus practical experience in radiaHon protection and o VIII-3

O l

control such as performing radiation surveys in and around the UFTR cell and environs, l calibrating area radiation monitors, determining effluent levels, setting up emergency l o exercises, etc. These exercises also serve as training for potential radiation control technicians, most of whom are students in Nuclear or Environmental Engineering Sciences.

Nuclear Engineerine Laboratory I(ENU-4505L) - Dr. N.J.Diaz, Dr. E.T. Dugan, Dr. G.R.

Dalton, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D. Simpkins, R. Ratner, Reactor Staff.

O 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, foil irradiations, flux mapping, evaluation of hot chanr.el 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 O determinations and operational measurements.

Radiation Worker Training - 10 CFR 19 Radiation Worker Instructions - Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, D.L. Munroe, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, D. Farinha*, J. LaBelle*, A. Austin *,

Reactor Staff.

O In response to previous NRC inspections, a standardized set of training materials has been developed and is teing well used to meet the requirements for training as radiation workers for users of the reactor facility including many students and other frequent visitors for surveillances on fire extinguishers, air handlers, cell light replacement, etc. This material was further expanded and updated during the reporting year. All such training is carefully documented to assure meeting regulatory requirements.

O Nuclear Engineering Laboratory II (ENU-6516L/ENU-5516L) - Dr. N.J. Diaz, Dr. E.T.

Dugan, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. W.H. Ellis, Dr. G.R. Dalton, D. Simpkins, R. Ratner *, T.

Downing *, Reactor Staff.

O 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 /

gamma flux and energy mapping, neutron activation analysis, inverse reactor kinetics measurements, control blade reactivity worth measurements and demonstration of the neutron radiography methodology and comparison with X-ray radiography methodology for O comparison of capabilities and neutron acdvation analysis for trace element identification as well as evaluation and generation ofin-house standards used for NAA. This course was offered twice during the reporting year.

NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of Archeological Seashells - Dr. T. Stocker (UWF), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Hamuhan*, UFTR Staff.

O Under the Reactor Sharing Program, neutron activation analysis is being evaluated to be applied to various 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 O VIII-4

O United States, the research is directed toward identifying enough trace element canstituents in these seashells to develop a method for determining Indian trade routes in the Eastern United States. This research is in its early stages on a time available basis with no work O

performed during the current reporting year. Son information on this type of work may be available from a European reactor facility which has been requested to supply reprints of their work with no response to date. This project has been much delayed but it is hoped to begin processing samples in the next reporting year.

0 NAA Research - Trace Element Evaluation of Various Age Seashells - Dr. Guy Prentice, Dr. G.S. Roessler, R. Ratner *, D. Farinha", T. Downing *, UFTR Staff.

Neutron activation analysis is being applied to identify the trace element composition of environmental seashells from various locations in Florida of various ages. The purpose of this research is to determine whether a set of key trace elements (nuclides) can be identified o as signatures for shells from various locations and age. The work continues as its purpose is being reevaluated and the work progresses on a time available basis with one student project completed this year to perform a comparative evaluation of the trace element content of four different age seashells using neutron activation analysis.

Investieation of Properties of Fuel Storace Pit Liners - Dr. S. Turner (NUSURTEC), Dr.

O W.G. Vernetson, J. Wallis (NUSURTEC), D.L. Munroe, D. Simpkins, M. bFranzo, D.

Cronin, UFTR Staff.

Power reactor high density spent fuel racks typically are separated by sheet metal-enclosed boron silicide or other boron-containing material. This project is intended to define parameters that may be used to gauge radiation damage and incipient failure (including O significant absorber loss via teaching as well as mechanical failure) in boraflex. Specific procedures applied to date involve relative density measurements, modulus of rupture tests, neutron transmission coefficient measurements and neutron radiography of used as well as unused liner sample coupons from utility spent fuel pools with consistent results obtained to date. Sensitivity analyses conducted on graded-thickness boraflex samples have dem nstrated clearly that the radiographic analysis of these samples is both generally O consistent and sufficiently sensitive to support additional long-term utilization of the UFTR radiography facility for this work. With the loss of Mr. Piciullo during the previous reporting year, considerable time was spent training additional personnel to produce neutron radiographs to include setting up the experimental port and taking test radiographs.

o Ootical Physics Research -

Analysis of Radiation Induced bttice Disturbances in Dielectric Materials - Dr. H. Plendl (FSU), Dr. P. Gielisse (FSU/FAMU), D. Simpkins, R. Ratner *, Reactor Staff.

Under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program, 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

'O 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 O VIII-5 l

O to include thermal neutrons, fast neutrons and gamma rays. Comparisons are being made with previous results of irradiations with X-rays and electrons and with thermal neutrons, O all in isolation. The purpose of the work is to gain a comprehensive understanding of how certain dielectrics such as Al2 (SO4 )(OH) and similar lattices response to different types of radiation in the generation and destruction of color sites. During the 1988-1989 reporting year the work involved extensive large sample and small sample irradiations in a cadmium-covered experimental facility developed and characterized specifically for insertion in the UFTR shield tank. Subsequently, there have been further small sample irradiations in the O shield tank as well as extensive fast-neutron irradiation of cadmium-covered samples in the UFTR vertical ports after removal from the shield tank facility. This work was continued during the 1991-1992 year with irradiation of other types of dielectrics including beryl for which extensive irradiations have been performed on a second set of samples with work continuing at a reduced level during this year.

O UFTR Core Redesign (LEU Program) - Thermal-hydraulic Analysis for Core Redesign

- Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. E.T. Dugan, Professor G.J. Schoessow, E. Yokuda (DOE EG&G Inc.), R. Piciullo, D. Simpkins, G.E. Welch, Reactor Staff.

As part of the DOE LEU Conversion Program, thermal-hydraulic analysis related to redesign of the UFTR core using SPERT fuel rods has been performed. Computer analysis O 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 response conditions can be maintained with the UFTR/SPERT core design. Subsequently, using support provided by DOE to analyze conversion alternatives, the decision was made n t to go with SPERT fuel because of load considerations with thermal-hydraulic related O

conversion analysis expected to be much simpler. Analysis in this area of thermal hydraulics on the basic 14-plate core fuel bundle configuration had begun at the end of the 1990-1991 reporting year and was continued through most of this reporting year to provide input to support the license amendment for the HEU-to-LEU conversion since neutronics analysis ,

has now been completed to set the core configuration. The thermal-hydraulics analysis was O nearly completed during the 1991-1992 reporting year with only a few calculations remaining. The initial review of fuel drawings was also made during this year with Eileen Yokuda of EG&G Idaho visiting the facility and spending two days reviewing the unique UFTR core design which may necessitate manufacturing a complete dummy core to assure proper fit of the fuel in the fuel boxes. The final fuel drawings arrived for review during the most recent reporting year.

O UFTR Risk Assesment - Dr. W.G. Vernetson.

A preliminary probabilistic risk assessment of the University of Florida Training Reactor has been conducted. This project has determined an estimate of the probability of occurrence of a set of postulated maximum credible UFTR accidents. The results willbe used to show O that the UFTR poses no significant risk to the general population and environment around the UFTR and has demonstrated proficiency in PRA analyses as additional PRA projects are undertaken. Specifically, research is continuing to obtain better data for the maximum credible accidents and extend the methodology to examine risk associated with less serious O VIII-6

O but higher probability UFTR-related accidents or failures of key systems such as safety l channels. This project is relatively inactive at present awaiting further student interest; it !

O should be noted that NRC has shown some interest in this area as they have had a study j completed by Science Applications International Corporation which appears to place UFTR risk level with some of the higher power reactor facilities. This interest may lead to reactivation of this project, particularly for modifications to the reactor safety and control systems.

O NAA Research - Determination of Chlorine, Titanium and Fluorine Concentrations in Quartz - Dr. G.P. LaTorre (GelTech), Dr. C. Balaban (Advanced Materials Research Company), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *, Reactor Staff.

Different manufacturing techniques and parameters are used to reduce the concentration of chlorine, titanium and fluorine in quartz glass (silica) produced for optical uses.

O Compositional characterization of the glass is based on the titanium / silicon ratio. The high purity of the sample matrix and the elements of interest (Cl, Ti, F) for this project make NAA ideally suited to determine the concentrations of chlorine, titanium and more recently fluorine remaining after various processing stages. The fluorine concentration determination is especially important since the facility has been able to perform this analysis with reliable results despite the short half-life (11 seconds) of the activated product (F-20). Funding for O this service work is supplied through the Advanced Materials Research Center. Though no work was performed during this reporting year, this project is ongoing.

NAA Research - Trial Irradiation of Phosphate for Rare Earth Element and Other Element Characterization - Dr. P. Gielisse (FAMU/FSU, Department of Mechanical Engineering), Dr. R. Clark (FSU, Chemistry Dept.), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *, T.

O Downing *, D. Farinha*, J. LaBelle*, 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 O 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 two years ago as data is being generated to support a proposal for more external funding with no irradiation work performed this year.

.O NAA Research - Biogeochemical Assessment of the Pollard, Alabama Oil Field - Dr. G.

Cwick (SEMSU), Dr. M. Bishop (UWEC), R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, D. Farinha*, J.

LaBelle*, Reactor Staff.

The biogeochemical 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,

.O Al bama 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 environmental O VIII-7

O characteristics may be correlated to satellite mapping of hydrocarbon production potential.

Environmental vegetative anomalies detected by neutron activation analysis will be O correlated to image anomalies. This work was initially supported under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program as data is being generated to support a proposal for external funding.

Irradiation and analysis of Phase I samples was completed in November,1989 with Phase 2 samples prepared forirradiation and considerable analysis performed in the 1989-1990 year.

During the 1990-1991 year a small amount of external support for sample processing was received in this current reporting year to speed processing of samples. One student also O obtained good results in a project where only the pine needle samples were selected for NAA with this work completed in the last reporting year.

NAA Research - Evaluation of Elemental Volatility In Standards - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. W.H. Ellis, R. Ratner **, T. Downing *, Reactor Staff O This project was undertaken to support NAA Laboratory activities. Various standards have been analyzed via NAA to determine whether handling or preparation of standards would affect results for volatile elements such as mercury. The results have been unful in evaluating laboratory procedures and identifying the proper means for preparing and handling samples, especially those containing mercury, depending upon whether la elemental r C mPound-specific state. This work is ongoing with plans to obtain a freen dryer and O

moisture analyzer with DOE funding to be available in the next reporting yer.r to limit the loss of volatile sample constituents.

NAA Research - Evaluation of Silicon Carbide Fibers - Dr. W.Torecki (MSE Dept), Dr.

W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, D. Henderson*, Reactor Staff.

O This project involved several sets of analyses on specially manufactured silicon carbide fibers to determine sample purity including identification of significant trace element cont:nt as well as an effort to determine whether different samples could be identified by the relative content of silicon in the different fibers. The trace element work was successful, showing no significant trace elements in these pure samples. The identification work, however, was

.O not successful initially as silicon (and graphite) do not activate sufficiently to allow relative content of either to be used to identify samples. This work was continued as the fibers were shielded with cadmium to absorb the thermal neutrons and enhance sensitivity though effons continue to improve sensitivity sufficiently to implement this technique.

Plasma Physics Studies - Multiprobe PIC Diagnostic Studies of Nuclear Enhanced MHD

.O Plasmas - Dr. W.H. Ellis, Dr. I. Maya, Dr. N.J. Diaz, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *,

W.Y. Choi* *, A. Ferrari* *, C. He* *.

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 reactor /MHD ,

converter systems. The work will be directed toward the development of an experimental l O system to measure the various design parameters as functions of temperature and pressure l for nuclear generated plasmas to include the nuclear ionization source rate, plasma loss ,

coefficients, and electrical conductivity. Ionization chambers filled with candidate reactor fuel gas /MHD working fluids will be placed into the UFTR equipped with a high O viii.g 1

1

O temperature heater system, with gas purge, plasma diagnostics, power, control and environmental monitoring systems. Measurements will be performed over a range of O 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 Flo-ida INSPI space power research program and a doctoral dissertation. Preliminary measurements of experimental port sizes and determination of experiment usage of UFTR ports were completed in the previous reporting year with a detailed run request and proposal developed but not approved pending completion of experimental apparatus.

O During this past reporting year the run request and analysis for non-fueled experiments was approved and a series of non-fueled experiments was conducted using this specially-designed PIC detector system to conclude much of the experimental work in support of a doctoral dissertation. This student's work was concluded early in the previous reporting year with several publications produced as well. Subsequently, additional work willbe performed on fueled systems subject to availability of student support as well as support for making O instrument repairs and modifications on this very sophisticated PIC detector system as there is sufficient research work here for several additional master's theses and doctoral dissertations.

UFTR Core Redesign (LEU Program) - Neutronics Analysis for UFTR Core Redesign

- Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. E.T. Dugan, R. Piciullo, R. DeMartino**.

O 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 Brid assemblies into existing fuel boxes. Acceptable neutronic criteria (possible km O

range, maximum fluxand degree of undermoderation) have been determined using industry-accepted, 4-group cross sections in one, two and three-dimensional diffusion theory calculations of km, flux profiles, power peaking factors and coefficients of reactivity. First order perturbation calculations have been used to determine key kinetic parameters.

Neutronic results to date indicate that the UFTR/SPERT core redesign can be O accommodated to meet requisite neutronic 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-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, O especially core physical loading and minimization of core changes. Neutronics analysis to 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. Modeling of the existing core begun last year was completed by mid year with the neutronics analysis of the proposed LEU completed as part of a masters project this year. This project examined several possible core fuel bundle designs and by the beginning of the reporting year the O decision had been made to select the 14 fuel plates per fuel bundle design with thermal l hydraulics analysis begun and nearly completed during the reporting year. At year's end, the thermal hydraulics analysis is nearly completed.

O VIII-9 i

l

._______.___________________u

O UFTR Operator Training and Recualification - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D.L. Munroe, D.

Simpkins, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, Reactor Staff.

O Lectures and hands-on operations on the reactor are necessary to license operators for the UFTR. The requalification and recertification training program establishes a required number of startups, weekly checks, daily checks, drills, practical exercises, lectures and examinations for each operator. Operator participation is mandatory in order to maintain assurance of proficiency levels and to be able to demonstrate the requisite operator skills.

O Operational proficiency is assured by written and oral examinations as well as by observations in practical exercises. The same program in an 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 UFTR Operator Requalification and Recertification Training Program. Two senior operators were licensed in October,1991 and another began license training in August,1992 and should be licensed O early in the next reporting year. In addition, the individual who was serving as the Acting Reactor Manager on a consultant basis ceased this association in August,1992 as a fully certified SRO assumed this position. Finally,after submission of the UFTR Requalification and Recertification Training Program for its usual two year renewal in May,1991, the facility received a letter in November,1991 with eleven questions concerning the Program and how it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55. As a result, the Training Program was O completely rewritten documenting the Program as implemented and submitted to the NRC in December,1991,with approval received in February,1992. During the current reporting year, the program was submitted unchanged for renewal through June,1995.

Gaseous Release Determinations - Argon-41 Stack Measurements - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, O Dr. W.E. Bolch, D. Simpkins, D.L. Munroe, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, D. Henderson*,

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 O 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 l 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 contir.ned to obtain a statistically significant number of data points and plans are eventually to j investigate the effect of variable core vent flow on total Ar-41 releases. Other commitments l O during a previous reporting year limited progress on this project; nevertheless, a source well l was installed in the stack to facilitate better calibration of the stack monitor detector at levels up to the 4000 cps limit of the monitor. As part of a student's senior design project, a variable position calibration control device was designed, constructed and installed in the 1 UFTR stack effluent access port to improve the methodology used to perform the quarterly stack radiation monitor calibration checks. This device allows easy positioning of the O calibrator source to assure readings at the high (4000 eps) and low (100 cps) end on the stack radiation monitor. After testing to assure proper functioning this device has been i

permanently mounted in the stack access port to facilitate all future stack radiation monitor l calibration checks since its installation and checkout in March, 1990, to facilitate l

lO VIII.10 l

I

- . . . - - - - - - - - .= . .. - .-

O performance of the quarterly stack monitor calibration and assure the reliability of its results. With the expectation of eventually raising power levels plus the decreased Ar-41 release limit in the proposed 10 CFR 20 revision, this work to characterize the variables O' affecting stack release concentrations may be moved to a higher priority in the next reporting year if a student can be fours to work on it. During this year the existing limits as well as the new 10 CFR Part 20 liguts on Argon-41 release concentrations have both ;

been incorporated into the semi-annual measurements (S-4 Surveillance). One doctoral '

student also attempted to model Argon-41 production but no significant results were O btained.

NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis for Characterization of Various NBS and USGS Standards with In-house Certification of Trace Elements - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr.

W.H. Ellis, R. Ratner *, L. Vickers**, T. Downing *, Reactor Staff.

O 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 ,

O Summer .High School Student Research Program under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program ;

as well as for a student senior project during the previous year. Limited results were obtained. Although good reports in limited areas have been prepared by the students in each case, the work has continued to progress slowlyas various reliable secondary standards are to be developed to facilitate NAA on samples where multiple trace element concentrations are to be determined. This ongoing project provides data on which to base O generating irradiation and decay schemes targeted to measure concentrations of specific elements in NIST (NBS) Standards to assure certified comparisons with unknown samples are available. Work to date is progressing well, but considerable additional effort is required to benchmark uncertified contents of standards. During the previous two years (1989-1991), as part of a students' senior design project, the contents of various NIST/NBS O and USGS standards are being cross correlated and spread sheets being developed. This j project is intended to allow for potential NAA Laboratory user to consult a matrix to ;

determine which standards should be used for trace element determinations, depending on the makeup of the sample matrix. Considerable work has been devoted to this project as' ;

the students project has been concluded; however, more work is planned as the NAA j l2boratory matures and attempts to develop its own standards for special or even routine ,

O applications. During the 1990-1991 reporting year another useful student project was completed involving the compilation and verification of standard reference materials (SRMs) table files to promote and facilitate rapid computer access to information on various standards that are available so that individual project libraries can be rapidly and optimally developed to support neutron activation analysis projects. Limited progress was made on this project in the past two reporting years.

O

'O VIII-11

= -. . - . . .-

.- - .-. L

O NAA Research - Implementation of Upgraded NAA Laboratory Facilities - Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, J. LaBelle*, D. Farinha*, C. Leipner**, D. Simpkins O 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 o of handling samples for NAA. During the 1988-1989 year, manual cellisolation valves were installed to provide a backup means to assure samples could not be inserted until allowed by the reactor operator. Earlier in the year a post-accident core vent sampling connection was also installed in the rabbit system lines to provide for sampling of cell air radioactivity levels prior to venting during abnormal or emergency operating conditions per UFTR Tech Spec Amendment No.17. Two years ago improvements included the fullimplementation O of sample drying and standards controlled environment facilities along with a slide presentation on instrumental neutron activation analysis including the 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 facilityinnovation during the O 1989-1990 year was completion of work on the design of an automatic sample changer for one detector system in the NAA Laboratory. As part of a student's senior design project, the automatic sample changer was installed in the NAA Laboratory in mid-1990. The system was mechanically complete and operable for one sample at a time but needed electronics work to sequence its switching circuits properly and interface it with the computer-based analyzer. During the 1991-1992 year, considerable progress was made in O redesigning the switching circuit and in developing a software package for the necessa y interfacing with the computer systems. During the present year, the system is nearing full operability. When fully implemented, this device will allow NAA Laboratory workers to count samples and store the spectra for a dozen or more samples without returning to the laboratory which will greatly increase the potential throughout for the laboratory. Other ,

O laboratory improvements in 1991-1992 included installing a new monitor for one computer, implementation of additional computer storage capacity and implementation of an upgraded gamma spectroscopy system including a multichannel buffer for multiple detector operation.

