ML20100A860

Annual Progress Rept of Univ of Florida Training Reactor, Sept 1983 - Aug 1984

ML20100A860
Person / Time
Site:	05000083
Issue date:	08/31/1984
From:	Vernetson W FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ORO-4014-14, NUDOCS 8412040111
Download: ML20100A860 (67)

Text

r-l .

. Contract # DE-AC05-76ER04014 Report # ORO-4014-14 I

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT OF THE I UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR I

l September 1,1983 - August 31, 1984 I

I

I .

l .f' ,

l N ,. . /

I 1

!I NUCLEAR FACILITIES DIVISION I

DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SCIENCES College of Engineering l

University of Florida l

l$$As8542eggggjg 0 Gainesville y g$

PDR

l Contract #DE-AC05-76ER04014 Report #0R0--4014-14 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR September 1,1983 - August 31, 1984 l

l Submitted to the I

l Department of Energy Nuclear Regulatory Commission and I

University of Florida l

i l

By l Dr. William G. Vernetson i Acting Director of Nuclear Facilities II l

l Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences t College of Engineering University of Florida l

Gainesville, Florida November, 1984

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA PERSONNEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE REACTOR 5 III. FACILITY OPERATION 7 IV. MODIFICATIONS TO THE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OR CAPABILITIES OF THE UFTR 20 V. SIGNIFICANT MAINTENANCE AND TESTS OF UFTR REACTOR SYSTEMS 21 VI. CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 24 VII. RADIOACTIVE RELEASES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE 30 VIII. EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND TRAINING UTILIZATION 33 IX. THESES, PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS OF WOPK RELATED TO THE USE AND OPERATION OF THE UFTR 40 , ,

APPENDIX A: UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE E.6 ARGON-41 CONCENTRATION MEASURMENT APPENDIX B: UFTR EMERGENCY PLAN REVISION 1 lI I

I 1

I

F I. INTRODUCTION The University of Florida Training Reactor's overall utilization for the past reporting year has increased dramatically compared to previous years, even exceeding the levels of utilization characteristic of the early 1970's in some areas such as energy generation. Indeed, the total energy generation (Kw-Hr) for this reporting year is at the highest level ever and represents an increase of over 300% over the 1982-1983 reporting year which itself had an increase of 50% over the 1981-1982 reporting year.

An analysis of the facility utilization shows that the increased usage and energy generation over the previous several years is attributable to sev-eral supporting conditions. First, this reporting year is the first full year with complete installation of the new rabbit system and implementation of the

3 associated Neutron Activation Anal'ysis Laboratory (NAAL) giving the staff the g . .

capability to promote it among University of Florida users and among re-searchers at other universities and ' colleges around the State of Florida.

Second, this reporting year was the first ever in which the University of Florida Training Reactor was supported as part of the Department of Energy's Reactor Sharing Program. This reactor sharing program is designed to incresse

.I the availability of University reactor facilities such as the UPTR to non-reactor owning colleges and universities (user institutions). Basically this grant provide.s 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, seven different academic institutions around the State of Florida made use of this program to utilize the UFTR for research, primarily via neutron activation analysis to detennine trace element compositions and for reactor familiarization and training of students in va-I _

rious community college programs such as nuclear medicine technology and ra-diation protection technology programs. Reactor use by University of Florida courses and laboratories continues at the substantial level established in the previous two years. Finally, the acquisition of training programs conducted I .

for tto nuclear utilities during the current reporting year (a full program for Florida Power Corporation and a limited operations usage program for Geor-gia Power Company) has rounded out significant contributions to facility uti-lization and total energy generation.

With one training program already scheduled along with continued avail-ability of the new remote sample-handling " rabbit" system (and NAA laboratory) plus renewal of the Reactor Sharing Program support, facility utilization and energy generation for the upcoming year should be maintained and possibly even considerably augmented. The latter augmentation is particularly possible be-cause the UFTR utilizaton under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program has spread fW publicity on the availability of the UFTR so that a number of investigators on campus have indicated an interest in using the reactor facility and the func-tional " rabbit" system during the upcoming year.

As noted in the 1982-1983 report, the facility administration was consid-erably stabilized by appointment of a fully vested Reactor Manager during the year. In combination with the return of the Director of Facilities, these con-ditions were all contributing to the considerable broad-based increases in fa-cility usage for education and training of university students and utility operators as well as research by faculty at the University of Florida and other schools. The decision of some staff personnel to go or. f, art-time employ-ment plus the facility director being on leave for this coming year may neces-sitate cutbacks in some usage programs until all replacement personnel are in place.

Several significant license-related administrative activities occurred I

during this reporting year. First, the UFTR Facility Emergency Plan was sub-mitted to NRC in November,1982 to meet NRC rhquirements for such a submittal by November 3,1982. As a result of the NRC review of this Plan, a great deal of additional information and corrections to the Emergency Plan were requested by NRC by August 15, 1983. Because of the pervasive nature of the requested changes, corrections and additions to the Plan, two extensions to the August 15, 1983 deadline were obtained in order to produce a complete, rewritten UFTR Emergency Plan. This completely revised and rewritten UFTR Emergency Plan fol-lowing the guidelines of ANSI /ANS 15.16-1982 was submitted to NRC for final I approval on October 14, 1983. Final approval of this Emergency Plan was re-ceived from NRC in a letter dated June 4,1984 with a requirement for notifi-catien of full implementation of the Plan within 120 days *.

Second, as noted in Section II,.the Director of Facilities has taken a leave of absence for the upcoming year. However, the reacto. manager has been

)I designated to act in his place while an SRO has been designated as the Acting Reactor Manager. This administrative arrangement meets all regulatory require-ments and will enable the facility to meet all regulatory commitments.

Third, two sets of amendments to the Technical Specifications were ap-proved during the reporting year. Amendment 14, originally submitted on August 19, 1984 was approved as Section 6.6.3 of the UPTR Technical Specifications.

1 Amendment 14 makes the UFTR Technical Specifications conform with ANSI /ANS '

15.18-1979 and the long standing UFTR practice requiring reporting significant changes in facility administration to the NRC. Amendment 15, originally sub-l mitted on October 27, 1982, essentially corrects a series of typographical and nomenclature errors to make the UFTR Tech Specs conform to desired and ap-proved UFTR operational requirements and avoid unnecessary vagueness at sev-iI

• This notification has been subsequently transmitted to NRC in a letter dated September 25, 1984.

3 o _

eral points.

I The UPTR continues to operate with an outstanding safety record and in full compliance with regulatory requirements. An NRC inspection during the year resulted in only minor recommendation relative to security requirements.

Similarly an inspection by a representative of American Nuclear Insurers also resulted in only minor recommendations relative to safety of the facility and associated personnel. The reactor and associated facilities continue to main-tain a high in-state visibility and strong industry relationships. With the DOE reactor sharing program to support UFTR-related research by faculty at other academic institutions as well as training for various community college programs, the reactor facility is also maintaining high in-state visibility with these other institutions of higher learning. It is expected that more di-rect industry training will be accomplished in the upcoming year hopefully ac-companied by further increases in research primarily through the use of the I - '

rabbit system and the associated NAAL facility both under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program and hopefully from research funded from other agencies, some of which has been developed from research begun under the reactor sharing pro-gram.