In addition, an integral shield was obtained for one HPGe detector system and an upgraded desiccator system with additional storage capacity was obtained for storage of standards and

- samples prior to irradiation. Laboratory improvements in this past 1992-1993 year include O a complete new detector system including an HPGe detector, integral shield, PC-based analyzer and complete software package to provide a third detector system.

Neutron Radiography Facility Development - Determination of Beam Characteristics and Optimization of Facility - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. A.M.Jacobs, Dr. S. Nagler, Dr. H. Van Rinsvelt, R. Ratner *, D. Simpkins, L. Morales, UFTR Staff. ,

O Thermal column and east-west throughport facilities were evaluated for radiation beam characteristics with the thermal column being determined optimal as a neutrcn radiography facility. A precollimator/collimator and drift tube assembly have been completed, a film j O VIII-12 j l

1

O cassette and developing facility have been implemented. The beam configuration modifications have neared completion with certifiable Class I (ANSI Standard E545) neutron radiographs nearly possible. Following final beam configuration development, a O shield and shutter assembly willbe developed. Checks to determine possibility of producing real time radiographs in several configurations were unsuccessful in the 1986-1987 reporting year. One funded and several other repeated applications were performed in the 1987-1987 reporting year. During the 1987-1988 year extensive work to optimize and characterize the facility parameters was also accomplished along with completion of darkroom facilities for r di graph development including the loan of an autoprocessor which has not been much O

used. However, this developmental project is ongoing and a major enterprise for 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 O 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 and a thesis was also completed at the end of 1989-1990 reporting year. During the 1989-1990 year another project was undertaken to improve and characterize beam characteristics and design permanent shielding to allow reduction of time O to take radiographs with work still in progress as the effort is hoped to eventually allow reaching characteristics necessary for real time radiography. During the 1990-1991 year, in addition to staff efforts to improve radiography facility capabilities, one student under the Florida Fouridation of Future Scientists Summer High School Student Research Program performed some special studies on the facility and generated a report of his work which was the subject of a science fair exhibit during the 1991-1992 year. Activity during this reporting O year was simply to train new personnel to assure continued capability to set up the experimental facility and produce quality radiographs which is continuing at year's end with some difficulty getting radiographs of the quality reached earlier.

LEU Conversion - Special SNM-1050 SPERT Low Enriched Fuel Conversion Efforts - '

Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D. Simpkins, D.L. Munroe, Reactor Staff.

O Extensive efforts were conducted to consider qualifying the SPERT fuel for use in the UFTR. Prior work on the SPERT fuel licensed under SNM-1050 has included extensive decontamination work, radiation and contamination surveys, property surveys, SNM-1050 facility modifications, fire alarm system maintenance / upgrade, LEU SPERT fuel movement O to a newly decontaminated room, security system modification and NRC Radiation Safety Inspection. Subsequently complete pin by pin identification number verification for fuel inventory and visual inspection was completed along with x-rayradiography of sufficient pins to fuel the UFTR for LEU conversion and allow refueling. Efforts in this area prior to this year have also included relicensing the SNM-1050 facility for " storage only" and concluded with a determination not to use the SPERT fuel for conversion. After the decision in the previous reporting year not to utilize the SPERT fuel for UFTR HEU-to LEU conversion, O

the decision was made to ship the SPERT fuel from the University of Florida campus.

During the 1989-1990 year,1200 fuel pins were finally loaded into 6M containers and transferred to Martin-Marietta for shipment to Oak Ridge National 12boratory on May 18, O VIII-13

O 1990 to support blanket experiments aweiated with a restarted reach. This transfer was accomplished under QA Program Approval 0578 (see Appendix H of the 1990-1991 Annual Report). Later in the year a change in the license was generated, submitted and approved O by NRC allowing the remaining 4400 SPERT fuel pins to be stored in Room 6 at the Nuclear Research Building. Following Room 6 upgrades, the remaining SPERT fuel was moved from Room 5 to Room 6in July,1990. One student report on the radiography effort to analyze the LEU pins was completed during the 1990-1991 reporting year. At the end of the 1989-1990 year and throughout the last two years, efforts have continued to ship the SPERT fuel either to a secure DOE facility or to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for use O

in their zero power facility. These efforts were without success during the past two reporting years though the return shipment of 1200 fuel pins from ORNL was not authorized after conclusion of the ORNL experiments since Room 6 has insufficient room to store the remaining 1200 pins. Otherwise, this situation remains unchanged.

O Facility Characterization - Determination of UFTR Beam Ports / Thermal Column Neutron Spectra - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. W.H. Ellis, R. Ratner *, C. Leipner**, 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 O 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 preliminary work on designing a prompt gamma analysis facility performed on the 1988-1989 reporting year. For the 1990-1991 reporting year, as part of a student's senior design project, various O threshold detector foils were activated in the south and southwest beam ports to characterize the energy-dependence of the neutron field with special emphasis on the neutron field above 1 MeV. Though one student project has been completed with some useful spectral measurements produced, little progress was made on this work during the past two reporting years.

O Facilities Davelopment -

Characterization of UFTR Beam Port Neutron Flux for Implementation of a Prompt Gamma Analysis Facility - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *,

UFTR Staff.

The potential for installation of a prompt gamma analysis facility at the UFTR has been O under consideration. 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 program in 1988. This project also included a preliminary design for the prompt gamma analysis system emphasizing its complementary features when used with NAA for trace element analysis of samples. Work on this project to design and implement a prompt gamma analysis system to complement the existing Neutron Activation Analysis (Delayed O Gamma) facility and capabilities has been in abeyance for the last two years but general considerations and requests for DOE support in this area continue to be evaluated since there have been several inquiries for elemental analysis that would require such a facility.

O VIII-I4

O CHS-5510/5510L - Dr. K. Williams, Dr. M.L. Muga, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D. Simpkins, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, Reactor Staff O

Radiochemistry laboratory project exercises of half-life determination for silver and iodine, neutron activation analysis of silver and aluminum in metal samples and on identification of chlorine in chemical samples have been performed using both an NaI scaler system and a HPGe spectrum analysis system. Data from this set of class exercises has been used to develop a standardized UFTR exercise. Extensive work via a project in the CHS-5510L O Laboratory to identify the trace element concentrations in powdered milk has provided the basis for a yearly repeatable laboratory experiment; as a result, trace element analysis of milk samples using the UFTR and NAA Laboratory constitutes a regular part of the radiochemistry course curriculum. In addition, two course projects were undertaken to identify calcium content in lake water and to determine the copper content of dried milk samples.

O NAA Research - Rare Earth and Trace Element Geochemistry of Sedimentary Mineral Deposits - Dr. A. Dabous (FSU), Dr. R.A. Odom (FSU), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *,

T. Downing **, D. Farinha*, Reactor Staff.

Egyptian beach sands and other sedimentary deposits are being evaluated for their rare O carth 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 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 O expected to be generated in the upcoming year based on extensive but preliminary results of analysis on some samples provided during the last four reporting years with one student special project completed during the year also supporting the research work.

NAA Research - Oyster Shell Characterization At The Atomic Level - Dr. D.E.

O Hintenlang, R. Ratner *, W. Coughlin**, Reactor Staff.

In this masters degree project various oyster shells are being irradiated to determine and evaluate the trace element composition. The oyster shells have been selected from various locations on both the east and west coasts of Florida. The objective is to determine how and if the trace element content of the shells varies in an orderly fashion according to the O location of the oyster bed from which the sample was taken. This project began two years ago and has continued periodically since then.

NAA Research - Trace Element Analysis of Fertilizers - R. Allen (UCHS), Dr. B.

Abbott, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Wade ** (UCHS), D. Cronin**, R. Ratner *, Reactor Staff.

This work formed the basis for training a high school student in research methods under the O

1991 Florida Foundation for Future Scientists Summer High School Student Research Program under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program. In this project various commercial I fertilizers are being analyzed for trace element, especially heavy metal, content in an effort i O VIII-15 ,

l

~O to evaluate the implications for buildup of such elements upon repeated application to farm and/or pasture land as well as home gardens. One project report was prepared with work O continued in the reporting year on plants growing on fertilized soil to support a high school science fair project and a special project for a nuclear engineering sciences student.

NAA Research - Trace Element Analysis of Hair Samples - R. Allen (UCHS), Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, R. Wade" (UCHS), R. Ratner *, D. Farinha*, T. Downing *, Reactor Staff.

O As part of a high school science research project, various hair samples have been collected from nursing home patients suffering from Alzheimer's syndrome. The objective here is to perform elemental analysis to quantify aluminum content of hair samples to determine whether the aluminum present in brain tissue of Alzheimer's patients is also present in hair tissue and how the two are related. The results of tiis mini project have been inconclusive to date. It is expected that this project willbe able t > be expanded as part of future student O research projects.

NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of Carbon Steel Corrosion Products - Dr.

Dr. G. LaTorre (AMRC), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *, Reactor Staff.

Various carbon steel corrosion products were analyzed using neutron activation analysis to O determine the trace element content of chlorine in these products. This work was performed as a funded service project for the Advanced Materials Resource Center to support investigative work into the cause of materials problems with good results obtained.

NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of Laboratory Rat Tissues for Mercury Content - Dr. B. Oguntebi/Dr. K. Soderholm (Endodontics Department), Dr. W.G.

O Vernetson, M. DeGrood**, D. Simpkins, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, Reactor Staff.

Mercury amalgam material like that used to fill cavities in teeth was implanted into the bones of a large population of laboratory rats with some rats receiving no amalgam implants. Subsequently, the brains and kidneys of the laboratory rats were excised, freeze O dried and delivered to the NAA Laboratory. After much sample processing, including further freeze drying, these samples were analyzed using neutron activation analysis to determine the trace mercury content in these samples. This work was performed as a funded research project with the samples delivered unlabeled as to whether in amalgam-implanted rats or not. The results of this work show wide but consistent variation in the mercury content of the rat brain and kidney tissues. It is expected that these results may O have significant implications for the mercury uptake in critical organs in humans having such amalgams in their teeth.

Irradiation Effects Research - High Fluence Irradiation of Polycrystalline Superconductor Material - Dr. P. Gielisse (FSU/FAMU), Dr. H. Niculescu (FSU), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, J. Weaver **, D. Simpkins, Reactor Staff.

O A small toroidal-shaped piece of high temperature polycrystalline superconductor material (YBaCuO - 1:2:3:7)is being irradiated to moderately high fluences of high energy neutrons.

These irradiations are intended to demonstrate increased critical current density for the O VIII-16 l

O material after being subjected to high fast neutron fluence. Increased critical current density willthen allow for reduction in shielding requirements on superconducting magnets such as for use on fusion reactors. This irradiation continued throughout the year with periodic O checks of the material.

NA A Research - Evaluation of Storage of Carbonated Beverages on Aluminum Content A. Arica (PHS), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. B. Abbott, F. Ayoung-Chee** (PHS), R.

Ratner *, T. Downing *, D. Farinha*, Reactor Staff.

O Various carbonated beverages under different storage conditions including length of time following unsealing of the container are being analyzed for aluminum content using neutron activation analysis. Since aluminum is so readily taken up by the body,it is hoped some conclusions relative to aluminum uptake can be reached as to implications of allowing carbonated beverages to set after opening before consumption. One high school student project in this area was completed as part of the FFFS Summer Science Student Research O Training Program at the end of the reporting year showing significant differences in initial aluminum content of carbonated beverages as well as large increases with delayed consumption following opening. A science fair project was presented on this work during the reporting year.

O NAA Research - Evaluation of Canned Tuna for Mercury Content - J. Griggs (MHS),

C.H. Coldwell (MHS), E. Leonard (MHS), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. B. Abbott, B.

Morehouse** (MHS), R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, D. Farinha*, Reactor Staff.

Various brands of canned tus 3sh are being evaluated for mercury content using Neutron Activation Analysis. Here it - oped to identify certain brands or types of tuna that may O be higher in mercury content a.v therefore make recommendations to shoppers as to proper choices to minimize mercury uptake via food consumption. One high school student project in this area was completed as part of the FFFS Summer Science Student Research Training Program at the end of the previous 1991-1992 reporting year. Results to date are inconclusive though some detectable tr.ercury levels have been identified. Work continued in the last reporting year to present the results of this project at a science fair.

NAA Research - Environmental Trace Elements Around Coal-Fired Power Plants - Dr.

W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *, D. Henderson**, Reactor Staff Neutron activation analysis is being applied to samples taken from the environment around coal-fired power plants to identify mercury and other trace element metal concentrations.

O The purpose of this stt' dent research project is to design and implement a sampling process to indicate whether the burning of coal in such plants has a quantifiable effect on the trace element concentration of mercury and certain other heavy metals in the surrounding environment. This work is the subject of a junior level research project that is ongoing.

O vIII'l7 O

i O

NAA Service Research - Mercury Contamination in Vacuum Chamber - Mr. D.L.

Munroe, Mr. D. Ek.dahl, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *, D. Henderson*, Reactor Staff O Neutron activation analysis is being applied to swipes taken from the inside of a potentially contaminated vacuum chamber for the Environmental Health and Safety Department to determine whether mercury is present. Results have indicated mercury contamination is present in the chamber to assure proper disposal of the vacuum chamber.

NAA Research - Investigation of Chromium Migration in Weathering Steel Patinas During O

Wet / Dry Cycling - Dr. E.D. Verink, R. Hanrahn*, L. Wurth**, R. Ratner, Reactor Staff This research is intended to discover the mechanism by which the small chromium additions in weathering steels contribute to their superior performance in atmospheric corrosion conditions. Since the superior atmospheric corrosion behavior of weathering steels is due O to the formation of a tightly adherent, two-layer rust patina, most of the work will focus on how the chromium additions in the steel affect the composition, phase and morphology of this patina. In order to do this, it is necessary to determine how much of the chromium present in the steel alloy concentratas in the rust layers which form during atmospheric exposure. Because of the low concentrations of chromium in typical weathering steel alloys (0.25% - 1.0%),it is likely that the concentrations of chromium in the early rust films will O be very low. Since neutron activation analysis has a low detection limit for chromium and can be used on solid, powder samples, it is an ideal technique for this work. The discovery of the mechanistic role of chromium in weathering steel passivation would have several benefits including facilitation of alloy design and better prediction of safe-use environments.

It is also possible that a mechanistic role for chromium willlead to better understanding of the roles of the other weathering steel alloying additions. This work continues in progress O at year's end to support a doctoral dissertation.

NAA Research - Tree Dating by "Sr/Sr R.4 io - Dr. K. Williams, Botany Department, R. Ratner, Reactor Staff Neutron activation analysis was applied to tree samples to develop a technique for dating O trees based on identification of tree tissue that was formed during the 1950's and 1960's when weapons testing was prevalent. Related dating methods employing "C dating measurements are prohibitively expensive. Unfortunately, results of this work were inconclusive as "Sr was below the threshold for detection.

O NAA Research - Implementation of k Standardization Methodology - Dr. W.G. !

Vernetson, R. Ratner **, D. Henderson*, G. Dalpono**, Reactor Staff i Multi-element instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) using the k o-factor technique is being investigated. The first phase of the experiment was to characterize the neutron flux spectrum in several normally used ports such as the rabbit and vertical ports. The second l I

phase was to determine if a standardized k,-factor procedure as applied to INAA could be O accomplished more efficiently and more accurately than routine elemental analysis. Both phases of this investigation were essentially completed during this reporting year with the completion of a Master's project (R. Ratner). Subsequently, a high honors project was l

O VIII-18

O undertaken and completed by G. Dalporto to develop a standardized procedure for applying the k -method at the UFTR in a detailed step-by-step process. Further work on this methodology willcontinue throughout the next reporting year to expand its applicability and O improve its sensitivity and elemental applicability. !

NAA Research - Determination of Trace Metals in Everglades Sediment Cores - Dr. >

W.G. Vernetson, Dr. W.E. Bolch, R. Ratner, L. Vickers**, D. Simpkins, Reactor Staff Neutron activation analysis was utilized to determine the concentration of selected metals O

in sediment cores extruded from the Florida Everglades. The results of this Master's project research are being utilized as an independent trace analysis by investigators in the Department of Environmental Engineering Science for their investigation of the biogeochemical partitioning of the Florida Everglades wetland systems.

O NAA Research - Quantification of Trace Metal Content in Waste Water Treatment Plant ;

Samples - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. Paul Avery, R. Ratner *, D. Henderson**, Reactor l Staff As part of course requirements for Modern Physics PHY-3042, neutron activation analysis was used to compare the trace metal concentrations ofinfluent and effluent surface run-off :

O samples for industrial, residential and rural waste waster treatment plants. Various trace metals were determined for this project which utilized the kc tandardization s methodology (

with reasonable results.

Practical Work Experience - Special Topics in Nuclear Engineering - Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, R. Ratner, D. Simpkins, J. Subiry**, Reactor Staff ;

O :

As part of a special topics project, a senior level student (J. Subiry) participated in and !

documented his participation in a series of work experiences at the reactor facility. His experience included radiation worker training, second person certification, assisting with the ,

radiation protection weekly survey, assisting with sample transfers, performing rabbit i irradiations, assisting with transmission and neutron radiography experiments, conducting O visiting groups on tours, assisting with the annual nuclear instrumentation calibration as well !

as void and temperature coefficient measurements. All of his work experience was recorded in a notebook, evaluated and summarized in a final report for academic credit.

! High Honors Project - Special Problems in Nuclear Engineering Sciences - Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, D. Simpkins and D. DeLeo**

O As part of a high honors project, a student was developing a series of demonstration experiments suitable for instructing various levels of visitors to the reactor facility. Only the preliminary work was accomplished before the student involved was counseled to

{ discontinue the project which awaits identification for another student as no further work i

~

j is currently scheduled beyond the preliminary concept stages and identification of topic

O experiments.

1

g VIII-19

O NAA Science Research - Trace Metals in Gulf of Mexico Sediments - Dr. John Trefry (FIT), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, D. Farinha*, J. LaBelle*, Reactor Staff O

Neutron acdvation analysis is being used to analyze Gulf of Mexico sediments collected near offshore drilling platforms for ten trace elements including barium. This project is designed to allow identification of inputs of contaminants from offshore drilling with the work partially supponed by external funding from Chevron plus the remainder from the DOE Reactor Sharing Program for determination of additional elements for separate evaluation.

O SUCCEED Program - Development of Instructional Materials - Dr. M. Hoit, Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, Dr. J. Abbitt, D. Simpkins, R. Ratner **, D. Henderson", T. Downing **, ,

Reactor Staff O As part of the Freshman Introduction to Engineering (EGN-1002) course, various instructional experimental modules on neutron activation analysis, half-life measurements, hot channel factors measurements and radiation protection measurements have been developed and delivered to small groups of freshman students expressing interest in majoring in engineering. A similar set oflectures and experiments was presented to a group of community college students brought to campus as part of a symposium for the O SUCCEED program. All of these presentations have been well received.

NAA Research - Evaluation of Carbonated Beverages for Aluminum Content - Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, Dr. B. Abbott, R. Napier (GHS), N. Skiles (GHS), O.J. Ganesh (GHS)**, R.

Ratner, T. Downing, D. Farinha, D. Henderson, Reactor Staff O Various canned carbonated beverages were analyzed for aluminum content under differing storage conditions using neutron activation analysis. The specific variable was length of storage following completion of manufacturing the canned beverages with plans to relate the results to the incidence of Alzheimer's disease. One high school student project in this area was completed as part of the 1993 FFFS Summer Science Student Research Training Program at the end of the reporting year showing significant variations in aluminum content O with length of storage. Work is continuing to develop more data and present a science fair project on this work in the next reporting year.

NAA Research -

Evaluation of Orange Juice for Source Identification - Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, Dr. B. Abbott, M. Herring (EHS), E. Kisversaryi (EHS), S. Moudgil (EHS)**,

O R. Ratner, T. Downing *, D. Farinha*, D. Henderson*, Reactor Staff The juice from fresh oranges from various sources such as Florida, California and Texas were analyzed for trace element content using neutron activation analysis and the ko-standardization methodology. The objective here is to identify sufficient trace elements and levels to serve as signatures for the erange juice produced from a region or country. The results of this work could be used for scurce certification to support or discredit truth in

.O advertising claims about so-called " pure" Florida orange juice. One high school student project in this area was completed as part of the 1993 FFFS Summer Science Student Research Training Program at the end of the reporting year showing some significant O VIII-20

\

O l elemental variations in trace elements between sources. Work is continuing to develop more data and present a science fair project on this work in the next reporting year.

O Neutron Irradiation - Irradiation of Plastic Scintillator Materials - Dr. J. Harmon (UF Physics), Dr. D. Roebuck (UF Physics), M. Biagtan* (UF Physics), Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D.

Simpkins, Reactor Staff An effort is under way to develop radiation resistant plastic scintillator material for use at O the superconducting super collider (SSC). In this project, scintillator material covered with 2

cadmium is being exposed to various high energy neutron fluences up to 10" n/cm to simulate the dose expected in ten years of SSC operation. This project has just begun at year's end with irradiations to be performed in the upcoming year.

Material Pronerties Research -

Effects of Neutron Irradiation on Sapphire Fiber O Transmission - Dr. N. Djeu, Dr. B. Shaw, Dr. R. Chang, Z. Ge*, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D.

Simpkins, Reactor Staff.

Pieces of sapphire (Al2 O 3 ) fiber measuring 300 m by 20 cm are to be irradiated with a specified fluence of high energy neutrons. Each piece of fiber is grown with material of a diTerent initial purity. The objective of this research is to determine the effect of neutron O ir;adiation on sapphire fiber transmission properties. Since temperature is to be controlled, activities to date on this project have been to design minimum reactivity cadmium covers for the sapphire fibers along with a temperature monitoring system for use during the irradiation planned to occur in the next reporting year.

Health Physics Research - Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance Spectroscopy Using Neutron O

Doses on Nitrogenous Compounds - Dr. David E. Hintenlang, Khalid Jamil**, Reactor Staff.

The effects of neutron radiation doses on various nitrogenous compounds are being studied by observing the changes in static and dynamic molecular structure occurring in the vicinity O of Nitrogen-14 nuclei using the technique of Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance (NQR) spectroscopy. Experiments have been performed using compounds such as urea, thiourea, and sodium nitrite to observe the changes in NQR parameters produced by nuclear radiations. The initial results showed that there are significant changes in NQR parameters with variable neutron doses. Further work during this year to correlate the dose and NQR spectroscopic response was to develop a reliable and predictable dosimetric indicator as well O as to measure the temperature variations in the compounds during irradiations which has nearly concluded.

holope Production - Activation of Pure Copper - Dr. John Kuperus, Dr. W. Drane, Reactor Staff.

O Pure copper samples have been irradiated for use by researchers in the J. Hillis Miller Health Center Radiologic Pharmacy Department to be used in calibrating a research scanner utilized for positron emission tomography (PET). A number of samples were i

'O VIII-21 1

O supplied this year; those supplied have been well used in the calibration procedure with future usage expected to continue in the upcoming year.

O TRTR Newsletter - Publication of Newsletter for Non-power Reactor Community - Dr.

W.G. Vernetson, T. Ratner *, D. Simpkins*, R. Ratner *, D. Cronin*.

Limited financial support was made available beginning February,1989 to support a newsletter to be published quarterly or more often as the need arises to provide better l continuing communications among TRTR members and between the regulators and TRTR O members. The newsletter will also provide a forum for discussing key issues affecting the 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 other documents for newsletter input to assure better communications Mween the regulators and the TRTR membership. In addition to the renewal proposal for 1993,four newsletters totalling over 75 pages were published during the reporting year with O

the system working well and expected to continue to produce quarterly issues during the upcoming year.

Facility Special Services -

Special Individual and Group Lectures, Tours and Demonstrations - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D. Simpkins, D. Cronin, R. Ratner *, Reactor Staff.

O Various lectures, tours and demonstrations of reactor, NAA Laboratory and other facilities were conducted for hundreds of visitors to include campus and off-campus educational groups, university service personnel, potential and interested facility users, personnel requiring Radiation Workers Instructions or Second Person Qualification, foreign visitors and reporters. Other special visitors this year included WUFT-TV reporters Wayne Besen 0 and Patricia Mendoza, two groups from the Technical University of Budapest, a group from Gainesville's Sister City of Novorossiisk, Russia, a group from the University of Stuttgart, a group representing the University of Florida Chemistry Association, a group from the UF Student Chapter of the Mining, Metals and Materials Society for a meeting, various groups from the Physical Plant Division and Ingley, Campbell and Moses, Inc. concerning air handler replacement, the University of Florida Architect Engineer and representatives from O the Engineer's office including personnel for ex-cell air handler replacement and asbestos abatement, building inspector Jim Winebrenner and associates relative to access for the Americans for Disabilities Act, the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee for its annual audit, a photographer representing the Office of Extended Services for pictures of service to pre-college students, various University Police and Gainesville Fire Department personnel, several groups of 1993 Engineer's Fair visitors, several groups visiting the College O

of Engineering as part of the College's Hispanic Outreach Program, Cub Scout Troop 461, several groups of outstanding high school students sponsored by Tau Beta Pi Honor Society, various NRC and DOE visitors and inspectors including Dr. Harry Alter and attendees at the DOE Robotics Student Conference and personnel for an NRC/UFTR Management Meeting, plus many other groups and individuals too numerous to list including NES personnel for Emergency Response as well as Right-to-Know Training.

-O VIII-22 i

t

i O ;

l l

Facilities Support - Facility Upgrade / Improvement Activities - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D. l Simpkins, R. Ratner *, T. Downing *, Reactor Staff, Physical Plant Division Staff.

1 O

Various activities have been undertaken to upgrade facilities and assure continued facility usage and usefulness. Included among those activities this year are the continuation of the project to install terminal strips and quick disconnect fittings for all the core thermocouple connections. Various cell preservation activities were also continued. A great deal of effort was also devoted to upgrading various information notices, radiation-related signs and other O right-to-know signs required to be posted throughout the facility to meet various federal, state and university requirements. A new area radiation monitoring system as well as a new multipoint temperature recorder were obtained under a DOE Reactor Instrumentation Grant. Both are in the process of being prepared for installation at year's end. In addition, a new telescoping high dose rate survey instrument as well as a low level MicroR survey instrument were obtained under the same DOE grant. Other facility improvements in the O 1992-1993 reporting year included asbestos removal and installation of a new main air handler in the reactor building, installation of a touchtone telephone in the Emergency Support Center, acquisition of a staff computer for use by the Reactor Manager to simplify report generation plus the delivery and implementation of a complete new detector system in the NAA Laboratory including an HPGe detector, integral shield, PC-based analyzer and complete software package. Of course, various NAA Laboratory activities, in addition to O the new HPGe detector sygem, to prepare better libraries and to obtain and implement improved analysis programs were also instrumental in improving facilities operations as every effort continues to be made to assure smooth and effective facility operations in all areas.

Surveillance Activities - Checks, Tests and Surveillances To Meet License Conditions -

O Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D.L. Munroe, D. Simpkins, UFTR Staff, Radiation Control Staff.

A series of quarterly, semiannual, annual and other checks, tests, calibrations and other surveillances have been completed to assure meeting the license conditions in the UFTR Technical Specifications and to assure continued operability of the UFTR. Additional O checks and other surveillances are included to assure proper facility operations.

Maintenance Activity - Activities to Correct Failures and Restore the UFTR to Operable Status - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, D.L. Munroe, R. Piciullo, D. Simpkins, UFTR Staff, Radiation Control Staff.

O Routine corrective maintenance on UFTR systems and facilities again occupied a i considerable though reduced amount of time during the reporting period. One large l maintenance project requiring significant effort was for the occurrence of the failure of )

thermocouple #4 in the outlet of the core northwest center fuel box coolant line near the !

end of the reporting year. The outage for this occurrence was less than a week in length i as new wire was connected to all three thermocouples on the core north side with a terminal l g strip and quick disconnect fittings installed in the equipment pit area for these three lines.

This work was performed as a modification approved under 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation ;

I Number 92-06. Future plans are to make the same connections to a terminal strip for the three north side lines and to install quick disconnect fittings for all six core area O VIII-23

1 O

thermocouple lines to reduce dose commitments (ALARA) for future core area thermocouple repair work. One other outage of over a week was for replacement of a O failed tach-generator on the stack diluting fan system. There was also significant time spent ,

on corrective and preventive maintenance on the nuclear instrumentation circuits for several failures as wellas for the annual nuclear instrumentation calibration check, en the secondary cooling system to replace a deep well pipeline that had developed holes, on the shield tank demineralizer system to replace the pump motor, on the safety-1 blade drive system to i replace the drive motor, on the stack radiation monitor and on the area radiation .

O monitoring system and on the control blade position indicating system, with most problems not recurring to demonstrate effective corrective action for most failures. Other than the failures on the blade position indicating (BPI) system and several minor failures in the radiation monitoring system, there were fewer multiple failure occurrences in this year than in any recent reporting year. During the upcoming year an effort is planned to replace both the BPI system and the radiation monitoring system to prevent lost usage opportunities.

0 Overall, it is hoped the facility will be well served by maintenance performed during the year (especially on the thermocouple connections) to attain an even higher availability for the 1993-1994 reporting year.

.O

-O

'O 0

\O O VIII-24

O.

i IX. TIIESES, PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS OF WORK RELATED TO TIIE USE AND OPERATIONS OF TIIE UFrR }

O 4

i

1. " Fall Semester Reactor Operations Laboratory Manual for ENU-5176L," W.G.

Vernetson, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida,

Gainesville, FL, September,1992. i O

i 2. " Staff Visits Nuclear Reactor," Article in NERD ALERT Northeast Regional Data !

Center Employee Newsletter Describing Visit to UFTR, September,1992.

3. " Status of Automatic Sample Changer Implementation," C.Leipner-Gomes, ENU-6937 '

Project Interim Status Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, O University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, September 3,1992. ,

4. " Environmental Dose Evaluation for July,1992 UFTR Film Badges," W.G. Vernetson, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, September 14,1992.

O 5. " Facilities Information and Description," W.G. Vernetson, Undergraduate Seminar Presentation in ENU-4934, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, September 16,1992. -

i

6. " University of Florida Training Reactor: Facilities Information and Description," D. !

O Simpkins, Presentation to Science Students at Heritage Christian School, Gainesville, j FL, September 17,1992. ,

1

'7. "Research-Related Project Topics at the University of Florida Training Reactor," W.G. ,

Vernetson, Graduate Seminar Presentation in ENU 6935 Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, September 21,1992.

O ;

8. " Facilities Information and Description Plus Potential Research Topics," W.G.

Vernetson, Graduate Seminar Presentation in ENU-6935, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, September 21,1992.

9. "UFTR Technical Specification Amendment Number 18,"W.G. Vernetson, Graduate -

O License Amendment Submitted to USNRC, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, September 28,1992. (Approved)

10. " Quality Assurance Program for Shipment of SPERT F-1 Fuel Pins Per 10 CFR Part 71,"W.G. Vernetson, Proposed Amendment Submitted to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, .FL, September 30, iO 1992.

iO IX-1 i

e v 4 e-- -r T

O

11. " Quality Assurance Program for Shipment of SPERT F-1 Fuel Pins Per 10 CFR Part 71 - Proposed Amendment," W.G. Vernetson, Submitted to USNRC, Department of O Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, September 30, 1992. (QA Program Approval - No. 0578, Revision 2, dated October 20,1992)

12. "U.S. University Reactors: What They Are and What They Do," Harold H. Young, Nuclear News, October,1993, p. 50 ff. (UFTR Anecdotal Experiences with Users Reported Here.)

0

13. " Lessons Learned in Planning and Analysis Phases of UFTR Fuel Conversion,"

Abstract Submitted and Accepted for Paper Presentation at 15th International Meeting on Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors held September 27 to October 1,1992 in Rothskilde, Denmark.

O 14. " Report on Log of Security Events, W.G. Vernetson, Official Report Submitted to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October 6,1992.

15. " Assessment of Nuclear Materials," W.G. Vernetson, Report to Radiation Control Office Summarizing Nuclear Materials On Hand and Future Needs, Department of O

Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October 12, 1992.

16. " Environmental Monitoring," D.L. Munroe, Report to UFTR Management from Radiation Control Office on Results of Deploying Special Environmental Dosimeters O f r Three Months, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October 14, 1992.

17. " Status Report of Trace Element Analysis of Sedimentary Mineral Deposits," R.T.

Ratner and W.G. Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Progress Report to A.A. Dabous (FSU), Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October 15,1992.

'O

18. " Lake Alice: Assessment of Pollutants in Soil Sediments," L.Vickers, Master's Project Proposal, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October 21,1992.

19. " Radiation Protection Issues at Mid-Size University Reactors," W.G. Vernetson, O Presentation on October 23,1992in Session on Operational Issues at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors Held in Columbia, MO, October 21-23,1992.

20. " Description Emphasizing Research and Training Usage, W.G. Vernetson, Presentation to Football Weekend Executive Visitors, University of Florida, O Gainesville, FL, October 24,1992.

'O IX-2

\

l

O

21. " Elemental Analysis of Ancient Seashells," D. Farinha, ENU-4905 Progress Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 0 October 26,1992.

22. "UFTR Management Meeting Presentation," W.G.Vernetson, Presentation to Nuclear Regulatory Commission, University of Florida Training Reactor Management Meeting Held at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October 27,1992.

O 23. "UFTR Emergency Plan Training for UFTR, NAA Facility, NES Department, Radiation Control, Environmental Health and Safety, Materials Science Annex and Safety Committee Personnel, W.G. Vernetson, Annual Training Presentation, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October 27,1992.

O 24. " Pulsed Ionization Chamber Wide Range Power Reactor Measurement and Control System,"W.H. Ellis, A.M.Ferrari, W.Y.Choi and Q. He, Presentation on October 28, 1992 at IEEE 1992 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Held in Orlando, FL, October 25-31, 1992.

25. " Computer-Based Nuclear Radiation Detection / Instrumentation Laboratory Station O System," W.H. Ellis and Q. He, Presentation on October 29, 1992 at IEEE 1992 Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference Held in Orlando, FL, October 25-31, 1992.

26. " University of Florida Training Reactor: Facilities Information and Description," W.G.

O Vernetson, Presentation to University of Florida Chemistry Association, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, October 30,1992.

27. "Use of the UFTR Facilities for Pre-College Nuclear Education Programs," W.G.

Vernetson, Trans. Amer. Nucl. Soc. 66, p.17, November,1992.

O 28. " Unique Radiation Protection Issues and Competition for Resources at a Midsize University Reactor Facility," W.G. Vernetson, Trans. Amer. Nucl. Soc. 66, p.136, November,1992.

29. "Significant Results of Neutronics Analysis for Fuel Conversion of the UFTR," W.G.

Vernetson, E.T. Dugan, R.J. DeMartino, Trans. Amer. Nucl. Soc. 66, p. 167, O November,1992.

30. " Final Report on Funding for the University of Florida Training Reactor Through the U.S. Department of Energy University Reactor Instrumentation Program," Grant No.

DE-FG07-90ER12969, W.G. Vernetson, Final Report for 1990-1992 submitted to Department of Energy, November,1992.

O

31. "TRTR - National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors Newsletter,"

Volume 4, No. 4, W.G. Vernetson and T. Rousan, Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, November,1992.

O IX-3

I l

O l 1

32. "Results of Plant Tissue Characterizations for Sr-90 Concentration," W.G. Vernetson I and R. Ratner, Final NAA I2boratory Report to Dr. Kimberly Williams in Botany O Department, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, November 2,1993.

33. " Radiation Doses on Environment of "N in Organic Compounds by NQR Spectroscopy," Khalid Jamil, Doctoral Dissertation Defense Presentation, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, November 2,

-0 1992.

34. " Lake Alice Soil Sample Analysis," Linda Vickers, Master's Project Proposal Update, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, November 2,1992.

O 35. "UFTR Emergency Plan and Facilities Overview," W.G. Vernetson, Presentation to State of Florida Health and Rehabilitative Services Radiation Control Personnel, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, November 9,1992.

36. "NQR Spectroscopy and Its Applications in Nuclear Sciences," K. Jamil, Joint O

ANS/NES Seminar Presentation, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, November 18,1992.

37. " Unique Radiation Protection Issues and Competitica for Resources at a Midsize University Reactor Facility,"W.G. Vernetson, Summary Presentation on Nove'nber o 18,1992 at the 1992 ANS/ ENS International Meeting Held in Chicago, IL, November 15-20,1992.

38. "Use of the UFTR Facilities for Precollege Nuclear. Education Programs," W.G.

Vernetson, Oral Presentation on November 18,1992 at the 1992 ANS/ ENS International Meeting Held in Chicago, IL, November 15-20,1992.

O

39. "Significant Results of Neutronics Analysis for Fuel Conversion of the UFTR," W.G. ;

Vernetson, E.T.Dugan and R.J.DeMartino, Invited Paper Presentation on November 19,1992 at the 1992 ANS/ ENS International Meeting Held in Chicago,IL, November 15-20,1992.

O 40. " Neutron Activation Analysis of Synthetic Agricultural Fertilizers for the Determination of Trace Metal Content," R.A. Wade III, Research Abstract Submitted for Consideration for Selection as Speaker at the 30th Annual Science, Engineering and Humanities Symposium, Scheduled for January 31-February 2,1993 at the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL, Union County High School, Lake Butler, FL, November 20,1992. (Selected to Compete) ,

O l

O Ix_4

O

41. " Funding Renewal Request for Production of the TRTR Community Newsletter,"

W.G. Vernetson, Proposal Submitted to EG&G Idaho, Inc., Department of Nuclear O Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, November 30, 1992.

(Funded Effective July 1,1993)

42. " Initial Development of Software for the Automatic Sample Changer System at the University of Florida Neutron Activation Analysis l2boratory," C. Leipner-Gomes, ENU-6937 Project Status Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, O University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December,1992.

43. "AReport on the Elemental Analysis of Seashells Using Neutron Activation Analysis,"

D. Farinha, ENU-4905 Project Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 1,1992.

O 44. "The Effects of Irradiation on Rye Grass Seeds," M. Vernetson, Fort Clarke Middle School Science Project Report, Gainesville, FL, December 4,1992.

45. "Results of Qualitative Analysis of Vacuum Chamber Paper Swipes,"R. Ratner and W.G.Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Report to University of Florida Radiation Control Omce, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, O

Gainesville, FL, December 4,1992.

46. "Results ofInvestigation of Chromium Migration in Weathering Steel Patinas During Temperature Cycling,"R. Ratner, NAA Laboratory Report on Work Conducted for Doctoral Dissertation in Material Science, Department of Nuclear Engineering O Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 4,1992.

47. " Neutron Activation Analysis of Waste Water Treatment Plant Samples," D.P.

Henderson, Jr., Report Submitted on Work Performed for PHY-3042 in NAA Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 4,1992.

O 48. " Review and Update of Reactor Operations Laboratory Manual to EnhEnce Educational Delivery and Versatility of Exercises," Rodger Lower, High Honors Project Submitted to Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 8,1992.

49. " Review and Update of Reactor Operations Laboratory Manual to Enhance O Educational Delivery and Versatility of Exercises," Rodger Lower, High Honors Oral Presentation Defense, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 9,1992.

50. " Radiochemical Neutron Activation Analysis of Copper in Milk," S.A. Al-Suwayeh, CHS-5110L Project Report, Chemistry Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, O FL, December 9,1992.

O IX-5

i O l i

I

51. " Radiochemical Neutron Activation Analysis of Copper in Milk," S.A. Al-Suwayeh, !

CHS-5510 Project Oral Presentation, Chemistry Department, University of Florida, i O Gainesville, FL, December 9,1992. l

52. " Radiochemical Neutron Activation Analysis for Calcium Content in Lake Water," K.

Goodler, CHS-5110L Project Oral Presentation, Chemistry Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 9,1992.