1 l

I I

'I 4

L

I I II. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA PERSONNEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE REACTOR I A. Personnel Employed by the UFTR N.J. Diaz - Professor and Director of Nuclear Facilities W.G. Vernetson - Assistant Engineer and Reactor Manager (September, 1983 - August 10, 1984)

I Assistant Engineer and Acting Director of Nuclear Facilities (August 10-31, 1984)

H. Gogun - Senior Reactor Operator (full-time) (September,1983 -

May , 1984 )

Senior Reactor Operator (part-time) (June, 1984 -

I August , 1984)

G.-Fogle - Reactor Operator (full-time) (September,1983 - Feb-I ruary, 1984)

Reactor Operator (part-time) (May,1984 - August, 1984)

P.M. Whaley - Student Reactor Operator (1/2 time) (September,1983 -

June, 1984)

Senior Reactor Operator (3/4 time) (June - August ,

)I 1984)

Acting Reactor Manager (3/4 time) (August 10-31, 1984)

I C.J. Stiehl - Student Reactor Operator Trainee (1/2 time) (July -

August , 1984 )

I J. Ogles - Student Reactor Operator Trainee (1/3 time) (May, 1984)

B. Radiation Control Office I D. Nunroe - Radiation Control Officer (September,1983 - August, 1984)

W  !!.G. Norton - Assistant Radiation Control Officer (September,1983 -

August , 1984 )

l G.R. Renshaw - Radiation Control Technician (September,1983 -

August, 1984)

H.J. Newman - Nuclear Technician (1/2 time) (September,1983 -

l March, 1984) ll B.M. DesRoches - Nuclear Technician (1/3 time) (March, 1984 - August, W 1984) lg R. Fayko - Nuclear Technician (1/3 time) (October,1983 - August,

,g 1984) l

C. Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee M.J. Ohanian - Chairman W.G. Vernetson -- Member (Reactor Manager)

J.A. Wethington, Jr.1 - Member

'W.E. Bolch - Member D. Munroe - Member (Radiation Control Officer)

D. Line Responsibility for UFTR Administration 2

R.Q. Marston - President, University of Florida W.H. Chen - Dean, College of Engineering J.A. Wethington, Jr. - Acting Chairtnan, Department of Nuclear En-gineering Sciences N.J. Diaz 3

- Director of Nuclear Facilities W.G. Vernetson 4 - Reactor Manager E. Line Responsibility for the Radiation Control Office R.Q. Marston - President, University of Florida - '

W.E. Elmore - Vice President, Administrative Affairs T.R. Turk 5 - Acting Director, Environmental Health and Safety

I D. Munroe - Radiation Control Officer l

I Note 1 : J.A. Wethington, Jr. holds the position of Acting Chairman, Depart-l ment of Nuclear Engineering Sciences.

l Note 2: Effective September 1,1984, Mr. Marshall Criser is the new Presi-dent of the University of Florida.

Note 3,4: Dr. .N.J. Diaz is on leave for a year beginning August 10, 1984. In i

his absence, Dr. W.G. Vernetson has been appointed to the position I of Acting Director of Nuclear Facilities with Mr. P.M. Whaley ap-pointed as Acting Reactor Manager.

Note 5: The search for a new Director is complete with the new director (Dr.

William S. Properzio) in position as of October 8, 1984.

ll 5 6

III. FACILITY OPERATION The UFTR experienced a dramatic.and substantial increase in its overall utilization in most areas when compared to the last reporting year, with uti-lization approaching the highest levels recorded in the early 1970's. This in-crease has been supported by a variety of usages ranging from industry educa-tional and training programs to research and educational utilization by Uni-versity of Florida as well as other researchers and educators around the State of Florida through the support of the DOE Reactor Sharing Program.

As expected, the decision to develop the Neutron Activation Analysis pro-gram has improved research irradiation utilization. With successful implemen-tation of the new remote sample-handling " rabbit" facility, efforts to adver-tise availability and encourage usage of the UFTR (especially for research) are proceeding favorably. Under the Reactor Sharing Program there nas been significant usage by users from cther schools; in addition, there have been a number of usages among researchers at the University of Florida. Hopefully some commercial irradiations will be forthcoming during this next year to fur-

! ther complement UPTR operating activities.

The level of administrative work dedicated to regulatory activities should be reduced to a more manageable effort this upcoming year following i

i acceptance of the updated and revised UFTR Emergency Plan.

Shown in Table I is a summary breakdown of the reactor utilization for this reporting period. The list categorizes the 43 different research pro-jects, various tests, teaching and training activities. The total reactor run-l time was about 737 hours0.00853 days <br />0.205 hours <br />0.00122 weeks <br />2.804285e-4 months <br /> while the various experiments and other projects used l

over 1140 hours0.0132 days <br />0.317 hours <br />0.00188 weeks <br />4.3377e-4 months <br /> of facility time, l

Table II suwnarizes the different categories of reactor utilization: col-lege and university teaching, research projects and UFTR operator's training I 7

I and requalification, testing and surveillance, and various reactor operations demonstrations. The research utilization consisted of 10 proje v s using about 414 hours0.00479 days <br />0.115 hours <br />6.845238e-4 weeks <br />1.57527e-4 months <br /> of reactor run-time. With increases in most areas from the last re-porting year, the research and training supported under the DOE Reactor Shar-ing Program plus two commercial utility training programs are primarily re-sponsible for the total facility utilization being one of the highest in UFTR history. With utility training and outside research activities already sche-duled for the upcoming year, this next year promises to produce facility uti-lization at a similar or even higher level.

Table III contains a breakdown delineating the 7 scaools and their 32 usages of the UFTR facilities which were sponsored under a Department of Ener-gy Reactor Sharing Program grant. These sponsored usages account for about 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> of run time in Category I in Table II and over 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of run time in I Category II and have resulted in much improved visibility for the UFTR around the State of Florida and also among researchers and other users at the Uni-v versity of Florida.

l Detailed in Table IV are the monthly and total energy generation, as well as the hours at full-power per month and totals for this past year. The UPTR generated 47.29 Mw-hrs during this twelve month reporting period. Both the l

total Mw-hrs energy generation and the hours at full power represent over 325%

increase from the previous year. 'Ihe 47.29 Mw-hrs represents nearly 415% in-crease over the previous five-year average. The 47.29 Mw-hrs energy generation is the highest for any reporting year since the UPTR first went critical in May, 1959, llaving such a record in this 25th anniversary year is a fitting way to commemorate these 25 years of operation.

Described in Table V are the reasons and dates for four unscheduled shut-l 1

downs for the reporting period. No reportable incidents occurred during this i

reporting year. Itowever, Table VI contains a descriptive log of nine (9) unu-l 8

i

sual occurrences with brief evaluations of each. No uncontrolled releases of radioactivity have occurred from the facility and controlled releases are well within established limits. The personnel radiation doses were minimal and averaged well under 10% of the allowable dose. Environmental radioactivity surveillance continues to show no detectable off-site dose attributable to the UFTR facility.

I I -

I E

l l

9

TABLE I

SUMMARY

OF FACILITY UTILIZATION (September , 1983 - August, 1984)

NOTE: The projects marked with a

• indicate irradiations or neutron activa-

.Rg tions. The projects marked with an ** indicate training / educational use. The projects marked with an *** 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 the reactor.