O 53. " Plant Irradiation," Marianne Vernetson, Fort Clarke Middle School Science Fair Project Presentation, Gainesville, FL, December 10,1992.

54. " Emergency Plan for the University of Florida Training Reactor - Revision 8,"W.G.

Vernetson, Official Submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 10,1992.

55. " Errors Associated with Neutron Activation Analysis Determination of Periodic Element Concentrations," E. Ballon, ENU-4905 Project Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 14, 1992.

O " Radiochemical Neutron Activation Analysis for Calcium Content in Lake Water," K.

56.

Goodler, CHS-5110L Project Report, Chemistry Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 15, 1992.

57. " Final Report on the Reactor Operations-Based Health Physics Cooperative Work O Training Program," W.G. Vernetson, Report on Fall Semester Training Course Conducted for Radiation Protection Technology Program Students from Central Florida Community College, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, December 18,1992.

58. " Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis Using the Proposed k,,-Factor Method at O the University of Florida Training Reactor," R.T. Ratner, Internal Progress Report on Initial Stages of Maser's Degree Research, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of florida, Gainesville, FL, December 20,1992.

59. " Spring Semester Reactor Operations Laboratory Manual for ENU-5176L," W.G.

Vernetson, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, O Gainesville, FL, January,1993.

60. " Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis l2boratory Exercise Using Three Different Methods," R. Ratner, NAA Laboratory Report of Special Laboratory Exercise Developed for ENU-4505L Laboratory, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, ;

University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 19,1993. j

.O l 1

O IX-6

O

61. " Mixed-Radiation-Field Dosimetry Utilizing Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance," Final Report to U.S. Department of Energy DOE /ER Nuclear Engineering Research O Program in Applied Nuclear Sciences, Contract DE-FG07-89ER12890, D.E.

Hintenlang, K. Jamil and L.H. Iselin, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January,1993.

62. " Final Report on the University of Florida U.S. Department 1991-1992 Reactor Sharing Program," Grant No. DE-FG07-85ER75103, W.G. Vernetson, Submitted to O Department of Energy, January,1993.

63. "Is Tuna Fish Healthy to Eat?", B. Morehouse, Mainland High School Science Fair Project, Daytona Beach, Florida, January,1993. (Placed Third)

64. " Aluminum Traces in Canned Beverages," F.A.Chee, Piper High School Science Fair O

Project, Boca Raton, Florida, January,1993. (Placed in Top Three)

65. " Neutron Activation Analysis of Synthetic Agricultural Fertilizers for the Determination of Trace Metal Content," R.A. Wade III, Union County High School Science Fair Project, Lake Butler, FL, January,1993.

O

66. " Preliminary Results of Trace Element Analysis of Mercury in Rat Kidney and Brain Samples," R.T. Ratner, NAA Laboratory Progress Report to Endodontics Department on Research Project Analyzing Rat Tissues for Mercury Content Following Mercury Implantation in Bones, D irtment of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 23,1993.

O

67. " Determination of Trace Metal Concentrations in Soil Sediment Samples from Everglades National Park," L. Vickers, ENU-6936 Master's Project Progress Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 27,1993.

O 68. " University of Florida Training Reactor: Facilities Information and Description," W.G.

Vernetson, Presentation to Department of Energy Robotics Student Conference, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 29,1993.

69. "Is Tuna Fish Healthy to Eat?", B. Morehouse, Regional Science Fair Project from Mainland High School, Daytona Beach, FL, February,1993. (Placed Fourth /First O

Alternate for State Fair)

70. " Aluminum Traces in Canned Beverages," F.A. Chee, Regional Science Fair Project from Piper High School, Boca Raton, FL, February,1993.

71. " Neutron Activation Analysis of Synthetic Agricultural Fertilizers for the O Determination of Trace Metal Content," R. A. Wade llI, Regional Science Fair Project from Union County High School, Lake City, FL, February,1993.

O IX-7

O

72. " Educational Opportunities at the University of Florida Training Reactor," D.

Simpkins, Promotional Presentation at Florida Educational Technology Conference, i O Orlando, FL, February,1993. J

73. "TRTR - National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors Newsletter,"

Volume 5,No.1,W.G. Vernetson and T.Rousan, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, February,1993.

O 74. "Information and Description of the University of Florida Training Reactor Facility,"

W.G. Vernetson, Presentation on February 1,1993 for Participants in the FFFS 30th Annual Junior Science, Engineering and Humanities Symposium Held at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 31 - February 2,1993.

75. " Neutron Activation Analysis of Synthetic Agricultural Fertilizers for the O Determination of Trace Metal Content," R.A. Wade III, Research Project Oral Presentation on February 2,1993 at FFFS 30th Annual Junior Science, Engineering and Humanities Symposium Held at the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, January 31 - February 2,1993.

76. "Surveyon Reactor Upgrade and Instrumentation Needs,"W.G.Vernetson, Submitted O to U.S. Department of Energy Office of University and Science Education Programs, February 15,1993.

77. " Implementation of the k o-Standardization Method as Applied to Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis at the UFTR," R. Ratner, Oral Presentation of Master's Project, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, O Gainesville, FL, February 16,1993.

78. " Determination of Trace Metal Concentrations in Soil Sediment Samples from Everglades National Park," L. Vickers, ENU-6936 Master's Project Progress Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, o February 17,1993.

79. " Proposal for Funding the University of Florida Training Reactor Through the U.S.

Department of Energy University Reactor Instrumentation Program,"W.G.Vernetson, Proposal Submitted to Department of Energy in Response to Energy Research Financial Assistance Program Notice No. 93-08, March,1993.

O

80. " Environmental Mercury at Crystal River," D.P. Henderson, Jr., ENU-4905 Project Status Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 4,1993.

81. " Proposal for Funding the University of Florida Training Through the U.S.

O Department of Energy University Reactor Sharing Program," W.G. Vernetson, Proposal Submitted to Department of Energy Per Program Notice No. 93-09, March 25,1993.

O IX-8 1

1 0

82. "Results of Neutron Radiography of Boral and Boraflex Spent Fuel Pool Coupons,"

W.G. Vernetson, Report on Services Work to NUSURTEC, Inc., University of O Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 25,1993.

83. " Neutron Activation Analysis of Synthetic Agricultural Fertilizers for the Determination of Trace Metal Content," R.A. Wade IH, Presentation to Florida Junior Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, FL, March 25,1993.

O 84. " University of Florida Training Reactor: Facilities Information and Description," W.G.

Vernetson, Presentation to UF Student Chapter of Mining, Metals and Materials Society, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 25,1993.

85. " Proposal Submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Meet 10 CFR 50.64 Requirements for Scheduling UFTR Conversion from HEU to LEU Fuel," W.G.

O Vernetson, Updated Scheduling Proposal Submitted to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, March 26,1993.

86. " Report of an Audit of the Idaho State University AGN201M Reactor," B. Dodd and W.G. Vernetson, Report of Peer Review Conducted on Behalf of the National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors, April,1993.

O

87. "The ko-Standardization Method as Applied to Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis," R.T. Ratner and W.G. Vernetson, Paper Summary in Proceedings of the 1993 ANS Central Regional Student Conference Held at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, April 1-5, 1993.

O

88. " Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis Characterization of Sediment Samples Around a Coal-Fired Power Plant," D.P. Henderson, Jr., Paper Summary in Proceedings of the 1993 ANS Central Regional Student Conference Held at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, April 1-5, 1993.

O 89. "The kcStandardization Method as Applied to Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis,"R.T. Ratner, Presentation in Technical Session IA on Radiation Detection and Measurement on April 2,1993, at the 1993 ANS Central Regional Student Conference Held et Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, April 1-5, 1993.

(Recipient of Outstanding Graduate Paper Award)

O 90. " Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis Characterization of Sediment Samples Around a Coal-Fired Power Plant," D.P. Henderson, Jr., Presentation in Technical Session IB on Health and the Environment on April 2,1993,at the 1993 ANS Central Regional Student Conference Held at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, April 1-5,1993.

,O 91. " Neutron Activation Analysis of Synthetic Agricultural Fertilizers for the Determination of Trace Metal Content," R.A. Wade III, Entry in 38th Annual State Science and Engineering Fair, Orlando, Florida, April 14-16,1993.

O IX-9 l 1 l

- 1

O

92. " Review of Special Topics Covered in the ENU-4905 Course,"J.C.Subiry, Draft ENU-4905 Special Senior Project Report of Practical Work Experience, Department of O Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, April 18,1993.

93. " Final Report on EGN-1002 Freshman Laboratory," W.G. Vernetson, Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department Section of SUCCEED Report to NSF Consortium on Spring 1993 Freshman Laboratory Program, April 27,1993.

O 94. "TRTR - National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors Newsletter -

Special Edition," Volume 5, No. 2, W.G. Vernetson and T. Ratner, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May,1993.

95. "A Peer Review / Evaluation Report of the University of Virginia Reactor Facility,"

W.G. Vernetson, T.M. Raby and W.J. Richards, Report of Peer Review Conducted O on Behalf of the National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors, May, 1993.

96. " Implementation of the k -Standardization o Method as Applied to Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis at the UFTR," R. Ratner, Master's Degree Project O Rep rt, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May,1993.

97. " Summer Semester Reactor Operations Laboratory Manual for ENU-5176L," W.G.

Vernetson, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May,1993.

O

98. " Documentation of Special Topics Covered in a Series of Practical Work Sessions,"

J.C. Subiry, ENU-4905 Final Special Senior Project Report of Practical Work Experience, Department- of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May 2,1994.

O 99. " Final Report on the Reactor Operations-Based Health Physics Cooperative Work Training Program Conducted for Radiation Protection Technology Program Students l at Central Florida Community College,"W.G. Vernetson, Report on Spring Semester Training Course Conducted for Radiation Protection Technology Program Students at Central Florida Community College, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, l University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May 3,1993.

O 100. " University of Florida Training Reactor: Facilities Information and Description for Education and Research," W.G. Vernetson, Presentation to Community College SUCCEED Symposium Participants, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May 10, 1993.

O 101. " Preliminary Results of the Trace Element Analysis of sic Fiber Samples," W.G.

Vernetson and R. Ratner, NAA Laboratory Report to Dr. W. Torecki in Materials l Sciences Department, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of j Florida, Gainesville, FL, May 26,1993. I O IX-10 i

O' 1

102. "Results of Trace Element Analysis of Carbon Steel Corrosion Products," W.G.

Vernetson and R. Ratner, NAA Laboratory Report to Gel Tech, Inc., Department of O Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May 26,1993.

103. "UFTR Reactor Operator Requalification and Recertification Training Program for July,1993 through June,1995," Revised Official Updated Program Submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, May 28,1993.

O 104. "TRTR -National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors Newsletter,"

Volume 5,No. 3,W.G. Vernetson and T. Ratner, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, June,1993.

105. " Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis Using the ko -Standardization Method," R.

O Ratner and W.G. Vernetson, Trans. Amer. Nucl. Soc. 68, p.158, June,1993.

106. "Universityof Florida Training Reactor: Facilities Information and Description," W.G.

Vernetson, Presentation to University of Florida Talent Identification Program )

Participants, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, June 3,1993. ;

O 107. " Report on Science to Florida's Children and Youth," W.G. Vemetson, Report on Education Service Provided by UFTR to Precollege Students, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, June 10,1993. l 108. " Final Results of Trace Element Analysis of Mercury in Rat Kidney and Bram ,

n es, n sn an . an , Final NAA I2boratory Report to l O Endodontics Department on Research Project Analyzing Rat Tissues for Mercury Content Following Mercury Amalgam Implantation in Bones, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, June 11,1993.

109. " Implementation of Waste Characterization Procedure for UFTR and NAA O l2boratory Facilities," D. Farinha, Draft ENU-4905 Special Project Report, i Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, !

June 11,1993.

l 110. " Freshman Interdisciplinary Laboratory," M.I.Hoit and K. Culpepper, in Proceedings !

of ASEE Annual Conference Held June 20-24, 1993 at the University of Illinois at O Urbana-Champaign, p.630. !

111. " Freshman Interdisciplinary Laboratory," M.I. Hoit, Presentation in Session 1653 on the Status of University Conditions, Projects in Freshman Engineering, June 21,1993 at the ASEE Annual Conference Held June 20-24,1993 in Champaign, IL.

112. " Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis Using the ko -Standardization Method," R.

O Ratner, Oral Summary Presentation on June 23,1993 at the 1993 ANS Annual Meeting Held in San Diego, CA, June 20-24, 1993.

O IX-11

O ;

113. " Report on Log of Security Events," W.G. Vernetson, Of6cial Report Submittal to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, O Gainesville, FL, July 7,1993.

114. "Results of Neutron Radiograph of Boraflex Spent Fuel Pool Coupons," W.G.

Vernetson, Report on Service Work to NURSURTEC, Inc., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 8,1993.

O 115. " Laboratory Safety, Chemical Hazards and Right-to-Know Requirements," R.T.

Ratner, Special Presentation to Meet Training Requirements for Facility Users, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 8,1993.

116. " Evaluation of Carbonated Beverages for Aluminum Content Under Differing Storage O Times Following Completion of Manufacture," O.J. Ganesh, Gainesville High School, Mid-Term Oral Presentation on FFFS Summer Research Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 9,1993.

117. " Evaluation of Orange Juice Trace Element Content for Source Certification," S.

M udgil, Eastside High School, Mid-Term Oral Presentation on FFFS Summer O

Research Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 9,1993.

118. "How a Nuclear Power Plant Operates - Comparison with a Research Reactor," W.G.

Vernetson, Presentation to Participants in the 35th Annual Student Science Training Program, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 12, 1993.

O 119. " Rare Earth Elemental Analysis of Egyptian Sedimentary Mineral Deposits," T.

Downing, ENU-4905 Draft Project Status Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 14,1993.

120. " Evaluation of Carbonated Beverages for Aluminum Content Under Differing Storage O Times Following Completion of Manufacture," O.J. Ganesh, Draft Research Project Report Submitted as a Participant from Gainesville High School in Florida Foundation for Future Scientists 1993 Summer Research Program, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 16,1993.

121. " Evaluation of Orange Juice Trace Element Content for Source Certi5 cation," S.

O Moudgil, Draft Research Project Report Submitted as a Participant from Eastside High School in Florida Foundation for Future Scientists 1993 Summer Research Program, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 16,1993.

122. " Experiment-Oriented Engineering Workshop Incorporating Training Reactor O Facilities to Improve the Community College / University Interface," W.G. Vernetson, Proposal Submitted to SUCCEED Consortium, Department of Nuclear Engineering i Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 19, 1993. l i

O IX-12

O i l

l 123. " Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis Characterizations of Sediment Samples Around a Coal-Fired Power Plant," D.P. Henderson, Jr., ENU-4905 Interim Project O Status Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 21,1993.

124. " Development of the ko-Standardization Procedure and Application to Two SRMs,"

G. Dalporto, ENU-4905 High Honors Interim Project Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 21,1993.

O 125. " Evaluation of Carbonated Beverages for Aluminum Content Under Differing Storage Times Following Completion of Manufacture," O.J.Ganesh, Revised Research Project Report Submitted as a Participant from Gainesville High School in Florida Foundation for Future Scientists 1993 Summer Research Program, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 28,1993.

O 126. " Evaluation of Orange Juice Trace Element Content for Source Certification," S.

Moudgil, Revised Research Project Report Submitted as a Participant from Eastside High School in Florida Foundation for Future Scientists 1993 Summer Research Program, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 28,1993.

O 127. "The Determination of the Concentration of Selected Metals in Sediment Cores Extruded from the Florida Everglades Using Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis," L.D. Vickers, Master's Degree Project Oral Presentation, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 28,1993.

O 128. " Development of the ko-Standardization Procedure and Application to Two SRMs,"

G. Dalporto, ENU-4905 High Honors Draft Final Project Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, July 30,1993.

129. "The Determination of the Concentration of Selected Metals in Sediment Cores Extruded from the Florida Everglades Using Instrumental Neutron Activation O Analysis," L.D. Vickers, Master's Degree Project Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August,1993.

130. Pulsed Ionization Chamber Methodology Applied to Reactor Power Measurement Revisited," W.H. Ellis, A.M. Ferrari, W.Y. Choi and Q. He, JEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol. 40, No. 4, p. 826, August,1993.

131. " Annual Progress Report on the University of Florida Training Reactor: September 1,1991 - August 31,1992,"W.G. Vernetson, Report #0RO-4014-22, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August,1993.

132. " Report on Implementation of Freshman Interdisciplinary Laboratory," M.I. Holt,

'O report to College of Engineering and Department Chairs on SUCCEED Program for EGN-1002, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 2,1993.

l lO IX-13 )

l l

l

O l 133. "UniversityofFlorida Training Reactor: Facilities Information and Description," W.G.

Vernetson, Presentation to Teachers, Coordinators and Students in the Florida O Accelerated Initiatives Seminar, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 2,1993.

134. " Development of a Quality Assured Procedure for the Implementation of the k, Methodology for Neutron Activation Analysis at the UFTR," G. Dalporto, ENU-4905 High Honors Final Project Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, O University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 2,1993.

135. " Development of a Quality Assured Procedure for the Implementation of the k.

Methodology for Neutron Activation Analysis at the UFTR," G. Dalporto, High Honors Oral- Project Presentation, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 2,1993.

136. " Rare Eanh Elemental Analysis of Egyptian Sedimentary Mineral Deposits," T.

Downing, ENU-4905 Final Project Report, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 3,1993.

137. " Computer-Based Nuclear Radiation Detection / Instrumentation Laboratory Station O Systems,"W.H. Ellis and Q. He, LEliE Transactions on Nuclear Science, Vol. 40, No.

4, August,1993.

138. " Evaluation of Orange Juice Trace Element Content for Source Certification," S.

Moudgil, Final Research Project Report Submitted as a Participant from Eastside O High School in Florida Foundation for Future Scientists 1993 Summer Research Program (Prepared Also for Upgrade as a High School Science Fair Project),

Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 4,1993.

139. " Evaluation of Carbonated Beverages for Aluminum Content Under Differing Storage O Times Following Completion of Manufacture," O.J. Ganesh, Gainesville High School, Final Oral Presentation on Florida Foundation for Future Scientists Summer Research Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 5,1993.

140. " Evaluation of Orange Juice Trace Element Content for Source Certification," S.

Moudgil, Eastside High School, Final Oral Presentation on Florida Foundation for O Future Scientists Summer Research Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 5,1993.

141. " Evaluation of Carbonated Beverages for Aluminum Content Under Differing Storage Times Following Completion of Manufacture," O.J. Ganesh, Final Research Project Report Submitted as a Participant from Gainesville High School in Florida O Foundation for Future Scientists 1993 Summer Research Program (Prepared Also for Upgrade as a High School Science Fair Project), Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 5,1993.

O IX-14

O 142. "Significant Change in Facility Administration - New Reactor Manager," W.G.

Vernetson, Official Report to USNRC, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, O University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 10,1993.

143. " Comments on Proposed NRC Fee Policy for University Research Reactors," W.G.

Vernetson, Report Submitted to USNRC on Behalf of UFTR, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 18,1993.

O 144. " Update on Results of Trace Element Analysis Using NAA for Biochemical Assessment of Samples from Pollard, Alabama Oil Field (Phase 2),"W.G. Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Progress Report to G. Cwick (SEMSU) and M. Bishop (UWEC),

Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 20,1993.

O 145. "Results of the Trace Element Analysis of sic Fiber Samples Using a 99.999% Silicon Powder Standard," R. Ratner and W.G. Vernetson, NAA Laboratory Research Report to W. Torecki, Materials Science and Engineering Department, Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, August 27,1993.

146. " Sodium and Chlorine Concentrations in Silicon Fiber Sample #2882," W.G.

O Vernetson and R. Ratner, Report to Gel Tech, Inc. on Sample Analysis, August 30, 1993.

147. "Nonpower Reactor Service to the Nuclear Industry--More Than the Bottom Line,"

Invited Paper in Preparation for Presentation at the ANS Winter Meeting to be Held in San Francisco, CA, November 14-18,1993, Submitted in August,1993.

O 148. " Optimization of Nuclear Reactor Experimental Auto-Sampler with Fuzzy Logic Approach," H. Dai, D. Ekdahl and W.G. Vernetson, Abstract Submitted and Accepted for the Third International Conference on Industrial Fuzzy Control and Intelligent Systems to be Held in College Station, TX, December 1-3,1993, Submitted in August, O 1993.

NOTE: This list of reports and publications does not include the various presentations with visual aids Q made for the dozens of groups who visit the UFTR each year for tours and demonstrations.

O O IX-15

O 1 l

l

~O O l l

O APPENDIX A O

DOCUMENTATION FOR l NRC/UFTR MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE IIELD ON OCTOBER 27,1992 O

0 1

0 ,

O

'O

u --

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR

'O o MANAGEMENT MEETING PRESENTATION '

l O

O for Nuclear Regulatory Commission

,O Headquarters and Region II Representatives O

William G. Vernetson a Directar of Nuclear Facilities i

i UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

o October 27,1992

o PRESENTATION OUTLINE o

9 OVERVIEW OF PRESENTATION O KEY FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

.O 9 STATUS OF FACILITY AND USAGE 9 SUPPORT FOR THE REACTOR PROGRAM o

Financial Other Support o

9 STATUS OF OPERATIONS PROGRAM Operations Staff Training o

Reactor Instrumentation Improvements (Planned and Scheduled) o 9 STATUS OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM Implemented Program o

Planned Reviews and Changes 9 STATUS OF SECURITY PROGRAM 9 STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROO"%M o

o

. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING i9EACTOR KEY CHARACTERISTICS e Rated Power 100 KWth o

e Fuel: MTR Plate - Type Metal Alloy 93% Enriched o

e Core Geometry: Two Slab Arrangement in Six Fuel Boxes o Four 11-Plate Fuel Bundles Per Fuel Box e Control: 4 Swinging Vane-type Cadmium Loaded Blades iO e Cooling Flow 40 GPM e Coolant Temperature

o Core inlet: 105 F Core Outlet: 120 F o e Pressure: 1 Atmosphere e instrumentation: B-10 Proportional Chamber i

Fission Chamber i Compensated lonization

o Chamber l Uncompensated lonization l Chamber

!o 2

O O O O O O O O O O Shield Tank Vertical Access Plugs Reinforced Concrete Shield k

l 1s . .%

% l M,"j Removable Concrete Q Q Shield Blocks W 5 N l .i - _

N N

~

l %

N~

A l

D ' ,

' X'N Removable Shield Removable l C1 NN ' ~

[ Blocks (Thermal l Column)

Shield Blocks C,,b:-; l '

. A c:

J l g ~

, i

[". $

~' - m Control Blade j - u Drive Motor 4 % l- ' ,

/g

/ - %

4 -.

C ~-

Removable Experiment ' '

Thru-Port Tube '

s Thermal Column Access Plugs d.[/d Removable Graphite

/

Stringers Graphite Stacking B-10 Proportional Counter in Core Region Coolant Piping i

Fuel Boxes FIGURE 1 CUTAWAY VIEW OF THE UFTR

O' s

. 3 .

3- =

nh x xN -l W FUEL BUNDLES O 1 l

FUEL SUPPORT SIIFLD

.O ,

O i o .- '/ l

+N

. . e. . l COOLANT INLET y7

O Figure 4-9. ISOMETRIC OF UFTR FUEL BOXES.

O !

O N g h !

i i: i t

25 :

I ^

O o i ?

j s ! !

g s 5 \ \ \ ^

s / \ \ ,

J/

/ \ ,

o s N

\ \

_b _

~ .ti\\ -

'O / .

i /-

/ -

-\ s 4.y

/j// - ~' -

, f' ' '

~ s .,N--

'L

+# ,. ,w

,'j IO ', ,f

/ .

p : ,, 2

\\

\ ,

. , = . /

x, s

j_z/\ \

~

o .

\ w n./ y/ 3 y

/' 5 :

.:o e.

i,

= t i S E , -

s : -

fN o O

a t : s 3 2 :

/ i ! i l

O ie ;

p i -- t 5 Y t I -

t 8 A.

iO O

O ,

I i

O !

I l 0 RECENT UFTR FACILITY USAGE DATA l

\

o O PRODUCTIVE USAGE TIME COMMITMENT o -

25 + hours per week 10-25 hours critical per week 5-10 EFPHs per week ,

o O BROAD SPECTRUM OF USAGE Education o -

Lab /Special Project Courses Lecture Segments for UF Courses Lectures / Exercises for Visiting Academic Units Training (Utility / College /Other) o -

Research Projects Irradiation and Other Services Demonstrations and Tours O

O O

O O O O O O O O O O Enercy Generation at the UFTR kW-Hours each Reporting Period 45000-40000- !

k35000-

! 30000--

25000- '

20000--

15000- .

m m 10000- E @ k h 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 Reporting Period Figure 1. early En gge ra on His o for the UFTR Rated at 100 kW (Reporting Year

O l l

OVERVIEW OF ;

o REACTOR FACILITY USAGE l l

g 9 EDUCATION / TRAINING Secondary Schools ;

Community Colleges g

Colleges / Universities Utilities 9 RESEARCH Facility Life Extension ;

Plasma Kinetics !

NAA for Trace Element Identification '

Special Detector Development Neutron Radiography Facility Development i 1

9 SERVICE (TYPICAL)~ l

'O -

Irradiated Boraflex Evaluation Processed Quartz Evaluation Generation of Radionuclides Source Regeneration Selective Dielectric Irradiation for Color Center Analysis !

l 9 PUBLIC INFORMATION !

o O

o o o o o o o o o o The Rabbit System Reactor Building Well UFTR E.

4

Vertical Access Plugs

q Shield Tank

^

.^ Removable Concrete

Shield Blocks

^

, Che Lab

+ M: 4 f,7 / / /

ro /f $j / /~P/ // A Pressure Control x System KN

^Q 4:

^

g:::

[/

// /

Glove B0H ^^

^

!jy; /

^^2

' ]i .::T:i l

F

.4

^^:

i* .. :^ . ..

!I y.. ..

.]

yj

"?p..>,2' 3 .."

.e "> ;p" c

: mem=s aumam m.gg= . n=

g .g

/ s -a- - arj

.. s 1 dd !'3" h O: / f 0 !!I ' ~E I"

/ "44d liiJ iisini-liin

^:: : I i o/ o /

~

v I

Rabbit Capsule Rabbit Tube l Graphite i Access Stocking Thermal Access Plugs Rad Chem Lab Reactor CeX

O FINANCIAL SUPPORT o FOR THE REACTOR PROGRAM o G UNIVERSITY SUPPORT Relatively Static o -

Good Considering Reductions In University Budget Use of Electronics Engineer .

O g 9 EXTERNAL SUPPORT Reactor Sharing Program-University Reactor Instrumentation Program HEU-to-LEU Conversion Grant Research Support Service Work

0 I

OTHER SUPPORT o FOR THE REACTOR PROGRAM l

O O INTEGRATED COMPONENT OF NE i AND NES CURRICULUM !

.o - Assures Visibility Good Public Relations Generally Well Accepted O

O UTILIZATION BY MANY i DEPARTMENTS O

Environmental Engineering Sciences Chemistry

, - Materials Science and Engineering )

Anthropology l Pharmacology i

G STUDENT PROJECTS ASSURE CONTINUING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS / VISIBILITY O

1 O 1

o l

STATUS OF OPERATIONS PROGRAM o

9 STAFFING ADEQUATE FOR CURRENT PROGRAMS :

One Trainee In Licensing o

e OPERATIONS STAFF REQUALIFICATION AND RECERTIFICATION PROGRAM o -

Revised Program In 1992(Approved)

Development of Question / Answer Banks Annual Operations Test Annual Walkthrough Oral Examination o -

Additional Practical Training

' Updated and Improved Training Materials 9 REACTOR INSTRUMENTATION o

Sources of Recent Outage Time / Unavailability Radiation Monitoring System o -

Stack Monitoring System Reactor Vent System Nuclear Instrumentation System Temperature Monitoring System o

One Trip Since Fall,1989

- Several Unscheduled Shutdmyns Some Instrumentation Failures o I o

l

o-IN STRUMENTATION IMPROVEMENTS o

9 IMPLEMENTED ,

Two Pen Recorder Air Particulate Detector !

Survey Meters Ion Chamber (RO-2A)

GM Meter (ASP-1)

Neutron Rem Meter (ESP-2)

Electronic Maintenance Kit Dual Channel High Speed Chart Recorder 9 IN RESERVE NI Channel Replacement 9 PLANNED (FUNDED)

Area Radiation Monitoring System (3 Channels)

Telescoping High Dose Rate Survey Instrument

~U -

Portable Low Level Ion Chamber (Micro R)

Multipoint Temperature Recorder Thermocouple System Replacement

'U S PLANNED (UNFUNDED)

Stack Effluent Monitoring System l Fiber Optics Extendable Boroscope l o

l O

STATUS OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM !

o :

9 ROUTINE PROGRAM o -

Minimal Dose Commitment Low Contamination Levels o

9 NON ROUTINE PROGRAM FuelInspection g

Core Area Maintenance 9 PLANNED REVIEWS AND CHANGES Ongoing Updates Implementation of Changes Per 10 CFR Part 20 o

O i o

-O 4

STATUS OF SECURITY PROGRAM O

o O GOOD SECURITY SYSTEM RELIABILITY Low Alarm Frequency !

O I Good UPD Support / Training / Response 0 -

Good Staff Support / Training 9 OCCASIONAL ENTRY IN LOG OF

O SAFEGUARD EVENTS G ANNUAL REVIEW'OF PROGRAM

.O Occasional Minor Problems o

No Major Problems

.O i

O t . _ _ .

f O

STATUS OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM o

9 QUARTERLY DRILLS 9 LARGE ANNUAL DRILL o

9 EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT TRAINING G CALL LIST UPDATES o

O ANNUAL REVIEW OF EMERGENCY PLAN (IN PROGRESS) o 9 INTERACTIONS WITH STATE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OFFICE o

O

O O

i O.

SUMMARY

STATUS REPORT 0 9 FACILITY NEEDS UPGRADE / MODERNIZATION 9 USAGE REMAINS AT HIGH LEVELS '

O 9 MANAGEMENT / STAFF ANTICIPATE NEEDS Limited By Support !

Successful Overall l o

G DOE IS A KEY SUPPORT SOURCE Reactor Sharing 0 -

Reactor Instrumentation HEU/ LEU Conversion TRTR Newsletter l 0 9 FACILITY IS A REGIONAL ASSET 9 MANY IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN I IMPLEMENTED 0

0 MORE IMPROVEMENTS ARE PLANNED G UPCOMING USAGE LIMITATIONS l 0 l Conversion I New Part 20 l o 9 OPTIMISTIC OUTLOOK l o

O CURRENT STATUS OF o R-56 LICENSEE 9 FULL COMPLIANCE o

e RECEPTIVE TO REGULATORY REQUESTS o

O RELATIVELY HIGH LEVEL OF ACTIVITY 0 9 ONE TRAINEE IN LICENSING S PLANS CONTINUE TO HIRE PERMANENT l 0 MANAGER l

O o

I O

O O

APPENDIX B O

DOCUMENTATION FOR f UFTR TECIINICAL SPECIFICATIONS O

AMENDMENT NUMBER 18

'O I

o 4

O O

0 NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES DEPARTMENT Nuclear Reactor Facility University of Florida W.S.Vomsteon. DameNw NUCLEA O m.S MACTOR

% mn SULDING noe. m mam .r.woum September 28,1992 Amendment 18 UFTR Technical Specifications O

Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: University of Florida Training Reactor O Facility License: R-56, Docket No. 50-83 Request For Change In Technical Specifications

Dear Sir:

O A Proposed Amendment 18 to the UFTR Technical Specifications (R-56 License) affecting Pages 36-37 of the approved Tech Specs is enclosed as Attachment I. These changes are considered to be relatively minor and will constitute Amendment 18 to the UFTR R-56 License as noted on each page. Both changes are marked with the usual verticalline in the right hand margin for Section 6.6.1 (Operating Reports).

O The first change is.on Page 36 at the beginning of Section 6.6.1 and simply allows one(1) additional month for submittal of the " routine annual report covering activities of the reactor facility during the previous calendar year." Because November is normally a high activity month at the UFTR facility and because a number of other commitments also come due in November, this change to allow one further month for submittal is expected to provide better assurance that this report can be filed on time. ,

O '

l The second change is on Page 37 at the end of Section 6.6.1 and simply updates the addresses to which the annual report is to be submitted. Since these changed addresses correspond to the addresses for other submittals, this change is considered to be '

administrative in nature and will allow NRC Headquarters and Region II to distntute the annual report as appropriate. Currently we are sending the annual report to both the two O

new addresses (preferred) and to the two addresses currently in the Tech Specs at the end of Section 6.6.1.

These changes as requested are not considered to have any safety significance but really l involve administrative items only. Both of these changes have been reviewed by UFTR management and by the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee who concur on this O evaluation.

O Eo.c opporturdy/At%mene Acticn Empeyer

i O l i

l Document Control Desk '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 O September 28,1992 Page 2 The entire enclosure consists of one(1) signed original and thirteen copies of this letter of O transmittal and the enclosure contaming the proposed changes to the UFTR Technical Specifications.

We appreciate your consideration of this change. Please let us know if you need additional information.

O Sincerely, William G. Vernetson O '**'* " *

WGV:P Enclosure O

Notary Date O

O O

O

1 0- l g

[pA MCp 'o UNITED STATES

~,

["

g eE g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g March 25, 1993 0 .....

RECWVE0ftAR 2 8 get Docket No. 50-83 Dr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities 102 Nuclear Reactor Building Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences University of Florida O Gainesville, Florida 32611

Dear Dr. Vernetson:

SUBJECT:

ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT N0. 18 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-56 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REVISIONS O

The Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 18 to Facility Operating License No. R-56 for the University of Florida Training Reactor. The amendment consists of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) in response to your application dated September 28, 1992.

The amendment consists of a revision to your TS to permit you to submit your O annual report of activities up to December 31, rather than November 30 of each year. Also, the mailing address for the annual report has been changed to '

correspond to the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission mailing requirement. i A copy of the Related Safety Evaluation supporting Amendment No. 18 is enclosed.

O Sincerely, f 5. W Theodore S. Michaels, Project Manager r Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate O

Division of Operating Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Amendment No. 18 '

2. Safety Evaluation O cc w/ enclosures:

See next page .

O

O University of Florida Docket No. 50-83 O

cc:

Mr. James S. Tulenko, Chairman Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department University of Florida 0 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, Florida 32611 Dr. Ratib A. Karam, Director Neely Nuclear Research Center Georgia Institute of Technology 900 Atlantic Drive, N.W.

O Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Mr. Pedro B. Perez, Associate Director Nuclear Reactor Program '

North Carolina State University P. O. Box 7909 O Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7909 Dr. R. U. Mulder, Director Reactor Facility University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 O Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 0 State Planning and Development Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary'E. Clark, Chief Office of Radiation Control Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ,

1317 Winewood Boulevard l Tallahassee, Florida 32999 O !

l O i

lO r

pems'o, UNITED STATES 8" - ~ ~% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

y, , ; ,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%, + . . . . J' l g

O UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA ,

DOCKET NO. 50-83 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE iO Amendment No. 18 License No. R-56

~

1. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:

A. The application for amendment to Facility Operating License No.

R-56, filed by the University of Florida (the licensee), dated

.O September 28, 1992, complies with the standards and requirements of-the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations as set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I:

B. The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the !

provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; C. There is reasonable assurance: (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the. health and ,

safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations;

.O D. The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; E. The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied; and >

o- F. Prior notice of this amendment was not required by 10 CFR _

2.105(a)(4) and publication of notice for this amendment is not required by 10 CFR 2.106(a)(2).

I O

>0

l O l l

l j

2. Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical O Specifications as indicated in the enclosure to this license amendment, I and paragraph 2.C.(2) of Facility Operating License No. R-56 is hereby amended to read as 'ollows:

(2) Technical Specifications n

The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 18, are hereby incorporated in the license.

The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.

3. This license amendment is effective as of the date of issuance.

O FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, Wu Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning O Project Directorate Division of Operating Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Appendix A Technical S ecifications Changes O

Date of Issuance: March 25, 1993 O

O O

l O 1 1

1

. C) 4 ENCLOSURE TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 18 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-56 C) DOCKET NO. 50-83 Replace the following pages of the Appendix A Technical Specifications with the enclosed pages. The revised pages are identified by Amendment number and contain vertical lines indicating the area of changes.

)

Remove Paaes Insert Paaes 36 36 37 37 O

O O

l C) 1 1

()

)

O O

O (a) applicable circumstances leading to the violation including, when known, the cause and contributing factors O (b) effect of the violation upon reactor facility components, systems, or structures and on the health and safety of personnel and the public (c) corrective action to be taken to prevent recurrence.

The report shall be reviewed by the RSRS and any followup report shall be submitted to O the Commission when authorization is sought to resume operation of the reactor.

6.5.2 Action To Be Taken in the Event of an Occurrence of the Type Identified in Section 6.6.2.

(1) Reactor conditions shall be returned to normal or the reactor shall be shut down. If it is O necessary to shut down the reactor to correct the occurrence, operations shall not be resumed unless authorized by Level 2 or designated alternates.

(2) Occurrence shall be reported to Level 2 or designated alternates and to the Commission as required.

O (3) Occurrence shall be reviewed by the review group at their next scheduled meeting.

6.6 Reoorts in addition to the requirements of the applicable regulations, reports shall be made to the Commission as follows:

O 6.6.1 Operating Reports Routine annual reports covering the activities of the reactor facility during the previous calendar year shall be submitted to the Commission with 4 months following the end of each prescribed year. The prescribed year ends August 31 for the UFTR. Each annual operating report shall O include the following information:

(1) a narrative summary of reactor operating experience including the energy produced by the reactor and the hours the reactor was critical O (2) the unscheduled shutdowns including, where applicable, corrective action taken to preclude recurrence (3) tabulation of major preventive and corrective maintenance operations having safety significance (4) tabulation of major changes in the reactor facility and procedures, and tabulation of new O tests of experiments, that are significantly different from those performed previously and are not described in the Safety Analysis Report, including conclusions that no unreviewed safety questions were involved Amendment is 36 O

O .

(5) a sumrrary of the nature and amount of radioactive effluents released or discharged to the environs beyond the effective control of the facility operators as determined at or O before the point of such release or discharge (The summary shall include to the extent practicable an estimate ofindividual radionuclides present in the effluent. If the estimated average release after dilution or diffusion is less than 25% of the concentration allowed, a statement to this effect is sufficient.)

(6) a summarized result of environmental surveys performed outside the facility O

(7) a summary of exposure received by facility personnel and visitors where such exposures are greater than 25% of that allowed The annual report shall be submitted with a cover letter to Attention: Document O Control Desk, U.S. NRC, Washington DC 20555 and to the U.S. NRC, Region 11, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323 6.6.2 Special Reports There shall be a report not later than the following working day by telephone and confirmed in O writing by telegraph or similar conveyance to the Commission, to be followed by a written report that describes the circumstances of the event within 14 days of any of the following:

(1) release of radioactivity from the site above a!! owed limits (2) violation of safety limits (see Section 6.5.1)

O (3) any of the following (a) operation with actual safety-system settings for required systems less conservative than the limiting safety-system settings specified in the Technical Specifications O

(b) operation in violation of limiting conditions for operation established in the Technical Specifications unless prompt remedial action is taken (c) a reactor safety system component matfunction that renders the reactor safety system incapable of performing its intended safety function, unless the malfunction O or condition is discovered during maintenance test or periods of reactor shutdowns (Note: Where components or systems are provided in addition to those required by the Technical Specifications, the failure of the extra components or systems is not considered reportable provided that the minimum number of components or systems specified or required perform their intended reactor safety function).