RUN EXPERIMENT I PROJECT AND USER TYPE OF ACTi ITY TIME (hours)

TIME (hours)

• NAA Research - Bone Marrow and Blood Serum 274.06 286.46 Dr. G.S. Roessler Trace Element Analysis -

Cancer Rosearch

• • ENU 4505L - Senior Level Nuclear Engineer- 12.74 (1.75) 26.33 Dr. W.H. Ellis ing Laboratory Exercises and Experiments E ++ENU 6516L - Graduate Level Nuclear Engi- 3.77 6.20 Dr. E.E. Carroll, Jr. neering Laboratory Exercises and Experiments

• NAA Research - Pine Needle and Soil Sample 13.15 14.40 Dr. G.S. Roessler Trace Element Analysis and N.B. Comerford

• NAA Research - NAA of Thorium Bearing Soil 12.30 12.63 Dr. G.S. Roessler Samples

• • ENU 4134 - Class Demonstration Run for 0.60 1.42 i Dr. W.G. Vernetson' Heat Transport Considerations

• Preliminary Research Lithiated Paraffin Irradia- 1.16 15.78 on Cerenkov Detector tion and Evaluation Plus Development - Spectral Analysis of Thermal Dr. E.E. Carroll, Jr. Column

• dAA Research - NAA Evaluation of Metal Proces- 2.36 (0.51) 3.30 Dr. S. Anghaie/Dr. sing by Rapid Cooling for Fusion R. Abbasschlan Machinery Application

• • ENU 4905/6937 - Independent Reactor Operations 42.32 (2.74) 96.54

[ Dr. W.G. Vurnetsoa/ ' Laboratory Course for Under- ,

Reactor Staff graduate and Graduate Nuclear Engineering Students 10

I TABLE I (CONTINUED)

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

• • ENU 3002 - Reactor Operations Demon- 0.83 2.22 Dr. G.S. Roessler stration

• NAA Research - Evaluation of Uptake of Heavy 57.07 61.93 Dr. Grace Chiu/Ranga Metals in a Seagrass Community

-I Rao - University of West Florida -

Reactor Sharing

• NAA Research - NAA of Trace Elements in 23.85 26.13 Dr. J. Trefry, Marine Sediments I Florida Institute of Technology -

Reactor Sharing

• • • Gainesville High Tour, Lecture and Demonstration 0.40 1.50 School Students - of Reactor Facility Operations E. Baumgartner

• • • Presentation for Tour and Demonstration of Reac- 0.47 5.75 Prospective Staff tor Facility Operations Member -

K.M. Harvey (Ex-Navy)

• • • 1984 Engineers' Fair Tours and Demonstrations of 0.73 5.42 Reactor Staff Reactor Operations

• • St. Augustine High Lecture, Tour and Denonstra- 0.35 1.92 I School Science Class - Ms. E. Doyle Reactor Sharing tion of Reactor Facility Operations

• • Santa Fe Community Demonstration of UFTR Opera- * . 98 3.08 College Nuclear Med- tions with Radiation Surveys icine Technology and NAA Exercises Program -

S. Marchionno -

Reactor Sharing

• • • UF Freshman Honors Lecture Tour and Demonstration 1.16 (1.16) 2.08 Program - of Reactor Operations Bert Hickman

• • Central Florida Com- Demonstration of UFTR Opera- 2.07 6.96 munity College Ra- tions with Radiation Surveys I diation Protection Technology Program -

G. Stephenson -

and NAA Training Exercises Reactor Sharing I ..

I I TABLE I (CONTINUED)

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

• • Hillsborough Com- Demonstration of UFTR Opera- 1.45 3.05 munity College Nu- tions with Radiation Surveys clear Medicine Tech- and NAA Training Exercises nology Program -

Dr. M. Lombardi -

Reactor. Sharing

• • CFCC Radiation Pro- Radiological Control and Pro- 13.70 (0.68) 43.05 tection Technology tection Training Program of Program - Ms. R. Cooperative Work Exercises Rawls - Reactor Sharing

• • EEL 4280 - Reactor Operations Demonstra- 1.30 6.44 Dr. R. Westphal tion

• • ENU 4612/5615L - Nuclear Instrumentation Course: 10.32 13.00 Dr. E.E. Carroll, Jr. Instrumentation Demonstration With Reactor Operations

• • ENV 4201/5206 - Reactor Pacility Instrumentation 2.37 (1.50) 3.05 Dr. C.E. Roessler and Operations Demonstration

• • ENV 4241 - Familiarization Review of Reac- 2.0 2.15 Dr. C. Roessler tor and Radiation Monitoring I Instrumentation - Operations Demonstration

• • ENU 5176L - Reactor Operations Laboratory 90.52 (1.75) 151.51 Dr. E.T. Dugan/ Course Exercises Reactor Staff t **ENU 4104 - Reactor Operations Demonstration 0.95 1.75 l Dr. A.M. Jacobs/ for Junior Level Nuclear Engineer-l P.M. Whaley ing Students

• • CHS 5110 - Reactor and NAA Lab Demonstra- 3.89 4.87 Dr. K. Williams tion / Utilization for Radio-chemistry Research Laboratory Course

• • ENV 6211 - Radiation Monitor Calibration 1.72 1.93

D.L. Munroe and General Area Survey Tech-niques

'l *Fla. Foundation for Summer Student Research Program: 22.32 27.85 5 Future Scientists NAA of Potential Hogtown Creek (NAA Research) - Contaminants Dr. W.G. Vernetson/

John Carswell 12

I TABLE I (CONTINUED)

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

• • Operator Training - NRC Requalification Training 62.25 122.13 Dr. W.G. Vernetson/ Requirements (48.98) (33.22)

Reactor Staff

• • Operator Exams NRC Administered Operator 0.00 3.75 Examinations

• • Radiation Surveys / Radiation Surveys of UFTR Cell 13.57 13.57 I RadCon Training -

Radiation Control and Environment at Steady-State Full Power (5.17) (5.17)

Argon-41 Effluent Argon-41 Stack Concentration 14.53 19.10 Detenninations - Measurements and Evaluation Dr. W.G. Vernetson/

Reactor Staff Tech Spec Require- Reactor Testing, Calibration 18.90 35.13 ments - and Related Measurement Activi-

,I Reactor Staff ties (Including Verification of Cold Critical Positions and other Verifying Operations)

~

• • • Florida Regional Ju- Reactor Demonstration and Tours 0.97 (C.50) 2.67 nior Science, En- of Facilitieu

'E sineerino and "u-

'3 manities Symposium -

Dr. W.G. Vernetson/

Reactor Staff

• • • Florida Foundation Lectures, Tours and Demonstra- 1.63 (0.58) 4.33

of Future Scien- tions of Reactor Facility Opera-tists - tions L. Jimison, D. Pierce I and C. Calwell

• Florida Foundation of Summer Student Research Program: 10.40 11.50 Future Scientists Evaluation of Titanium Deposi- (1.92) (2.33)

(NAA Research) - tions on Soda Lime Silicate Dr. W.G. Vernetson/ Glass Slides David Goldstein Heat Exchanger Main- Removal, Cleaning, Replacement 1.73 11.50 tenance - and Checkout of UFTR Heat Ex-Dr. W.G. Vernetson changer lI 13 1

TABLE I (CONTINUED)

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

• • Reactor Operator Hot Training Course for Florida 61.71 92.04 License Candidate Power Corporation Crystal I Training -

Dr. N.J. Diaz/Dr.

River 3 Hot License Operator Candidates (0.42)

W.G. Vernetson

• • Reactor Usage Reactor Operations Training 15.85 40.73 Operator fraining - for Georgia Power Company Shift (15.25)

Dr. W.G. Vernetson Supervisor SRO Candidates

• University of South Tour and Demonstration of Reac- 0.50 (0.50) 1.00 I Florida (St. Peters-burg) Marine Science Department -

tor Facility Operations Dr. R. Byrne/Dr. G.

Smith -

Reactor Sharing I

• University of South Florida (St. Peters-burg) Marine Science Azimuthal Flux Map of Vertical Ports 1.02 1.83 Department -

1 Dr. R. Byrne/Dr. G. .

Smith -

Reactor Sharing TOTAL I*2 804.97 1197.68 (68.18) (55.97)

TOTAL ACTUAL 736.79 1141.71

! NOTE 1: Values in parentheses repreaent multiple or concurrent facility uti-lization (Run or Experiment time); that is, the reactor was already being utilized in a primary run for a project so a reactor training or demonstration utilization could be conducted concurrently with a scheduled NAA irradiation, course experiment, or other reactor run.