(d) an unanticipated or uncontrolled change in reactivity greater thanone dollar (Reactor O trips resulting from a known cause are excluded).

O Amendment 18 37

4

.O

[.. m % ~

UNITED STATES

!" n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{, .$ WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 O

\...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION O

SVPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 18 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-56 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA O DOCKET NO. 50-83

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated September 28, 1992, the University of Florida (licensee) requested an amendment to their Technical Specifications (TS) for the -

O University of Florida Training Reactor. The. licensee requests that one additional month be allowed to submit the routine annual report covering activities of the reactor facility during the previous calendar year. Also, the licensee has updated the addressee to which this report must be sent to correspond with the current Nuclear Regulatory Commission mailing requirements.

O 2.0 EVALUATION Technical Specification 6.6.1 requires that the licensee submit an annual report covering the activities of the reactor facility during the previous calendar year within three months following the end of each prescribed year. 4 The prescribed year ends August 31 for the licensee. The licensee is i requesting that the end of the three month period, i.e., November 30, be l O changed to a fcur month period, i.e., December 31, because November is i normally a high activity month at the licensee's facility and because a number of other commitments also come due in November. The staff finds that a one month extension for submittal of the annual report will not affect the timely review of the annual report and therefore is acceptable.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

.O This amendment involves changes in the category of recordkeeping, reporting, and. administrative procedures and requirements. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth.in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

O O

O

4.0 CONCLUSION

O The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: Theodore S. Michaels Dated: March 25, 1993 O

O O

f O

O i

l O

O O

APPENDIX C O

UFI'R EMERGENCY PLAN REVISION 8 DOCUMENTATION O

O O

O ,

O

O NUCl. EAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES DEPARTMENT Nuclear Reactor Facility University of Florida tr.a.v ,w a.m eio, '. I '

$ ace ===a c % mn UFTR Emergency Plan -

% m m. .u.. um Revision 8 December 10, 1992 0

U.S. Nuc! car Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Document Control Desk g Re: University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR)

Facility License: R-56; Docket No. 50-83 Gentlemen:

The enclosed package contains Revision 8 to the approved UFTR Emergency Plan. Revision g 8 has been reviewed by UFTR management and the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS) to assure Revision 8 does not decrease the effectiveness of the UFTR Emergency Plan.

All the changes are considered relatively minor in nature.

Revision 8 consists of a set of updates and minor revisions to fifteen (15) pages to include ii, v,1-5, all of Chapter 3, (pages 3-1 through 3-8), 5 2, 8-2, 8-3, and 10-6.

S First, Page 1-5 (Figure 1.3: Second Floor Plan for the University of Florida Training Reactor Building) is updtted to reflect new room numbers assigned about a year ago as well as to reflect several changes in how the offices are set up to include changes in size and movement of non-load bearing inner walls to make two rooms in the former room 105 and to make one room out n of the former rooms 102 and 103.

y Second, all of Chapter 3 (Organization and Responsibilities) nas been retyped with a number of changes. All except the two Figures are denoted by vertical lines in the right hand margin.

First, on Page 3-1, a reference to " disaster" preparedness is changed to " emergency" preparedness in Paragraph 3.2.1 in keeping with preferred terminology. Second, Figure 3.1 is g unchanged but has been reset to agree with the format of th . sst of Chapter 3. Third, Section 3.3 has been changed to reference the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, Disaster Preparedness State Warning Point which is to be notified of all radiological emergencies to assure proper communications are maintained with the Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) Office of Radiation Control to afford its personnel the opportunity for offsite monitoring and assessment and to assure availability and access to j resources through this office should they be considered appropriate. Next, Section 3.4 is

% changed to reflect adding the HRS Office of Radiation Control as a fifth key emergency support organization though response by this Office is not considered essential for the UFTR Emergency Response Plan to be affective. Subsequently, the role of this Office is delineated in a new k

- - - . ~ \

L j

1 O l 1

l UFTR Emergency Plan Page 2 December 10, 1992 l Revision 8 O

paragraph 3.4.5 which indicates that the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management maintains a State Warning Point for radiological emergencies and is informed of all UFTR radiological emergencies; normally they will be notified of all emergency drills as well. The HRS Office of Radiation Control maintains a full g spectrum of response capabilities for offsite monitoring and dose assessment. The fact that they can be expected to respond to any significant radiological emergency associated with the UFTR basically to assure documentation of offsite monitoring and assessment activities needed to provide such backup radiation protection and control services as may be deemed appropriate requires that they be included as a key organization for consideration in responding to UFTR Radiological Emergencies.

8 The fact that the State of Florida Office of Radiation Control in the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is notified of all radiological emergencies to provide a communication link and the opportunity for offsite monitoring and assessment is also added to Section 3.5 (Reactor Emergency Response Organization and Extensions) though again it is emphasized that this response is not considered essential for the UFTR Emergency Response Plan to be effective.

~ ~

O Finally, Figure 3.2 (UFTR Emergency Organization Including Extensions) is redrawn to include the State Warning Point and moved from Page 3-5 to page 3-6.

In the last paragraph of Section 3.5 the references to call lists and their availability is changed to reflect that they are posted on severai bulletin boards and in several copies of the procedure g manuals located at various points in the reactor building. Finally, Section 3.9 (Radiological Assessment) is also changed to refiect that the HRS Office of Radiation Control, through the State Warning Point, will be notified of all significant radiological emergencies to provide the opportunity for documenting offsite monitoring and assessment and assuring communication channels are established as appropriate. An incorrect reference to Figure 1.2 is changed to reference Figure 3.2.

O The only other changes involved in retyping Chapter 3 are several changes to correct references to positions by gender (He, his, etc.). These references are corrected by using non-generic '

specific terms such as "the individual" or "his/her." These are also noted by vertical lines is the margin.

O Third, Table 5.1 (UFTR Emergency Classification Guide) is changed to reflect better the ,

categorization of emergencies allowed by the ANSI /ANS-15.16 Standard. Specifically, the Class I category will now require two area monitors above 100 mR/hr versus the previous 50 mR/hr.

A new Class I event will be fuel damage indicated by high coolant fission product activity or -

contamination indicating fuel failure. This category indicates the release is well contained. Both of these example events prevent unnecessary elevation of emergencies to the Class II Alert level, g For consistency, the Class II Alert category now references major visible damage to a fuel bundle or other visible failure indicating a major breach of one or more fuel plates with significant release of fission products. Again, this description matches the originalintent for a Class II event. Class II now also requires two area monitors to be above 500 mR/hr, again preventing a Class II Alert event from being called simply from moving a radioactive sample

% (perhaps dropping it) next to one area monitor. The remaining changes in Table 5.1 are only

i

.~.

O ,

l i

g UFTR Emergency Plan Page 3 December 10, 1992 l Revision 8 for presentation purposes with references to the decon room changed to the Emergency Support Center as the proper reference.

Fourth, Table 8.1 listing equipment typically available from the University of Florida Radiation Control Office for emergency dose and radiation level assessment and Table 8.2 which lists the equipment typically available in the UFTR facility for dose and radiation level assessment that may also be available from the UFTR depending on accessibility curing an emergency event are both updated. These updated tables reRect better actual equipment available to address 0

emergency events to include the removal of failed or unreliable instruments and the addition of new instruments acquired over tne past two years such as the ASP-1 GM Survey meter, the RO-2A ionization chamber and the ESP-2/NRD-1 neutron detector. These tables do not have vertical lines in the margin due to the number of changes.

g Fifth. Table 10.3 is updated only to show that the respirators with spare filters (asterisked) are stored in Room 108 NSC not Room 106 NSC as previously indicated.

Finally, the Table of Contents (Page ii) is updated to reflect page changes per the retyped and conected Chapter 3 and the List of Tables (Page v) is updated to redect the movement of Figure .

3.2 from page 3-5 to page 3-6.

S As indicated all these changes have been .. .cwed by UFTR management and by the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee to assure they do not decrease the effectiveness of the UFTR Emergency Plan. These changes, especially those in Chapter 3, are also considered responsive to concerns expressed by the State of Florida Radiation Control Of5ce in previous communications with UFTR management. In general, these changes make the Plan better suited O to assuring a proper response to Emergencies at the University of Flofida Training Reactor.

If there are any questions, please let us know. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Y.shAL .

William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities W v x-Notaryblan,A w n , -

WGV:Imc .

Enclosures "" 1

~ " " ~

CC: NRC Region U (2 copies) g Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee D. Simpkins

m V

UFTR EMERGENCY PLAN Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

. . .. ....... .. .. .... .1-1 1.1 Scope of the UFTR Emergency Plan .. ..... .... .. . ... .. . 1-1 1.2 Basis for the UFTR Emergency Plan ... . ... . . . .... ....... .1-1 1.3 Characteristics of the UFTR Facility . . . .... ... . ... . . .. .... .. .. 1-1 g 1.3.1 Reactor Characteristics . ... .... ......... ... 1-1

. . . 1 -3 1.3.2 UFTR Building Structural Design .. .. . .. . ......

1.3.3 Experimental Facilities ... . . . . ... .. .. .... . . .. .. 1-3 1.4 UFTR Facility Location . . ... ... . . . . .... . .... 1-6 1.5 Credible Accidents and Consequences . .. .. . ... . ......... . 1-6 2.0 DEFINITIONS . . . ... . . .... . . ...... ... ... . 2-1 0

3.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ..... .. . ..... ...... . . 3-1 3.1 UFTR Administrative Structure ............ .. . ..... . 3-1 3.2 UFTR Operating Organization .. . ........ ..... .... . . .3-1 3.2.1 Director of Nuclear Facilities and Reactor Manager .... ......3-1 l 3.2.2 UFTR Safety Review Subcommittee .. ............ . . ... . 3-3

$ 3.2.3 Radiation Safety Organization ...... .. .. .... .. . ... . 3-3 3.3 Interactions with Governmental Agencies ... . .. .. . . ........ . 3-3 3.4 Coordination with On-site and Off. site Authorities . .... .... ....... . .3-3 3.4.1 University Police Department . . . . . . ...... ..... .. . 3-4 3.4.2 Gainesville Fire Department ... .. .... ........... . . . . . 3-4 3.4.3 Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. . ... .... ... . . . 3-4 3.4.4 Alachua County Emergency Planning Office .. . ...... .. .. . 3-4 9 3.4.5 State of Florida Office of hadiation Control . ... . . ......... . 3-4 3.5 Reactor Emergency Response Organization and Extensions ............ . . 3-5 3.6 Prolonged Emergencies and Management Endurance . . .. .... ..... .3-7 3.7 Reactor Emergency Director, Authority and Responsibility . . . .... .... . . . . 3 -7 3.8 Emergency Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ....... . . . . . 3-7 3.9 Radiological Assessment ... . ......... .... . .. . . . 3-8

. 3-8

(] 3.10 3.11 Recovery Operations .... ..... ..

Termination of Operations and Recovery . ..

........ 3-8 3.12 Authorization of Exposures Beyond Normal Occupational Limits .... . .. ..... 3-8 4.0 EMERGENCY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM . . ..... .. .... .. . .. 4-1 4.1 Events I.ess Severe Than the Lowest Category (Class 0) ...... .. . .. . .. . 4-1 m

() 4.2 Notification of Unusual Event (Class I) . . . . . .. ... ... ... . . . 4-1 4.3 Alert (Class II) . .... . . ....... . . . . ... . ... 4-2 i 4.4 Site Area Emergency (Class III) .... .. .. ...... . ......... . 4-3 j 4.5 General Emergency (Class IV) .... .. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -4 l l

5.0 EMERGENCY ACTION LEVELS (EALs) . . . ........ .. . ... . 5-1 i k REV 8,12/92

O

. i UFTR EMERGENCY PLAN !

LIST OF FIGURES O !

P310 i Figure 1.1 Isometric Sketch of the UFTR with Shielding Removed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 '

Figure 1.2 First Floor Plan for the University of Florida Training Reactor Building ....................................1-4

,g Figure 1.3 Second Floor Plan for the University of Florida Training ;

Reactor Building ....................................1-5 ;

, Figure 1.4 Relative Geographic Location of Alachua County and Gainesville in the State of Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 Figure 1.5 Map of Greater Gainesville Area showing Placement of the g University of Florida Campus and Major Landmarks . . . . . . . . . . . .... 1-8

Figure 1.6 UFTR Building Placement on University of Florida Campus ;

e with Respect to Major Campus Arteries and Buildings . . . . . . . . . . .... 1-9 Figure 1.7 University of Florida Campus Map with Building Locations, ,

Primary Landmarks and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

! Figure 1.8 UFTR Building Access Roads . .... .. . .. . ... . .. . ... .. . . . . 1-11 S

Figure 3.1 UFTR Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 Figure 3.2 UFTR Emergency Organization Including Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 O LIST OF TABLES -,

Eage i Table 1.1 Activity and Dose Equivalents from Maximum Credible Fuel Handling Accident ... . . ... . .. .. . .. .. .. . . . ... .. . . . 1-13 O Table 5.1 UFTR Emergency Classification Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Table 8.1 Equipment Typically Available from Radiation Control Office for Emergency Dose and Radiation Level Assessment . . . . . . .... 8-2 Table 8.2 Equipment Typically Available In the UFTR Facility for Dose and Radiation Level Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 8-3 g Table 10.1 Maintenance and Calibration Schedule for Radiation Detection and Measuring Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3 i Table 10.2 UFTR Safety System Operability Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4 l Table 10.3 Decontamination Room Emergency Equipment Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . 10-6 l D

V REV 7,12/91 g REV 8,12/92 j

1 i

O. 1 Q ,................... ,

x .

s . ..__....._,..... ;.

6 8 -

t_-

i D ul

c. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. - - ,<;

' Al# l

[

CcN0it:0mac [;

PLAT 50AM ,

s :

g- '.!:

g I 'I E <

REACTCM MALL CAANE M AIN TEN ANCE ,,

P'. ATFC R M A33vC i

[ '

_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _~ ,

1. l l .

< c: sines a:cu 9

[ ] t e:cr t Jj r :

S

,_ _.____ _ __ _ ._ _ _ __ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ i, ,_ _. w.--.-

-t - r;.l c.c . ,

b - ~

l Iol 1D2. 103 CPEN . r-i

, K ,

t j r- e- a:: erc: .: g

r. \. a k

i c,o N

/ W I.

k I

l IO*t s t A 10 9 t o ;

.I. .A c,,.xd

=

l ^

E o i d

'il il I I l: l -

I l ie e-er r av a-n i j .-:

[

ca c . ton, icG k /07 C_

2 . i no o v~<

ir i .

kg -

l'- ,

e

. e 1_-r '

. w _ _ __, __ Fr

E.-

\/ s i

.c . .4. A <<

Figure 1.3 Second Floor Plan for the University of Florida Training P.eactor Building

% 1-5 REV 8,12/92

n v

3.0 ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES O 3.1 UFTR Administrative Structure The UFTR is operated by the Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences of the University of Florida for the academic purposes of instruction and research with some operations to serve industry needs, primarily for training and eduction purposes. The President of the University, the Dean of the College of Engineering, the Chairman of the Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences, the Director O of Nuclear Facilities and the Reactor Manager all have line responsibility for thr.. administrative control )

of the reactor facility, for safeguarding the general public and facility pecsonnel from radiation i exposure and adhering to all requirements of the Facility License and the Technical Specifications.

Line responsibility for administrative control of the UFTR is depicted in the UFTR organization chart shown in Figure 3.1.

'8 Direct supervision over the University of Florida, its policies and affairs is vested with the Board of Regents. All University affairs are administered by the President with the advice and assistance of the Administrative Council. The organization for the management and operation of the reactor facility includes the management structure shown in Figure 3.1 where four levels of authority are provided.

g Level I consists of individuals responsible for the UFTR licenses, character and site administration. Level 2 is the individual responsible for reactor facility management (Facility Director or his designated alternate). Level 3 is the individual responsible for reactor operations and supervision of day-to-day facility activities (Reactor Manager or his designated alternate). Level 4 consists of the rest of the facility operating staff (reactor operators and senior reactor operators). In parallel with the facility administrative and operating staff, the radiation control and radiological safety functions are

$ represented by the right half of Figure 3.1. The Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS) is appointed by, and reports to, the Chairman of the University Radiation Control Committee (URCC) who reports to the Director of Environmental Health and Safety who, in turn, reports to the Vice-president for Administrative Affairs.

3.2 UFTR Operating Organization 3.2.1 Director of Nuclear Facilities and Reactor Manager The Director of Nuclear Facilities and the Reactor Manager are in complete charge of the reactor facility. They are responsible for the safe operation of the reactor, the physical protection of the facility, the scheduling and supervision of experiments using the reactor, the contral of the reactor fuel, 3 the keeping of logs and records, and the maintenance of the physical condition of the facility. They are also responsible for liaison with the NRC and other regulatory bodies, and for coordinating the teaching and research programs within the facility. The Director of Nuclear Facilities (or his duly authorized representative such as the Reactor Manager) has overall responsibility for the handling of emergency situations, including coordination with Law Enforcement, Emergency Preparedness, Local and State Health Agencies and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

k REV 5,12/89 3-1 REV 8,12/92

O Level 1 Director, Environmental UF President , , Health and Safety 0 oean, college of Engineering Chairman, Nuclear Engineering Chairman, Radiation Sciences Department Control Committee h

8 v

Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee < OT 8 Fac.lity i D.irector

\

v Level 3 Radiation Control e Reactor Manager Office

'O y y Level 4 Radiation Safety Operating Staff

'O Specialists Class A and B Operator g Figure 3.1 UFTR Organization Chart 3-2 REV 8,12/92 -

O 3.2.2 UFTR Safety Review Subcommittee The UFTR Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (RSRS) is a part of and answers to the University p Radiation Control Committee (URCC). The basic purpose of the RSRS is to review and audit UFTR V operations for conformance of operations with good radiological safety practices. The RSRS reports directly to the Chairman of the URCC and provides its recommendations to the Director of Environmental Health and Safety. The Director of Nuclear Facilities and/or the Reactor Manager report safety-related problems and activities concerning the reactor to the UFTR RSRS for review.

g 3.2.3 Radiation Safety Organization The radiatbn safety organization at the University of Florida is directed and overseen by the University Radiation Control Committee (URCC). The Committee is appointed by the Director of Environmental Health and Safety Division and presently includes professors from the Departments of Biological Sciences, Radiological Health, Nuclear Engineering Sciences and Environmental Engineering

$ Sciences, as well as the Radiation Control Officer (ex--officio member). The URC Committee is responsible for advising the President on all matters related to radiation safety.

The radiation control office (headed by the Radiation Control Officer) within the Environmental Health and Safety Division is the organization responsible for surveillance of health physics for reactor operations. This office trains all UFTR staff members in health physics areas and supplies health

$ physicists or other health physics technical personnel on an as needed basis to oversee operations and to assure the health physics function is properly implemented in all reactor-related operations.

The Radiation Control Officer assists the Director of Nuclear Facilities and/or the Reactor Manager in all matters which concern the health and safety of the public during any emergency.

I 3.3 Interaction with Governmental Organizations There are no credible UFTR-related events that will require direct interaction with offsite governmental agencies. The University of Florida is a quasi-governmental agency and, as such, the Division of Environmental Health and Safety is engaged in emergency planning. That Division, through the Radiation Control Office shown in Figure 3.1, is involved in assuring the safe operation O of the UFTR. Emergency planning is permissive of special situations and no planning conflict exists.

Provisions are made, however, to interact with the Alachua County Emergency Planning Office which is tied to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management. In addition, the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Office of Radiation Control is notified of all radiological emergencies through the Department of Community Affairs, O Division of Emergency Management State Warning Point to assure proper communications are maintained with the State Office of Radiation Control to afford this office the opportunity for offsite monitoring and assessment and to assure availability and access to resources through this office should they be deemed appropriate. This response, however, is not considered essential for the UFTR Emergency Response Plan to be effective.

g 3A Coordination with Onsite and Offsite Authorities The five(5) key emergency support organizations for the UFTR are: University Police Department (UPD), Gainesville Fire Department, Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, the Alachua O REV 5,12/89 3-3 REV 8,12/92

n v

Ccunty Emergency Planning Of6ce, and the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) Office of Radiation Control.