Thus, the actual reactor run time for the 1983-1984 reporting year is 736.79 hours9.143519e-4 days <br />0.0219 hours <br />1.306217e-4 weeks <br />3.00595e-5 months <br />.

NOTE 2: Exp. Time is run time (total key on time minus checkout time) plus I set-up time for experiments or other reactor usage including check-outs, tests and maintenance involving reactor running.

I I

14

\

TABLE II UFTR UTILIZATION

SUMMARY

Run Time Experiment Time (hours) (hours)

1. College Courses ar.d Laboratories 285.36 (14.01) 523.81 (20.42)

2. Research Activities 416.34 (2.45) 459.51 (2.33)

3. UFTR Operator Training and Re-qualification 62.25 (48,98) 125.88 (33.22)

I 4. UFTR Testing and Surveillance 35.16 65.73

5. Reactor Tours and Demonstrations 5.86 (2.74) 22.75 804.97 (68.18) 1197.68 (55.97)

I TOTAL

• Consolo checkouts excluded.

NOTE 1 : The same meaning is attached to values in parentheses as in Table I.

I NOTE 2: The first two categories of College Courses and Laboratories as well as Research Activities include significant usages sponsored under the Department of Energy UPTR Reactor Sharing Program which allowed seven (7) schools to have 32 usages of the UFTR facilities as delineated in Table III.

'I

,I

,I

'I

,e g

w --- -- =r -T-- - - =- e 74 -- -

N- -- * - = - - - - - < - - -

TABLE III 1983-1984 REACTOR SHARING PROGRM1

SUMMARY

USAGE OF UFTR FACILITIES I

Users School Usages

• Faculty Students University of South Florida, St. Petersburg (USF-SP) 2 2 1 Santa Fe Community College (SFCC) 1 1 10 Central Florida Community College (CFCC) 11 2 21 Hillsborough Community College (HCC) 1 1 8

)I University of West Florida (UWF) 6 2 1 Plorida Institute of Technology (FIT) 4 3 0 St. Augustine High School (SAHS) 1 1 14 I TOTAL 26 12 55 i

• Usage is defined as utilization of the University of Florida Training Reac-l tor for all or any part of a day. In many cases a school can have multiple l usages but all related to the same research project or training program.

lI 1

16

TABLE IV MONTHLY REACTOR ENERGY GENERATION I (September, 1983 - August, 1984)

Hours at Monthly Totals Kw-Hrs Full Power September , 1983 816.7 6.92 October, 1983 2674.5 26.51 November, 1983 1620.8 16.20 December, 1983 11,238.4 112.38 January, 1984 6388.2 63.00 February, 1984 3340.7 29.93 March, 1984 4578.7 42.33 April, 1984 1684.5 16.07 May , 1984 5575.0 55.75 June, 1984 4453.0 44.14 ,

July , 1984 4324.1 40.01 August, 1984 592.8 4.93 YEARLY TOTAL 47,287.4 2 458.17 I

Note 1: Kw-Hrs yvtrly total for the 1983-1984 reporting year represents a 326% increase over the previous reporting year while the hours at full power represent a similar 336% increase over the previous year.

Note 2: The 47,287.4 Kw-firs c1' energy generation is the highest one year total energy generation for the 25-year history of the UFTR.

.I I

g ,7

I TABLE V

.I UNSCHEDULED TRIPS

• Date Occurrence I January 4, 1984 Power Failure (Momentary Electrical Power Transient) g February 28, 1984 Power Failure (Momentary Electrical Power

,g Transient)

May 31,1984 Reactor Operations Course trainee error in-I volving pressing consolo power-on switch dur-ing process of bringing reactor to shutdown condition June 14,1984 Electrical Power Transient caused blown fuses on deep well pump and resulted in trip from loss of secondary cooling at power I

I .

All safety systems responded as intended for the trips listed in this Table.

I

[

l I

I l

I 1

I TABLE VI LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES I During this reporting period there were no events which compromised 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 facil-ity and are included here as the most important such deviations for the re-porting year.

4 January 1984 - Electrical power transient caused the dump valve power I fuse to fail and trip the reactor. All safety systems re-sponded properly as intended.

24 January 1984 - The secondary system sample valve was not fully closed and as a result, actuated the primary coolant pit water level alarm. About 2 cups of water were involved with no detectable radioactivity; the reactor was secured at the time.

25 January 1984 - Safety Blade #3 clutch current indicator lamp (50,000 hour0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> lamp) burned out causing Safety Blade #3 to drop I- while at power. Replacement of this lamp, as part of the reactor control system, constitutes major maintenance.

However, this lamp was replaced without shutdown and j without required approval in violation of UFTR Standard Operating Procedures and, as discussed in the next day notification to NRC on 26 January 1984, was potentially a I violation of the UFTR Technical Specifications. The Reac-tor Safety Review Subcommittee reviewed this occurrence on January 26, 1984 and agreed with this evaluation and I the need that it be communicated to the NRC. A complete letter of evaluation along with corrective action commit-ments to prevent recurrence of this potential violation of Tech Specs was sent to the NRC in a letter dated February 7, 1984. At this time evaluation of the occur-rence is considered closed.

28 February 1984 - An electrical transient resulting in a momentary loss of AC power caused a trip during a reactor startup for the Florida Power Corporation Training Program. All safety systems responded properly as intended.

5 April 1984 - The primary coolant rupture disc was broken due to opera-tor error; rupture disc replacement, pit cleanup and re-I placement of demineralized water were routine at shut-down.

31 May 1984 - Reactor trip was caused by student error by pressing con-sole power-on switch during process of bringing reactor to shutdown condition during reactor operations labora-

'g tory course; all safety systems responded properly as in-g tended.

I TABLE VI

(,

LOG OF UNUSUAL OCCURRENCES (CONTINUED) 31 May 1984 - The reactor was shutdown under normal conditions and then restarted about one hour beyond the 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> window within which a new daily checkout would not be required. 'Ihis action was discovered on July 1 as the June Monthly Re-port was being compiled. This matter was reported to the NRC in a letter dated the next day, July 2, 1984. In-structions on the requirements for performing daily checkouts were reviewed with the UFTR Staff as corrective I action as discussed in a summary letter to the NRC dated July 12, 1984. In addition, af ter hours operation will contain a reminder on this point in the future. The oc-currence of a potential violation of tha technical speci-fications was described along with UPTR administrative and Reactor Safety Subcommittee review and evaluation of the event and the corrective actions taken to prevent I reoccurrence of this type event. At this time evaluation of the occurrence is considered closed, j 12 June 1984 - The reactor was shutdown when a rabbit capsule with E solid, bagged sample did not return from a 30 second ir-radiation at full power. The cause was a failure of the I capsule leaving the capsule in two pieces, which inhi-bited movement. After repeated efforts to bring the cap-sule back, it was recovered broken but the sample bag was still intact and not hotter than expected. A new capsule was made and tried successfully on 13 June 1984; a limit of 300 uses has been placed on rabbit capsules to assure the combination of fluence and repeated shock'of entry

,I and return has a reduced likelihood to result in future capsule failures.

I 14 June 1984 - Reactor tripped at full power due to loss of secondary flow caused when blown fuses resulted in shutdown of the deep well pump. Upon examination the fuses were found to be failed, probably due to one or more lightning-related surges associated with violent weather prevalent during the week of 11 June 1984. This type of trip or pump fail-ure has occurred on a number of previous occasions espe-cially during the hot weather electrical storm season.

I I

I 2e

i i

.I IV. MODIFICATIONS TO THE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OR CAPADILITIES Or' THE UFTR No significant modifications to the operating characteristics or capabi-lities of the UFTR were made during the reporting period.

I I

I I

I

'I .

l l

t l

l 21

I V. SIGNIFICANT MAINTENANCE AND TESTS OF UFTR REACTOR SYSTEMS Date Description 12 September 1983 Replaced electrolytic capacitors in 2-pen recortler.