3.4.1 University Police Department

~

U_

The UPD provides basic law enforcement support, including access control, communications with different agencies, coordination with other law enforcement agencies, evacuation of affected areas and support of the emergency action. All emergency communications begin with notification of the UPD Dispatch Center (telephone number: 2-1111) which serves as the Campus Communications Center for onsite and offsite notifications in response to radiological emergencies.

g 3.4.2 Gainesville Fire Department The Gainesville Fire Department provides basic firefighting, lifesaving and support actions. The GFD is equipped and trained to work within the confines of a radiological accident and can support g many of the required actions, in coordination with the Emergency Support Center (see Section 8.1) from which actions to evaluate and respond to radiological emergencies are directed.

3.4.3 Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., has overall responsibility for treating any injured

$ persons, whether contaminated, irradiated or just physically injured. The Shands' Plan for Emergency Handling of Radiation Accident Cases is enclosed as Appendix I.

3.4.4 Alachua County Emercency Planning Office The Alachua County Emergency Planning Office has overall responsibility in handling situations O that could or have resulted in a significant release of radioactivity of the environs. The Alachua County Emergency Planning Office is responsible through the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Planning, for all offsite communications and coordination of support.

Although not expected to be necessary for credible UFTR accident conditions, this organization will serve as a communications and information resource in the event of a UFTR-related radiological em rgency.

O 3.4.5 State of Florida Office of Radiation Control The State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Office of Radiation Control is notified of radiological emergencies through the Department of Community Affairs, Division of a

Emergency Management State Warning Point. This Office is informed of all UFTR radiological emergencies and will normally be informed of emergency drills as well. The Office of Radiation Control maintains a full spectrum of response capabilities for offsite monitoring and dose assessment and can be expected to respond to any significant radiological emergencies associated with the UFIR to assure documentation of offsite monitoring and assessment activities and to provide such backup radiation protection and control services as may be deemed appropriate. This response is not considered essential for the UFTR Emergency Response Plan to be effective.

REV 5,12/89 3-4 REV 8,12/92

O 3.5 Reactor Emergency Response Organization and Extensions n The UFTR Emergency organization, as it relates to the normal organization, is shown in hgure U 3.2. Lines of responsibility are shown by solid lines while lines of communication are shown by dashed lines. Figure 3.2 shows extensions to other organizations and groups that will augment and extend the capability of the facility emergency staff. The Director of Nuclear Facilities or his duly authorized representative has overall responsibility for reactor-related emergencies; the Radiation Control Officer or his duly authorized representative has overall responsibility for radiation control ,

g actions (specifically Protective Action Guides). The University of Florida Police Department has overall I law enforcement and communications responsibility through its dispatch center which serves as the campus emergency operations center. The Alachua County Emergency Planning Office under the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Planning has offsite responsibility.

However, through the State Warning Point, the State of Florida Office of Radiation Control in the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is notified of all radiological emergencies to provide O the opportunity for offsite monitoring and assessment and to provide a communications link for such technical support as may be deemed appropriate for optimal radiation protection and control. Again this response is not considered essential for implementation of the UFTR Emergency Response Plan.

The small size of the reactor operating staff and the probability of absences because of illness, vacation, or leave necessitates a flexible internal emergency organization. However, most of the O credible emergencies that have radiological release implications will arise from reactor operations, failure of an experiment-in-progress, or fuel handling. Under these circumstances, there will be a designated Senior Reactor Operator and one or more Reactor Operators available. To provide reasonable assurance that an emergency management organization will exist to meet operational emergencies, the following succession is specified as depicted in Figure 3.2:

O Emergency Director (normally the Facility Director)

Reactor Manager Onsite Senior Reactor Operator The most technically experienced onsite UFTR staff member The Radiation Control Officer or designated alternate O Emergency Coordinator (normally the Reactor Manager)

Onsite Senior Reactor Operator Others as above The Emergency Director and the Emergency Coordinator may be the same individual.

O There are two situations in which the preceding succession can fail:

a. An event occurs and is perceived during non-working hours;

b. A catastrophic accident (fire or explosion) causes disablement of the organization, n If an event is perceived at the UPD dispatch (Campus Communication Center) by alarm / annunciator V

or by telephone, the Communication Center will notify the Division of Environmental Health and Safety and will attempt to locate and advise at least one staff member each from the UFTR and the Radiation Control Office. The UPD Dispatch is provided with a UFTR emergency call list for REV 5,12/89 3-5 REV 8,12/92

O 9 U O O O e O O O I I f I

! EMERGENCY DIRECTOR UPD DIRECTOR Dispatch (UFTR Facility Director) Division of Environmental (2-1111) Health and Safety

\ "

s u

's RADIATION CONTROL U '% OFFICER Director of University State EMERGENCY "

Information COORDINATOR Warning ,

HEALTH PHYSICIST Point (UFTR Manager) AND Office of the w RADIATION CONTROL President

TECHNICIAN y

SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL ONSITE SENIOR y GAINESVILLE FIRE REACTOR OPERATOR PUBLIC NEWS DEPARTMENT MEDIA ALACHUA AMBULANCE SERVICE U ALACHUA COUNTY MOST EXPERIENCED EMERGENCY PLANNING OFFICE UFTR STAFF MEMBER m (Alachua County ONSITE y Waming Point)

-m SITE EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION 18 Figure 3.2. UFTR Emergency Organization including Extensions

O radiation control personnel as well as UFTR staff members. This call list is also available at the Emergency Response Center (Room 108 NSC). The center will dispatch police and, if necessary, fire fighting forces to the emergency location according to standard cunpus-wide procedures.

O The emergency event induced by external factors would activate the campus plan, and responding emergency forces will rely upon the UF Radiation Control Office for advice and assistance if the entire UFTR staff is unavailable because of absence or disability.

Figure 3.2 shows the relationship between the internal UFTR organization delineated in Section g 3.1 and the support and support-related organizations that can be called upon in credible emergencies.

The interface with the emergency field units occurs at the Campus Communication Center by Dialing the UPD Dispatch number (2-1111). Police service is directly available. When contacted by UPD Dispatch, response time for ambulance service and fire department is 5 to 10 minutes. Medical admission procedures at the Shands Teaching Hospital Emergency Room depend upon the type and O severity of injury, but the emergency center also arranges admission for cases that require ambulance delivery, and will summon para-medical assistance when indicated. Emergency notification and call numbers are posted in the control room, at the Emergency Support Center or decontamination room (Room 108 NSC), on several bulletin boards and in several copies of the UFTR procedures manual located at various points throughout the UFTR building. For emergencies arising from reactor operations, the interface with the news media and the general public will be through the University of O Florida Director of University Information in the Office of the President as depicted in the UFTR Emergency Organization block diagram in Figure 3.2. This office will release UFTR emergency-related information to public news media based upon information supplied from the UFTR facility emergency organization through the Emergency Director or that individual's designated representative.

This emergency news release communication function will provide information only as supplied by the Emergency Director in consultation with other applicable UF offices and support agencies of the UFTR O Emergency Organization shown in Figure 3.2.

3.6 Prolonged Emergencies and Management Endurance In the event of prolonged emergency, the UFTR staff augmented by Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department and Radiation Control Office personnel can be reassigned from the normal day-time work g schedule to provide two persons per shift to monitor, advise, and assist external assistance forces. The campus police, Gainesville fire department and the Alachua ambulance service are staffed continuously. !

3.7 Reactor Emergency Director, Authority and Responsibility Q The Emergency Director has the responsibility and authority for assembling personnel, directing j actions, and for discharging the duties of sections 3.9 through 3.12 of this chapter. The line of l succession shall be to the Emergency Coordinator. In the absence or disablement of those individuals, the line of succession shall be as described in Section 3.5.

3.8 Emergency Coordinator The UFTR Reactor Manager is responsible locally for the coordination of emergency preparedness. This individual has the responsibility and authority for representing the UFTR facility in the broader campus planning for emergencies.

% REV 5,12/89 3-7 REV 8,12/92

O 3.9 Radiological Assessment Radiological assessment shall be performed by the Reactor Manager or that individual's alternate and with the assistance of the Radiation Control Officer or an alternate provided by the University of Florida Radiation Control Office. The UFTR line of succession shall follow Figure 3.2. Supporting personnel from the Radiation Control Office are to be determined by that Office. There are no credible accidents requiring offsite dose assessments or protective actions. However, the State of Florida Office of Radiation Control in the Department of Health and Rehabilitative services will be notified of all g significant radiological emergencies to assure a timely opportunity to provide documentation of any offsite monitoring and assessment as may be deemed appropriate and to assure communications channels are established for such technical support as may be deemed appropriate.

3.10 R.ecovery Operations

$ Recovery operations shall be directed by the Reactor Emergency Director. This individual shall l be assisted by:

a. The Emergency Coordinator (for personnel, supplies and equipment); and

b. The Radiation Control Officer and an onsite Health Physicist (for decontamination, and 8 assessment of radiation exposure) with Radiation Control Office personnel as backup and to provide general health physics support.

3.11 Termination of Emergency and Recc.ery Decisions regarding termination of emergency, initiation of recovery and completion of recovery shall be made by the Emergency Coordinator or Emergency Director (as available) in consultation with Radiation Control Officer and supporting personnel. Planned organizational changes or actions are to be approved by the Emergency Coordinator who shall inform impacted agencies and coordinate those changes.

g 3.12 Authorization of Exposures Beyond Normal Occupational Limits The Emergency Director, with the consent of the Radiation Control Officer or the designated RCO alternate, may authorize exposures to volunteer workers in excess of normal occupational limits.

All such volunteers should be cognizant of risks involved.

h b

REV 5,12/89 3-8 REV 8,12/92

_g Table 5.1 UFTR Emergency Classification Guide EMERGENCY CLASS ACTION LEVEL PURPOSE g Class 0 Less severe than Civil disturbances or receipt of bomb threat non-specific to the Reactor, (1) Alert staff to a possible escalation; j

the lowest class.

Personnel injury, with or without (2) Initiate assessment; radiological complications.

Minor fire or explosion within the

operations boundary that is non-specific to the reactor or its control system.

Class I Receipt of bomb threat with possible (1) Assure that emergency Notification radiological release implications. personnel are ready to

$ of Unusual Event respond if situation Fire or minor explosion which might escalates or to perform adversely effect the reactor or its control confirmatory radiation systems. monitoring if required; Two area monitors above 100 mR/hr. (2) Provide current status

$ information to off-site Airborne contamination in excess of 10 authorities.

hfPC in the Reactor Cell and/ or 2 hfPC at the operations boundary when averaged over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months .

j Fuel damage indicated by high coolant fission product activity or contamination indicating fuel failure.

Class 11 Alert hiajor visible damage to fuel bundle or (1) Assure that response g other visible failure indicating a major breach of one or more fuel plates with centers are manned; significant release of fission products. (2) Assure that monitoring teams are dispatched; Two area monitors in reactor cell l above 500 mR/hr. (3) Assure that personnel required for evacuation of g

l Airborne contamination in excess of 100 on-site areas are at duty h1PC in the Reactor Cell and/or 20 hiPC stations; at the operations boundary when averaged

! over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months . (4) Provide consultation with :

off-site authorities; l hiajor fire or explosion in the UFTR cell l g which has affected the reactor and/or its control systems.

(5) Provide information to the public through the UF l

Public Information Office.

! 52 REV 1, 7/84 REV 8,12/92 i

l

(f $ h h Y * % % % Q TABLE 8.1 Equipment Available from Radiation Control Office fbr Emercency Dose and Radiation Level Assessment M ANUFACTUR ER MODEL USE RADIATION DETECTED SENSITIVITY Victorcen 740G exposure rate a, #, gamma, X-rays 4 linear ranges ion chamber measurements 0-1000 mR/h to 0-100 R/h

.00025in. thick mylar end window Victoreen 471 exposure rate a, #, ganuna, X-rays 12 linear ranges ion chamber measurements 0-1 mR/h to 0-300 R/h 1.1 mg/cm2 mylar window Eberline E-130G exposure rate gamma, X-rays 3 linear ranges GM detector measurements 0-10 mR/h to 0-100 mR/h energy compensated GM tube W.B. Johnson GSM-10 contamination #, ganuna, X-rays 3 linear ranges GM detector monitoring 04).2 mR/h to 0-20 mRih 1.5 mg/cm2 aluminized mylar end window

" W.B. Johnson GSM-5 contamination #, gamma, X-rays 3 linear ranges

" 04).2 mR/h to 0-20 mR/h GM detector monitoring 1.5 mg/cm2 aluminized mylar end window

Eberline PNR-4 neutron dose fast and slow I log range, 0-5000 Rem Neutron detector monitoring neutrons *BF 3and bonner ball Eberlme PAL-ISA alpha contami- a 4 linear ranges alpha meter nation nxmitoring 0-2000 cpm to 0-2 x 10' cpm 1.5 mg/cm2 mylar window Victoreen 425A contamination #, gamma, X-rays GM detector monitoring 4 linear ranges 0 to 500,000 cpm 1.4 mg/cm* mica window Victoreen 440 lon Chamber exposure rate #, gamma, X-rays 5 linear ranges xs 0-3 mR/h to 0-300 mR/h g

< ;k 1/4 mil mylar end window

.4 *PNR-4 normally stored in UFTR when not in use by Radiation Control.

=

UU 33 N *-*

} }' [ $ $ * % % %

TABLE 8.2 Equipment Available from UFTR for Emercency Dose and Radiation Irvel Assessment M ANUFACTURER MODEL USE RADIATION DETECTED SENSITIVITY Automess 6112B exposure rate #, gamma, X-rays 5 log ranges GM Detector measurements 0-2 mR/h to 0-1000!R/h Teletector two energy compensated GM tubes Eberline E-140(2 meters) exposure rate a, S, gamma, X-rays 3 linear ranges GM detector measurements 0-5 mR/h to 0-50 mR/h Energy <ompensated GM tubes Eberline E-530(Serial 1879) exposure rate S, gamma, X-rays 4 linear ranges GM Detector measurements 04).2 mR/h to 0-200 mR/h Energy Compensated GM tubes Eberline ASP-1 exposure rate a, S, gamma, X-rays 6 linear ranges GM Detector measurements 0-0.01 mR/h to 0-1000 mR/h Eberline RO-2A exposure rate #, gamma, X-rays 4 linear ranges ion chamber measurements 0-50 mR/h to 0-50 R/h Eberline PNR-4 Neutron dose fast and slow I log range Neutron detector monitoring neutrons 0-5000 Rem /hr

"'BF3 and bonner ball Eberline RM-14 Contamination a, #, gamma, X-rays 3 linear ranges GM detector monitoring 0-500 cpm to 0-50000 cpm Eberline PMC-4A Contamination #, gamma, X-rays Adjustable alarm 160 cpm Portal monitor monitoring to 7000 cpm (~ 0-2 mR/h) 8 GM channels (personnel)

Lionel 457 Ratemeter Contamination S, gamma, X-rays 2 linear ranges GM detector monitoring 0-1500 cpm to 0-15000 cpm Eberline RM-20-1 GM Contamination #, gamma, X-rays 4 linear ranges detector monitoring (fixed- 0-500 cpm to AC) 0-500,000 cpm Victoreen ESP-2/NRD-1 Probe Neutron dose fast and slow autoranging y Neutron Detector monitoring neutrons B3 bJ a-a

Table 10.3 Decontamination Room l l

Emergency Equipment Inventory The following listing details the mnimum emergency equipment available in the Emergency Support Center (Rooms 106/108 NSC)

Item Quantity Required S

Self Contained Breathing Apparatus 2

Respirator with spare filters 2 g Pair full cover shoes 2 Cotton hoods 2 Anti-C coveralls 2

$ Pair waterproof coveralls 2 2 in roll masking tape 1 Pair cotton gloves 2

$ Pair rubber gloves 2 High level dosimeters 2 Low level dosimeters 2

% Dosimeter charger 1

Teletector or equivalent (High level survey meter) 1

E-140 or equivalent (Low level survey meter) I k D-Cell batteries 4 Walkie-Talkie Radios (Recommended Only) 2 Note: Starred items are in the Emerengency Support Center (Room 108 NSC);

g remainder ofitems are on the Emergency Equipment Cart in Room 106 NSC adjacent to and readily available to Room 108 NSC except for the Walkie-Talkie Radios kept in the locker in Room 106 NSC to assure operability.

10-6 t REV 6,12/90 0 REV 7,12/91 REV 8,12/92

(a) applicable circumstances leading to the violation including, when known, the cause and contributing factors 8 (b) effect of the violation upon reactor facility components, systems, or structures and on the health and safety of personnel and the public (c) corrective action to be taken to prevent recurrence.

The report shall be reviewed by the RSRS and any followup report shall be submitted to the Commission when authorization is sought to resume operation of the reactor.

6.5.2 Action To Be Taken in the Event of an Occurrence of the Type Identified in Section 6.6.2.

(1) Reactor conditions shall be returned to normal or the reactor shall be shut down. If it is g necessary to shut down the reactor to correct the occurrence, operations shall not be resumed unless authorized by Level 2 or designated alternates.

(2) Occurrence shall be reported to Level 2 or designated afternates and to the Commission as required.

$ (3) Occurrence shall be reviewed by the review group at their next scheduled meeting.

6.6 Reoorts in addition to the requirements of the applicable regulations, reports shall be made to the Commission as follows:

6.6.1 Operating Reports Routine annual reports covering the activities of the reactor facility during the previous calendar year shall be submitted to the Commission with 4 months following the end of each prescribed g year. The prescribed year ends August 31 for the UFTR. Each annual operating report shall include the following information:

(1) a narrative summary of reactor operating experience including the energy produced by the reactor and the hours the reactor was critical g (2) the unscheduled shutdowns including, where applicable, corrective action taken to preclude recurrence (3) tabulation of major preventive and corrective maintenance operations having safety significance (4) tabulation of major changes in the reactor facility and procedures, and tabulation of new N tests of experiments, that are significantly different from those performed previously and are not described in the Safety Analysis Report, including conclusions that no unreviewed safety questions were involved u Amendment 18 36 J

f (5) a summary of the nature and amount of radioactive effluents released or discharged to the environs beyond the effective control of the facility operators as determined at or before the point of such release or discharge (The summary shall include to the extent P practicable an estimate of individual radionuclides present in the eilIuents if the estimated average release after dilution or diffusion is less than 25% of the concentration allowed, a statement to this effect is sufficient.)

(6) a summarized result of environmental surveys performed outside the facility l

)

(7) a summary of exposure received by facility personnel and visitors where such exposures are greater than 25% of that allowed The annual report shall be submitted with a cover letter to Attention: Document Control Desk, U.S. NRC, Washington DC 20555 and to the U.S. NRC, Region ll, 101 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323 l 6.6.2 Special Reports There shall be a report not later than the following working day by telephone and confirmed in writing by telegraph or similar conveyance to the Commission, to be followed by a written report j that describes the circumstances of the event within 14 days of any of the following:

(1) release of radioactivity from the site above allowed limits (2) violation of safety limits (see Section 6.5.1)

) (3) any of the following (a) operation with actual safety-system settings for required systems less conservative than the limiting safety-system settings specified in the Technical Specifications (b) operation in violation of limiting conditions for operation established in the Technical

) Specifications unless prompt remedial action is taken (c) a reactor safety system component malfunction that renders the reactor safety system incapable of performing its intended safety function, unless the malfunction or condition is discovered during maintenance test or periods of reactor shutdowns (Note: Where components or systems are provided in addition to those required by

) the Technical Specifications, the failure of the extra components or systems is not considered reportable provided that the minimum number of components or systems specified or required perform their intended reactor safety function).