16 September 1983 Perfortned leakage swipe smeer of Sb-Be source.

19 September 1983 Replaced shield tank demineralizer cartridge.

I 20 September 1983 Q-4/Q-5 Radiation survey of unrestricted and re-stricted areas.

21 September 1983 Performed leak smear of Sb-Be source.

30 September 1983 Q-3 Quarterly Radiological Emergency Drill.

17 October 1983 Q-1 Quarterly check of scram functions.

18 October 1983 Q-2 Quarterly calibration check of area and stack radiation monitors.

24 October 1983 Replaced area radiation monitor emergency batteries.

7 November 1983 Replaced ceramic filter of shield tank recirculating system.

I 10 November 1983 A-3 Determination of Moderater Temperature Coeffi-cient.

15 November 1983 S-2 Measurement of control blade integral worths by blade drop method.

22 November 1983 S-2 Measurement of regulating blade integral worth by blade drop method.

1 December 1983 Leak smear of PuBe source.

2 December 1983 Leak smear of Sb-Be source.

13 December 1983 Q-4 Radiation survey of unrestricted areas.

13 December 1983 Q-5 Radiation survey of restricted areas.

22 December 1983 Q-3 Quarterly Radiological Emergency Drill.

5 January 1984 S-4 Measurement of Argon-41 concentration in stack effluent. -

12 January 1984 A-1 Measurement of stack dilution air flow rate.

25 January 1984 Replaced all four control blade magnetic clutch cur-rent indicator lamps.

26 January 1984 S-1 Measurement of control blade drop times.

22

26 January 1984 S-5 Measurement of control blade controlled insertion times.

27 January 1984 Q-2 Calibration check of area and stack radiation monitors.

15 February 1984 Q-1 Quarterly check of scram functions.

15 March 1984 Completed installation of Safety Channel #2 replace-ment High Voltage Power Supply. '

16 March 1984 A-2 perfo med UFTR Nuclear Instrumentation calibra-tion check and calorimetric heat balance to verify thermal power.

21 March 1984 Q-4 Radiation survey of unrestricted areas.

23 March 1984 Q-5 Radiation survey of restricted areas.

3 April 1984 S-3 Semiannual inventory of special nuclear material.

5 April 1984 Replaced rupture disk broken by operator error and made up demineralized water to primary coolant tank.

6 April 1984 Leak smear of PuBe source.

11 April 1984 Replaced units decade bocrd of Safety Blade 2 posi-tion indicator.

13 April 1984 Q-2 Calibration check of area and stack radiation

,g monitors.

lR .

l 20 April 1984 Qel Quarterly check of scram functions.

26 April 1984 Q-3 Quarterly Radiological Emergency Drill.

8 May 1984 S-4 Measurement of Ar-41 concentration in stack ef-fluent.

8 May 1984 A-1 Measurement of stack dilution air flow rate.

10 May 1984 Leak smear of Sb-Be source.

21 May 1984 Installed hot cave absolute filter and holder.

24 May 1984 Replaced security system batteries.

30 May 1984 Overhauled APD blower to restore full air flow.

1 June 1984 Q-5 Radiation survey of restricted areas.

13 June 1984 Manufactured three (3) new rabbit capsules.

I 14 June 1984 Replaced all three (3) pump motor fuses in deep well pump following failure causing trip at power.

23

I .

22 June 1984 Q-4 Radiation survey of unrestricted areas.

11 July 1984 Repaired north area radiation monitor following power i I amplifier failure which had casued damages resulting in loss of the coincidence trip of the evacuation alarm.

i I

j l

18 July 1984 Repaired the 2-pen recorder to restore free pen move- l ment.

l

I 18 July 1984 Q-2 Calibration check of area and stack radiation monitors. '

20 July 1984 Q-3 Quarterly Radiological Emergency Drill.

24 July 1984 S-1 Measurement of control blade drop times.

24 July 1984 Q-1 Quarterly check of scram functions.

31 July 1984 S-5 Measurement of control blade controlled insertion times.

1 August 1984 Replaced rupture disk broken by operator error and I added ~60 gallons of demineralized water to primary coolant storage tank.

1 August 1984 Replaced shield tank ceramic filter.

I 1 Aegust 1984 Cleaned Safety channel 2 trip test circuitry.

I 6 August 1984 Overhauled and cleaned all contacts on portal monitors.

I 10 August 1984 Replaced rupture disk broken by operator error and added ~20 gallons of demineralized water to the pri-mary coolant storage tank.

11 August 1984 Clean:d and aligned contacts on linear pen module to restore proper tracking of power level.

'l 13 August 1984 Replaced vorn and broken harness temperature record /

M recorder section power supply.

15, August 1984 Completed cleaning'of secondary side of UPTR heat ex-changer.

17 August 1984 Replaced security system batteries.

28 August 1984 Removed, cleaned and replaced secondary water flow sensing device.

. 31 August 1984 Tightened cross bar to restore proper temperature re-corder print wheel operation.

I l 24

VI. CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES A. The new Technical Specifications for the UPTR were issued on August 30, 1982 and officially established on September 30, 1982. Two sets of re-quested corrections / changes to the Technical Specifications vere sub-mitted to the NRC during the previous 1982-1983 reporting period.

In a letter dated October 27, 1982, following extensive review of the new Technical Specifications transmitted with the UFTR license renewal, the UPTR administration transmitted a package containing proposed corrections I for fourteen (14) pages of the new UPTR Technical Specifications as transmitted with the letter dated August 30, 1982 granting a 20 year li-cense renewal. These corrections / changes were requested as being neces-sary to make these Tech Specs conform with those submitted to and verbal-ly approved by the NRC Staff. In addition to a series of typographical and nomenclature errors, certain corrections were needed to make these Tech Specs conform to desired and approved UPTR operational requirements I as well as to avoid unnecessary vagueness at several points. Most changes corrected simple typographical errors, omissions or misinterpretations which had rendered the Tech Specs vague, incorrect or incomplete at the I point involved. Several other changes were requested as necessary because of errors in the Tech Specs subnitted with the UPTR Safety Analysis Re-port , however, as explained in the letter, none of these requested cor-rections represent any change in currently accepted UFTR operation. Ihese

)I proposed changes were approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as Ammendment No. 15 to Facility Operating License No. R-56 dated June 27, 1984.

In another letter, dated August 19, 1983, it was noted that certain re-porting requirements on permanent changes in UPTR facility organization I and on significant changes in the UPTR transient or accident analysis had been inadvertently omitted from the NRC-approved UFTR Technical Specifi-cations. Therefore, to conform with the ANSI /ANS 15.18-1979 standard and I longstanding UFTR practice, a proposed addition to the Tech Specs remedy-ing this omission was transmitted to the NRC. This proposed change was approved by the Commission as Amendment No. 14 for Facility Operating Li-cense No. R-56 dated March 6, 1984.

At this time, no further requests for changes in the approved Tech Specs are expected for the operation of the UFTR with its present high-enriched fuel at a rated power level of 100 kWth.

B. Revisions to Standard Operating Procedures All existing UFTR Standard Operating Procedures were reviewed and rewrit-ten into a standard format during the 1982-1983 reporting period as re-quired following an NRC inspection during the year. The final approved version of each SOP (except security response procedures) is permanently stored in a word processor to facilitate future revisions.

25 1

Table VI-1 contains a complete list of the approved UFTR Standard Operat-ing Procedures prior to the current year. The latest revision number and date for each non-security related procedure is listed in Table VI-1.