(d) an unanticipated or uncontrolled change in reactivity greater thanone dollar (Reactor i trips resulting from a known cause are excluded).

?

Amendment 18 37

)

r. l

,p* " %, RECEIVED JUL 281993 )

[ S UNITED STATES 5 '! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

%,*****,/ July 20, 1993

$ Docket No. 50-83 Dr. William Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities 102 Nuclear Reactor Building Department of Nuclear

) Engineering Sciences University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611

Dear Dr. Vernetson:

SUBJECT:

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA RESEARCH REACTOR EMERGENCY PLAN We have reviewed Revision 8 to the University of Florida Research Reactor Emergency Plan submitted by your letter of December 10, 1992. Our review indicates the proposed changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the currently approved emergency plan and the plan maintains compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E. The proposed changes, therefore may be

} incorporated into the current emergency plan. However, the following two additions need to be added to the Emergency Plan:

(1) The agreement with the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, Disaster Preparedness State Warning Point for their response in the event of an emergency

) should be confirmed in writing. ,

I (2) The location of the area radiation monitors, which are listed in the Emergency Classification Guide for the Unusual Event level should be specified.

If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 504-1102.

Sincerely, c$. ) '

Theodore S. Michaels, Senior Project Manager

) Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Operating Reactor Support l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ]

cc: See next page

) l l

l

)

l ..

4 i

University of Florida Docket No. 50-83 cc:

Mr. James S. Tulenko, Chairman ,

Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department q University of Florida l J 202 Nuclear Sciences Center l Gainesville, Florida 32611 Dr. Ratib A. Karam, Director Neely Nuclear Research Center Georgia Institute of Technology 900 Atlantic Drive, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Mr. Pedro B. Perez, Associate Director Nuclear Reactor Program i North Carolina State University P. O. Box 7909

) Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7909 I

Dr. R. U. Mulder, Director Reactor Facility University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

) Administrator Department of Environmental Regulation Power Plant Siting Section State.of Florida 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301

) State Planning and Development Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Budgeting Executive Office of the Governor The Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

) Mary E. Clark, Chief Office of Radiation Control Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services {

1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32999 ,

f I

) i

- _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - )

O 4

8 r 0

APPENDIX D S

DOCUMENTATION FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVAL FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL I PACKAGES NO. 0578, REVISION 2 l

l k

1 l

1 i

I 1 ;

h

?o 1

y a nico 3* > ,'o UNITED STATES 3 sM' I .. E I

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8

o v/

4 WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 RECElVED OCI 2 6 252 g GUT 2 01932 SGTB: TOM 71-0578 8 University of Florida, Nuclear Reactor Facility ATTN: Mr. William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities Nuclear Reactor Building Gainesville, FL 32611 Daar Mr. Vernetson:

Enclosed is Quality Assurance Program Approval for Radioactive Material Packages No. 0578, Revision No. 2.

Please note the conditions in the approval.

g Sincerely, Charles E. MacDonald, Chief Transportation Branch g Divisior, of Safeguards and Transportation, NMSS

Enclosure:

As stated k

0 1

S N N%C FORM 311 U. S. NUCLEAR MEGULATORY COMMISSION 1, APPROVAL NUMBER ;g OUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVAL j FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL PACKAGES REVIS ON NUMBER 2

4 I

$ !1

] Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and Title 10, Code of Federal '

f Regulations, Chapter 1, Part 71, and in reliance on statements and representations heretofore made in item 5 by the person named in item 2, l<

g the Oustity Assurance Program identif.ed in item 5 is hereby soproved. This approval is issued to satisfy the reauirements of Section 71.101 of 10 CFR Part 71. This approval is subrect to all applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now or lg p

g hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.

fi i f 2. N AME 3. EXPIR ATION DATE .(

h University of Florida, Nuclear Reactor Facility k STREET ADDRESS JI October 31. 1997 h si Nuclear Reactor Buildino 4. DOCKET NUMBER h CIT Y ST ATE ZIP CODE @

I': Gainesville FL 32611 71-0578 I E i$

5. QUALITY ASSUR ANCE PROGR AM APPLICATION DATE(St 5 September 30, 1992 k

( 6. CON DITIONS P D s'1 1.

8 g Activities authorized by this approval are use and maintenance f g applicable to shipment of SPERT F-1 fuel pins in DOT Specification 6M h c Shipping Containers. It shall remain the responsibility of the @

l

{ licensee-user that all transportation activities meet the requirements ID of 10 CFR 71 Subpart H.

{

$k 2. Records of instructions, procedures, drawings, and specifications as f I

!' required by 10 CFR s71.135 must be retained for three years beyond the g; R date the activity ends, for which the QA Program was developed. Di 6 0 l 3. Audits of each safety related activity shall be conducted at least once per year in accordance with preestablished written procedures or 0

y checklists by qualified personnel not having direct responsibility. f g

N I E 0 E ,i -

K i F O' M D'

%8 P.

l l'

E li K 'j :

b !;i k 10' R li u -

kEd b i

F 0 R !!

R 10 E D N D 4 !I.

Eg , m [FOR THR U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Charles . MacDonald OCT 20 692 h Q l 5 CHIEF, TRANSPORTATION BRANCH DATE D 4 oivislON OF SAFEGUARDS AND TRANSPORTATION l e OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL Se FETY AND SAFEGUARDS 3

g L-

e 8

8 APPENDIX E

.g COMMENTS ON NRC FEE POLICY - PROPOSED g

'O

[

~

ATTACIDENT VI

@.. 'UNIVERSfrY OF~ FLORIDA o Nrclear Reactor Facility 202 Nuclear Science Center Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department Gamesville, FL 32611-2055 (904) 392-1429 Fax 392-3380 8 August 18, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Attn: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Request for Public Comments on NRC Fee Policy Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 73,19 April 1993 4

Dear Sir:

The University of Florida Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department and the University of Florida Training Reactor (UFTR) facility appreciates the opponunity to respond to the Request for Public Comment on the need for changes to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

$ fee policy and associated legislation. We agree with comments supplied by the National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors (see letter dated 13 August 1993) and consider the legislative option as the proper change required to continue the historic policy of regulatory fee exemption for non-profit educational institutions. For reactor facilities such as the University of Florida Training Reactor it is vital that this exemption be maintained to prevent the loss of the UFTR facility and the associated wide range of unique societal contributions and k externalized benefits provided by this facility.

Four major areas of concern were identified by the Commission and discussed in the Federal Register's request for public comment. As to the areas upon which comments are requested, we wish to provide comments on Item 3 of the first major area. Specifically, this pertains to " Activities relating to applicants and licensees currently exempt from 10 CFR parts 170 and 171 fees or assessed reduced annual fees for small entities based on current Commission policy." In addition, the Federal Register notice specifically requests public comment on the question: "Should OBRA-90 be modified to remove all specified activities identified in the four items above?"

With respect to educational non-profit university research reactors, we believe it is vital that these reactors be exempted from license fees based on preserving the externalized benefits fe these facilities provide to other licensees, to the process of nuclear regulation, and to society as a whole. This exemption should include all license fees.

O Equal CyportururylAlfruuve Action Inscruten

$ l l

i The UFTR facility fully suppons the Commission's legislative option requesting Congress to modify OBRA-90 to remove university research reactors from the Commission's fee base.

g We suppon the following basic points in support of legislative change:

1. The fees create an unfair and disastrous burden to the university research reactor community in general and the University of Florida Training Reactor in particular and its benefactors, and will lead to a reduction of externalized educational and research benefits to other licensees, nuclear regulation, and the public in general. .

S l

2. Subjec'i,g university research reactors to these fees appears to be contrary to the Commission's objective, in part, to protect the health and safety of the general l public. l l

3. The Commission has proposed to amend 10 CFR 171 to "specifically" exempt Y certain federally owned research reactors pdmarily used in educational training ,

and academic research from the Commission's base fee structure. It would seem reasonable to exempt non-profit educational research reactors which clearly offer similar, if not greater, externalized benefits in terms of education, research, and training to a much wider sector of our citizenry. Indeed, all non-power reactors g may be able to make this argument including those few run as commercial enterpnses.

4. University research reactors are essential to many of our nation's leading scientific projects including the Advanced Neutron Source.

$ Each of these four basic points are discussed briefly in the following sections with emphasis on the first one.

1. The expected fees will immediately affect those facilities which cannot bear this unreasonable financial burden with many such as the UFTR probably ceasing operation within several years. This clearly contradicts the Atomic Energy Act requirement to

% permit the conduct of widespread and diverse research and development. Indeed, when the regulatory costs approach a significant portion of the operating cost as they do for the UFTR, there appears to be a contradiction in the requirement for a minimum amount of regulation. For the facilities which will survive, the curtailment of research and educational activities can be expected to burden the external recipients of these services.

University reactors will not be able to suppon as many university, community college, k technical school, or high school students and faculty utilizing the facilities. In fact, the emphasis at many of the surviving facilities will be forced to change from promoting research and educational excellence to generating income needed to meet regulatory costs. In most cases this will not be a successful change as most non-power reactors cannot be run to make a profit; even commercial non-power reactor facilities are really pan of a suppon organization and not self-supporting.

2 D

l l

1 l In many cases, both externally based teachers who bring students to university reactors i as well as professors and students within the parent institution will have to be turned away simply ~ ecause these rightful recipients of nuclear science and technology education and training do not generate the income needed to pay regulatory fees. The burden will then be on the young scholars and other interested parties who will not be able to learn and make societal contributions in related nuclear and physical sciences. Indeed,as indicated in earlier communications, the Commission itself as well as other government agencies such as the Departments of Energy, Commerce, and the Interior, will notice a

) deterioration in the quantity and quality of new talent available to them in future years.

The same will apply in all areas, including the power industry. This will be harmful to

the U.S. economy and its technological infrastructure at a time when our country is

! already recognized to be lagging in science education and attempting to be more l competitive in the international arena. ..

1

) University reactors such as the UFTR will no longer be able to provide tours to the general public. In the past, such users of the UFTR facility have ranged from civic groups to technical societies and even inc!uded girl and boy scout troops. These visitors are frequently given demonstrations of the broad range of uses and results of research and education conducted with these reactors. This unique perspective provides them with a positive insight to the benents of nuclear technology. The burden is now placed on the

) members of the general public who lose the opponunity to develop an understandinF of basic nuclear science and technology and the associated societal uses and benents Aat touch nearly every aspect of this country's economy.

Perhaps more important at the UFTR are the large groups of external visitors partially sponsored under the Department of Energy Reactor Sharing Program. In these cases as

) delineated in the attached two tables (Attachments I and II) covering the two most recent reporting years, students from middle school through graduate school utilize the UFTR facility for various activities involving everything from experiment and operational demonstrations for middle and high school classes to demonstrations and experiments for graduate students and even including a number of lengthy research projects for high

) school students, many of whom have used these as the basis for well received and l frequently awarded science fair projects. Other users include community college students l receiving health physics related training in preparation for work in the nuclear industry

! whether at hospitals, power reactors, or elsewhere. Here the UFTR training program for radiation protection technology-oriented personnel is unique. The limited funding supplied by DOE for this program to share our reactor with non-reactor owning

? institutions is much less than half of the actual cost of mnning this program at the UFTR In addition, though funding has grown somewhat, the attached tables for the two most recently completed years clearly show that the rate of growth of this program is far outstripping the size of these grants which are not close to their actual cost. In addition, data for the carrent year to be completed in September,1993 will show another signincant increase in usage of the UFTR facilities by external institutions.

)

3

)

O I

i

\

In addition to external users, the UFTR like other university reactors has dozens of courses and faculty inside the University using its facilities for coursework as well as to g support research in a full spectrum of areas much like the Reactor Sharing Program.

Here hundreds of additional students and dozens of faculty are affected positively in I

i education and research related to nuclear science and technology. i As indicated in " University Reactors in the United States--their Role and Value,"

National Academy Press,1988, university reactors are also the focus of multi-disciplinary research and education with contributions to physics, chemistry, biology, fO j medicine, epidemiology, environmental sciences, material sciences, fluid mechanics, geology, archeology, paleontology, forensic sciences, human factors, and many other fields in addition to nuclear engineering. Though the UFTR power level at 100 kW prevents some research available at larger facilities, our efforts are still very diverse and ,

I numerous. Research availability will suffer because priority will be given to those who

$ can provide the highest income per reactor utilization hour. The students and researchers will be the first to bear the burden, but as time passes society will be affected by the lack of progress in the associated scientific areas and the loss of new talent in these fields as fewer and fewer persons are able to participate in programs at these facilities as those such as the UFTR cease operation or severely curtail programs. As spelled out in the National Academy report cited above, university reactors assist research contributing to

'S the future of nuclear power reactors, including the scientific basis for new concepts, for safeguards, and safety; and provide for the education of personnel needed to operate, maintain and improve reactors and other facilities associated with national defense and nuclear power activities.

g Clearly the " burden" of these fees is not limited to the university research reactor facilities. The effects will clearly reach even those who are not aware of the existence of these educational and research resources but benefit nonetheless from advances in areas such as nuclear medicine and environmental protection and monitoring programs, to say nothing of the value of a population informed substantively of topics related to nuclear science and engineering and related areas.

2. Second, as indicated in other responses to the call for comments, the Commission's objective may be summarized, in pan, as the protection of national security and the health and safety of the public. Subjecting university reactors to fees which will lead to postponing facility upgrades and limiting or even reducing operations staff sizes is clearly counter-productive. The increase in university research reactor utilization fees will have

% a negative effect on the power reactor industry's use of research reactors for programs to train future operators of the nation's nuclear power plants. These side-effects contradict the Commission's and (INPO's) direction to decrease operator error and equipment malfunction.

A decline in the number of nuclear engineering programs throughout the United States f g will also be precipitated by the permanent shutdown of those university reactors 4

l

_ _ - _ - _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J

O (probably the majority and very likely to include the UFTR) unable to bear the regulatory fee burden. The public health and safety cannot be served by the resultant decrease in O the pool of quality nuclear engineers and scientists. As stated earlier, there will be fewer quali5ed candidates for recruitment by the Commission, the Department of Energy's environmental restoration programs, the nuclear power industry, and various other employers of individuals trained at such reactors.

3. Third, the U.S. Government (DOE) owns and supplies the fuel for university reactors.

O The DOE is also responsible for the entire fuel cycle from fabrication to disposal. It has always been the intent of the U.S. Government to be supportive of these facilities as witnessed by support programs such as Reactor Sharing and the more recently promulgated University Reactor Instrumentation Upgrade Program. The UFTR has been funded by DOE at the Commission's ruling to convert its core from high to low enriched O uranium. Though diluting needed DOE support for research and education programs at such reactors, it is clear the federal government has an interest in maintaining these facilities.

The Commission should re-evaluate the exemption of federally owned reactors and include the university research reactors in this exemption category. The university O research reactor community contributes to academic progress through research, education, and services to a broad spectrum of off-campus as well as on-campus recipients. This service reaches a broad sector of our citizenry since these reactor facilities are very accessible to students, faculty, and others ranging from the local campus to other regional educational centers. In addition, the Federal, State, and Local governments also have access to our facilities along with the private sector. Indeed, in O the last eight years, over forty schools and many outside agencies and entities have utilized the UFTR--see list as Attachment III. As a mid-size facility, this is a vitally important externalized beneDt that, once lost, will be irreplaceable.

4. Finally, it should be recognized that the university reactors are an important component f the national energy policy. University research reactors are essential to the Advanced O Neutron Source (ANS) scientific project among others. The ANS will .be the premier facility for those using neutrons as a scientific probe and will ultimately be used by several hundred scientists per year. Even today the UFTR is supporting research on magnet materials for the Supercollider. However, the ANS and other facilities will not provide the basic training for the scientists at these facilities. Universities are expected O to fulfill that role and to do so for some such as the ANS they will require research reactors on which students and faculty can learn about neutron scattering, neutron spectroscopy, the operation of cold neutron sources, the use of interferometers, etc. If the United States is to have competent scientists and leading edge technology, then its universities must have the experimental facilities on which to train them. In this regard, university reactors are a vital and cost effective resource for maintaining and improving the U.S. technology base.

O l

5 lO

O !

It is vital that the Commission recognizes that it is in the national interest to exempt university research reactors from all fees and that all options for exemption be carefully ,

o examined. We encourage the Commission to: (1) Pursue the legislative option that would lead to exemption of non-profit educational research reactors from the OBRA-90 fee recovery mandate, or (2) Reconsider a generic exemption of non-profit educational research reactors based on the " externalized benefits" argument. The exemption is vital to the continued operation of most of these facilities, and certainly for the UFTR. If the Commission decides not to pursue the legislative or generic exemption options, then we reluctantly recommend that the O Commission consider recovering university research reactor fees as a surcharge to all other licensees which benefit from the educational, research and training services provided by university reactors. The justification for the surcharge would be that the education, research and training involving *.he use of university research reactors provides an important benefit to the nuclear, physical, and other sciences and the public at large which should not be discouraged.

The most likely to benefit from the university reactors will be other licensees which should have O a strong interest in maintaining a technological advantage and hence should be willing to accept a surcharge to continue the previously delineated externalized benefits. In this sense a surcharge on power reactors who supply electricity to the grid for the entire country may be the best method for implementing a surcharge that does not significantly impact individual licensees.

The Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department and the UFTR facility appreciate the O

opportunity to comment and we strongly urge the Commission to seek expedient legislative or Agency policy changes to remove non-profit educational research reactors from the base fee structure.

Thank you for your consideration.

O Sincerely. -

l j w%

William G. Vernetson J es S. Tulenko O Director, Nuclear Facilities hairman, Nuclear Engineering Sciences Dept.

WGV:cb c.c.. Ivan Selin, Chairman, USNRC Kenneth Rogers, Commissioner O Forrest J. Remick, Commissioner Gail DePlanque, Commissioner O

6 O

1

b-ATTACHMENT I TABLE 2 O REACTOR SHARING PROGRAM

SUMMARY

OF USAGE OF UITR FACILITIES (September,1990 - August,1991)

Users School Usages' Faculty Students O

Bolles High School (BHS) 1 2 10 Chamberlain High School (CHS) 1 1 7 Central Florida Community College (CFCC) 30 2 11 Charlotte High School (CHS) 4 1 1 O Chiefland High School (CHS) 4 1 7 Citrus County High School (CCHS) 1 1 3 Crystal River High School (CRHS) 1 2 22 Florida A&M University (FAMU) 7 1 1 Florida Institute of Technology (FIT) 1 1 9 Florida State University (FSU) 7 2 3 O Heritage Chnstian High School (HCHS) 2 1 24 Hillsborough Community College (HCC) 1 2 16 Hawthorne Middle School (HMS) 1 1 12 Santa Fe Community College (SFCC) 2 3 8 Southeast Missouri State University (SEMSU) 5 1 1 O St. Augustine High School (SAHS) 3 2 13 Stetson University (SU) 1 2 20 Union County High School (UCHS) 5 1 4 University of Central Florida (UCF) 6 2 5 University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire (UWEC) 6 2 1 Wildwood High School (WHS) 1 1 1 O

TOTAL 90 32 179 i l

1. School abbreviations in parenthesis can be used elsewhere in this report to determine appropriate i O user designations in the details of usage delineated in Table 3.

l '

Usage is defined as utilization of the University of Florida Training Reactor facilitiet for all or any part of a day with the average being about five(5) hours. In many cases, a school can have multiple j usages but all related to the same research project or training program such as one project for t Florida State University that involved long term irradiations as did others such as for the University I

of Central Florida, Chiefland High School and St. Augustine High School or the multiple usage O training programs conducted for Central Florida Commtmity CoDege students and Union County j High School students.

O 6

ML20072P714

Text

Dear Sir:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Sir:

Dear Dr. Vernetson:

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

Enclosure:

1.0 INTRODUCTION

4.0 CONCLUSION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Dear Dr. Vernetson:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

Subject:

Dear Sir:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search