I During the 1983-1984 reporting year, few changes were required in the UFTR Standard Operating Procedures. Several " Technical Change Notices" were issued to correct minor discrepancies or better express the intent of several procedures to include SOP-0.1, SOP-0.2 and SOP-A.S. One pro-cedure (UFTR-SOP-F.1 ) was the subject of a revision where a number of significant changes were made to allow the SOP to better implement the littention of the Physical Security Plan (withheld from public disclo-sure). Details on this revision are not incorporated in this report since this procedure contains information to be withheld from public disclo-sure. One new procedure was approved during the 1983-1984 reporting year.

I In January,1984, af ter review and approval of its previous implementa-tion by the Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee, UFTR-SOP-E.6, "Amon-41 Measurement Concentration" was approved. As a new SOP, this entire . E.6 procedure is contained in Appendix A for reference purposes.

Table VI-2 contains a complete listing of the approved UFTR SOPS as cf the end of the 1963-1984 reporting year. Again, it is expected that only minor changes will be needed in these SCPs over the next few years. Ilow-ever, a number of completely new procedures contir.ae under development. 1 C. Revisions to Other Documents.

Revision 7 of the UFTR Security Plan updating the quoted quantities and

)I locations of SNM under the UPTR R-56 license was submitted to NRC on November 21, 1983. Approval was received in February, 1984. The Plan is withheld from public disclosure.

Revision 1 to the new UFTR Eme gency Plan was approved as'a minor change by our Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee on July 12, 1984. The changes I basically clarified several typographical errors and addressed holdup of water from the' emergency decontamination shower. The details of this re-vision are contained in Appendix B to this report and are not considered I to impact significantly on Emergency Plan implementation.

l I

I 26

I TABLE,VI-1 LISTING OF APPROVED UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (August 31, 1983).

I O. Administrative Control Procedures 0.1 Operating Document Controls (REV 0, 2/83) 0.2 Control of Maintenance (REV 2, 4/83)

A. Routine Operating Procedures A.1 Pre-operatiorial Checks (REV 12,1/83)

I A.2 A.3 Reactor Startup (REV 9, 4/83)

Reactor Operation at Power (REV 9, 10/82)

A.4 Reactor Shutdown (REV 8,10/82)

I A.5 A.6 A.7 Experiments (REV 3, 4/83)

Operation of Secondary Cooling Water (REV 1, 10/82)

Determination of Control Dlade Integral or Differential Reactivity Worth (REV 0, 3/82)

B. Emergency Procedures B.1 Radiological Emergency (REV 3, 4/83)

B.2 Fire (REV 7, 4/83)

B.3 Threat to the Reactor Facility (Expanded into F-Series Procedures)

B.4 Flood (REV 1, 4/83 )

C. Fuel Handling Procedures C.1 Irradiated Fuel Handling (REV 3, 4/83)

C.2 Fuel Loading (REV 4, 4/83)

C.3 Fuel Inventory Procedure (REV 2, 4/83)

D. Radiation Controls Procedures I D.1 D.2 D.3 Radiation Protection and Control (REV 3, 4/83)

Radiation Work Permit (REV 8, 4/83)

Primary Equipment Pit Entry (REV 1, 4/83)

I D.4 Removing Irradiated Samples From UFTR Experimental Ports (REV 2, 4/83)

E. Maintenance Procedures E.1 Changing Primary Purification Demineralizer Resins (REV 2, 4/83)

E.2 Alterations to Reactor Shielding and Graphite Configuration (REV 2, I E.3 4/83)

Shield Tank and Shield Tank Recirculation System Maintenance (REV 2, 4/83)

I E.4 E.5 Withdrawn Withdrawn I

I >

l F. Security Plan Response Procedures (Reactor Safeguards Material, Disposi-E tion Restricted) .

I F.1 F.2 F.3 Physical Security Controls Bomb Threat Theft of (or Threat of the Theft of) Special Nuclear Material I F.4 F.5 F.6 Civil Disorder Fire or Explosion Industrial Sabotage P.7 Procedure Controls (Original)

I

. I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I 2e

I TABLE VI-2 LISTING OF APPROVED UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (August 31, 1984)

I O. Administrative Control Procedures 0.1 Operating Document Controls (REV 0, 2/83) 0.2 Control of Maintenance (REV 2, 4/83)

A. Routine Operating Procedures A.1 Pre-operational Checks (REV 12,1/83)

I A.2 A.3 A.4 Reactor Startup (REV 9, 4/83)

Reactor Operation at Power (REV 9,10/82 )

Reactor Shutdown (REV 8,10/82)

A.5 Experiments (REV 3, 4/83)

A.6 Operation of Secondary Cooling Water (REV 1,10/82)

A.7 Detemination of Control Blade Integral or Differential Reactivity Worth (REV 0, 3/82)

B. Emergency Procedures B.1 Radiological Emergency (REV 3, 4/83)

B.2 Fire (REV 7, 4/83)

B.3 Threat to the Reactor Facility (Expanded into F-Series Procedures)

B.4 Flood (REV 1, 4/83)

C. Fuel Handling Procedures C.1 Irradiated Fuel Handling (REV 3, 4/83)

C.2 Fuel Loading (REV 4, 4/83)

C.3 Fuel Inventory Procedure (REV 2, 4/83)

D. Radiation Controls Procedures I D.1 D.2 D.3 Radiation Protection and Control (REV 3, 4/83)

Radiation Work Permit (REV 8, 4/83)

Primary Equipment Pit Entry (REV 1, 4/83)

I D.4 Removing Irradiated Samples From UPTR Experimental Ports (REV 2, 4/83)

E. Maintenance Procedures E.1 Changing Primary Purification Demineralizer Resins (REV 2, 4/83)

E.2 Alterations to Reactor Shielding and Graphite Configuration (REV 2,

,l 4/83)

W E.3 Shield Tank and Shield Tank Recirculation System Maintencnce (REV 2, ,

4/83) l I E.4 E.5 E.6 Withdrawn Withdrawn Argon-41 Concentration Measurement (REN 0, 1/84)

I g 2,

\

F. Security Plan Response Procedures (Reactor Safeguards Material, Disposi-tion Restricted)

I F.1 F.2 F.3 Physical Security controls Bomb Threat Theft of (or Threat of the Theft of) Special Nuclear Material F.4 Civil Disorder F.5 Fire or Explosion F.6 Industrial Sabotage l Procedure Controls (Original) j I

F.7 I i l

I I -

I

'I I

I I

I I ._ __ -_ _-_ _-

se

I VII. RADIOACTIVE RELEASES AND ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE A. Gaseous ( Argon-41 )

Month Release Average Monthly Concentration

• September, 1983 4.0 x 10 6 pCi/ Month 1.4 x 10-9 pCi/ml October, 1983 1.3 x 107 pCi/ Month 4.4 x 10-9 pCi/ml November, 1983 7.96 x 106 pCi/ Month 2.2 x 10-9 pCi/ml December, 1983 5.52 x 10 7 pCi/ Month 1.87 x 10-8 pCi/ml January, 1984 3.69 x 10 7 pCi/ Month 1.33 x 10-8 pC1/ml February, 1984 1.93 x 107 pci/ Month 6.96 x 10-9 pCi/ml March , 1984 2.65 x 107 pCi/ Month 9.54 x 10-9 pCi/ml April, 1984 9.74 x 106 pCi/ Month 3.51 x 10-9 pCi/ml May, 1984 2.09 x 10 7 pCi/ Month 7.35 x 10-9 pCi/ml June , 1004 1.67 x 107 pCi/ Month 5.86 x 10-9 pCi/ml

. u July, 1984 1.62 x 107 pCi/ Month 5.70 x 10-9 pCi/ml Augus t , 1984 2.22 x 106 pci/ Month 7.82 x 10-10 pegf,y TOTAL ARGON-41 releases = 228.6 Ci

• UFTR Technical Specifications require average Argon-41 release concentra-tion averaged over a month to be less than 4.0 x 10-8 pCi/ml. Total re-I leases and average monthly concentrations are based upon periodic Argon-41 release measurements made at equilibrium full power (100 Kw) condi-l tions. The results for these measurements used in calculating the gaseous l Ar-41 release data are summarized as follows:

t

- Releases Per Unit Instantaneous Argon-41 l Months Energy Generation Concentration at Full Pcwer Sept. '83 - Dec. '83 4910.0 pCi/Kw-br 12.15 x 10-8 pCi/ml Jan. '84 - April '84 5781.1 pCi/kw-hr 15.0 x 10-8 pCi/ml l

May '84 - Aug. '84 374L.9 pCi/kw-hr 9.49 x 10-8 pCi/ml I

31

B. Liquid Waste from the UFTR/ Nuclear Sciences Complex II ~

There were approximately 105,900 liters discharged from the waste holding I tanks to the campus sanitary sewage system during this reporting period. These batch discharges are summarized as follows:

Volume Concentrations Month (liters) (pCi/ml) {

January,, 1984 69,000 1.04 x 10-7 July, 1984 36,875 NDA I23 The UFTR normally releases approximately 1 liter of primary coolant per week to the holding tank as waste from primary coolant sampling. The average activity for this coolant was 5.75 x 10-7 pCi/ml for this annual reporting period.

C. Environmental Monitoring

-I The UFTR maintains film badge and dosimeter monitoring (new for the 1982-1983 reporting period) in areas adjacent to the UFTR complex. The following

,l are the badge and TLD totals for this reporting period from September 1983 5 through August 1984.

Film Badge Total Yearly Total Yearly I. Exposure (mrem)[3] TLDs I4I Exposure (mromt '

Designation A1 M 1 M A2 20 2 40 A3 M 3 M A4 M 4 M I AS A6 A7 M

M M

S 6

7 M

M M

I 8 9

10 M

M M

11 M 12 M Note 1 : The effluent discharged into the holding tanks comes from twenty labortories within the Nuclear Sciences Center as well as the UFTR l g complex.

Note 2

NDA - No detectable activity, MDA = 2.4 x 10-9 pCi/ml (Minimum Detec-lg- table Activity).

Note 3: M denotes minimal (<10 mrem) meaning background only.

Note 4: The first seven TLDs are attached adjacent to the corresponding num-bered film badge monitors.

l l

r i

1 D. Personal Radiation Exposure j i

The following is a list of any UFTR-associated personnel exposures signi-ficantly greater than minimum detectable during the reporting period: 1 December, 1983 E. Barreto 20 mR deep /whole body January, 1984 H. Gogun 20 mR shallow /whole body H. Gogun 20 mR deep /whole body E. Barreto 70 mR shallow /whole body February, 1984 E. Barreto 40 mR shallow /whole body March, 1984 E. Barreto 80 mR shallow /whole body It should be noted that Mr. Barreto is the NAA laboratory technician who is not an actual UFTR Staff member but works closely with staff members to implement NAA research projects.

For visitors, students, or other non-permanent UFTR personnel, no indivi-dual had a non-zero dosimeter exposure measurement above 10*5 allowable for this reporting period. In most cases, the values of one or two mR reconled dosireter exposures are probably due to uncertainty in reading the devices.

I I

l l

l l

l l

i l

33

VIII EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND TRAINING UTILIZATION NOTE: The participating students are indicated with an *. Other participants are faculty or staff members of the University of Florida, unless specifically designated otherwise. A ** indicates those students work-ing on theses or dissertations.

NAA Research - Trace Element Analysis of Human Blood Serum and Bone Marrow Samples, Dr. G.S. Roessler, Dr. W.E. Bolch, E. Barreto**.

Blood and serum samples have been analyzed for trace element concentrations from sick as well as healthy patients relative to Leukemia. Results have also been compared with standards. The objective is to correlate trace element con-centrations (high or low) with certain diseases. The initial project in this series has been completed at the end of the reporting year with inconclusive results; future studies in this area are planned.

-(q

~

NAA Research - Elemental Analysis of Silver Diffusion in Glass Slides, Dr. V.

Ramaswamy, I. Najafi**, E. Lazo*.

In analyzing and evaluating a novel electrolytic process involving ion-exchanged waveguides for small signal processing applications, it becomes necessary to measure the profile of silver diffused in glass slides and also to determine the elemental composition of the glass slide. Therefore, NAA is being applied for short and long irradiation intervals and the activity of the fI slides measured afterwards. This work is proceeding well. The next step is to activate the slides, remove thin layers and remeasure the activity due to key I

elements such as the diffused silver. This last step of layer removal will be repeated until no silver is detected. This work is producing good results to date and is expected to continue.

'l NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of Pine Cone Samples, Dr. N. Com-W merford, Dr. G.S. Roessler, E. Barreto*, Reactor Staff.

Various irradiation schemes (long and short) were explored for instrumental NAA of pine cone ash samples taken from trees grown in one type of soil versus a controlled soil. Specifically, NAA is being examined for possible use to re-late elemental pine cone composition to the type of soil the parent tree ex-periences using activation products produced in the UFTR. The results of this work were expected to support a proposal seeking support for further research efforts in this area; however, results to date indicate the desired trace ele-ment levels are not present in sufficient quantities to support this analysis on the current NAA system.

NAA Research - Analysis of Hair Sanples for Trace Elements, Dr. G.S. Roessler, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, E. Barreto*.

Human hair samples are irradiated for various time periods. She activated sam-ples are then spectral analyzed using minicomputer methodology to determine and identify abnormal and elemental composition. Following several irradia-tions as part of a laboratory experiment and demonstration of neutron activa-I tion analysis techniques, this project has been suspended awaiting additional funding based on development of better analytical and experimental techniques.

34

~

UPTR Core Redesign (LEU Program) - Neutronics Analysis for UPTR Core Redesign I - Dr. E.T. Dugan, Dr. W.C. Vernetson, Dr. N.J. Diaz, G. Kniedler**.

As part of the DOE Low Enrichment Uranium Program, investigations have been performed on the UFTR to determine the feasibility and desirability of replac-ing the 93% enriched MTR plate type fuel with 4.8% enriched, cylindrical SPERT fuel pins. For this redesign, the only permanent structural modification is  !

the insertion of new grid assemblies into exisiting fuel boxes. Acceptable l neutronic criteria (Possible keff range, maximum flux and degree of undermod-eration) have been determined using industry-accepted, 4-group cross sections '

in one, two and three-dimensional diffusion theory calculations of k,gg, flux -

profiles, power peaking factors and coefficients of reactivity. First order l perturbation calculations have been used to determine key kinetic parameters.  !

Neutronic resultes to date indicate that the UPTR/SPERT core redesign can be accommodated to meet requisite neutronic criteria with an actual increase in peak thermal flux levels which will be very useful for NAA and other research projects requiring high thermal flux levels.

UPTR Core Redesign (LEU Program) - Thermal-hydraulic Analysis for Core Rede-sign.- Dr. E.T. Dugan, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. N.J. Diaz, R. Hommerson**.

As part of the DOE LEU Program, thermal-hydraulic analysis related to redesign of the UFTR core using SPERT fuel rods is being performed. Computer analysis has been undertaken to evaluate the UPTR/SPERT design for steady-state condi-I tions as well as transients arising in response to a step insertion of reacti-vity, 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 UPTR/SPERT core design. .

UPTR Reactor Operations and NAA Lab Exercises - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, PJ4.

t Whaley, Reactor Staff.

Mini-courses have been developed and presented as part of the UPTR DOE Reactor Sharing Program to provide practical reactor operations and health physics training as well as NAA laboratory experience for groups of students from Cen-tral Florida Community College Radiation Protection Technology program, Santa Fe Community College Nuclear Medicine Technology / Radiologic programs and the Hillsborough Community College Nuclear Medicine / Allied Health Technology pro-gram.

NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of Seagrass Community Components -

Dr. G. Chiu , Dr. Ranga Rao, Dr. W.G. Vernetson , D. Morton* , Reactor Staff.

Various seagrass communities have been exposed to used drilling fluids off the i

I gulf ecoast of northwest Florida. the componentss of one of these communities consisting of sediments, water samples, grasses, shells and shellfish meats have been subjected to long and short irradiations to monitor the uptake of fE certain heavy metals, principally barium and chromium, both of which are suit-E able for ddetection using neutron activation analysis. Reactor time for this 1 work is supported under the DOE Reactor Sharing Program. Results to date are j encouraging and work is continuing.

I x

I 35

I I NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of Marine Sediments - Dr. J.II.

Trefry, S. Metz*, R. Trocine*, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Reactor Staff.

I Under the DOE Reactor Sharing Grant, instrumental neutron activation analysis is being applied to marine sediments from the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida Atlantic Coast to obtain the spatial distribution of selected metals. Results of the work conducted at the UFTR facility under the Reactor Sharing Program l are encouraging and the work is expected to continue with journal publications i to follow at intervals.

l I NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of Soil Samples Taken From Old Tailings Sites - Dr. G.S. Roessler, E. Barreto*, E. Lazo**, Reactor Staff. l Instrumental neutron activation analysis was applied to soil samples taken I from around the old Mallincrodt Site near St. Louis, Missouri to detemine I thorium content. The results of this study are being used as an estimate of I l

thorium content against which a new technique, X-Ray Flourescent Analyses, will be tested. Results to date show thorium content present but quantitative j results are not accurate enought to complete the study without the X-Ray Fluorescent Analysis.

NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis ~ 'rocessed Metals for Fusion Machinery - Dr. R. Abbasschian, Dr. S. Anghaie , E. Barreto* , E. Lazo*, Reactor Staff.

To achieve the desired properties and optimize the oxygen and carbon content of superalloys and copper-based alloys during a rapid solidification process a

)I mcana of making accurate measurements (either electromagnetic levitation or directed solidification technique), of the density of each component in the t

alloy is essential. Instrumental neutron activation analysis is being applied I to make these measurements of very small relative densities of components to study the effect of processing variables during supercooling. This work is in support of materials for fusion machine magnets.

NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of Estuary Sediments - Dr. R.

Byrne, Dr. G. Smith, Reactor Staff.

Under the DOE Reactor Sharing Grant, Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis will be applied to estuary sediments from the Tampa Bay reegion of Florida to determine and quantify the spatial distribution of various rare earth metals.

Work to date has been restricted to preparatory work as well as an exercise mapping the spatial variation of the flux in the UPTR vertical ports and an-i other exercise to determine accurate values for the cadmium ratios for any i

. ports to be used in the activations for this research. These are key parame-ters because of the resonance absorption characteristics of many rare earth metals. The NAA work on this project is expected to begin in the upcoming re-porting year as sample preparations are nearing co'mpletion.

NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of flogtown Creek Samples - Dr. W.G.

Vernetson, P.M. Whaley, J. Carswell**, E. Lazo*, Reactor Staff.

flogtown Creek flowing through Gainesville is subject to various pollution sources. Neutron Activation Analysis is being applied to evaluate and quantify the presence of certain suspected elemental pollution indicators (chlorine, I copper and chromium) at various points in the flogtown Creek flow system. NAA 36

I is being performed on water samples as well as selected soil and plant samples at various stages in the creek's drainage system. Results to date do show ele-vated levels of some elemental indicators, especially chromium but this work is incomplete. Additional work will be required to detemine the source of the contamination after quantification. This work is to form the basis for a rcience fair project and was used primarily to train a high school student in research methods under the Florida Foundation of, Future Scientists summer high school student research program.

NAA Research - Neutron Activation Analysis of titanium Depositions on Glass Slides - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Dr. P. Suchoski, D. Goldstein**, E. Barreto*.

Neutron activation analysis was used to evaluate'the deposition of titanium on I soda-lime-silicate glass slides. The objective is to determine the presence of impurities due to processing such slides for computer applications. In this case, new techniques are being developed and one isotope of concern is tung-sten. Results to date show no tungsten contamination but the analysis is ex-pected to continue. This work is to form the basis for a science fair project and was used primarily to train a high school student in research methods un-der the Floridda Foundation of Future Scientists summer high school student research program.

UFTR Transient Analysis - Implementation of DSNP Program Language to Analyze UFTR Operational Transients - Dr. E.T. Dugan, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, J. Samuels**.

The Dynamic Simulator for Nuclear Power (DSNP) Plants programming language is being implemented to anlayze selected UFTR heat up and cooldown transients.

)I Recults from DSNP calculations are being compared and evaluated relative to existing and new transient UFTR output recored on various output devices. This analysis will serve as a teaching aid for the DSNP programming languagc and ll l

l5 will hopefully allow fast-running analysis of UFTR transients for class exer-cises and other similar applications with the Nuclear Engineering Sciences De-

! partment.

Cerenkov Noise Detector Development - Development of a Detector of Reactor Core Perturbations - Dr. E.E. Carroll, Prof. G.J. Schoessow, H. Carvajal**,

C. Levy *, N. Yunessi*, Reactor Staff.

A new design Cerenkov detector is being developed and tested using the prompt-gamma radiation deriving from the reactor core. Tho detector is being located in the themal column entrance port with shieldinq plugs removed and substi-tuted by lithiated paraffin plugs made for the purbose of reducing the neutron flux to acceptable values when the reactor is running at power. Samples of I these lithiated paraffin plugs were irradiated to assure that no unexpected activation products would be formed were the plugs to see a large flux. Other work has involved spectroscopic analysis of the gamma energies emitted from the themal column where the detector will be placed. The Cerenkov detectoi- is I. to be moved at various angles for various power levels with the ultimate ob-jective to develop a detector system that is able to detect reactor perturba-tions at various power levels through large thicknesses of niaterial by means of high-energy, penetrating, fission-produced gamme rays.

3 m

UPTR Risk Assessment - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, R. Griffith.

Currently a probabilistic risk assessment of the University of Florida Train-I ing Reactor is being conducted. This project has determined an estimate of the probability of occurrence of a set of postulated maximum credible UPTR acci-den ts. The results will be used to show that the UFTR poses no significant risk to the general population and environment around the 'UPTR and to demon-strate proficiency in PRA ' analyses as additional PRA projects are undertaken.

Specifically, research is ccntinuing to obtain better data for the maximum credible accidents and extend the methodology to examine risk associated with I less serious but more likely-to-occur UFTR-related accidents.

UFTR Operator Training and Requalification - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Reactor Staff.

Lectures and hands-on operations on the reactor are necessary to license oper-ators for the UFTR. the requalification program establishes a required number of startups, weekly checks, dax1y checks, drills, and lectures for each opera-tor. Operator participation is mandatory in order to maintain assurance of proficiency levels and to be able to demonstrate the requisite operator skills.

Reactor Operations Course Instruction and Demonstrations Course Instructor CHS-5110 Dr. K. Williams l

I ENU-3002 ENU-4104 ENU-4134 Dr.

Dr.

Dr.

G.S. Roessler A.M. Jacobs W.G. Vernetson l ENU-4612/5615L Dr. E.E. Carroll l ENV-4201/5206 Dr. C.E. Roessler EN7-4241 Dr. C.E. Roessler EEL-4280 Dr. R. Westphal ENV-6211 Mr. D.L. Munroe NAA Research - Rabbit System Remote Handling Facility Development and Imple-I mentation - Dr. G.S. Roessler, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, E. Barreto*, E. Lazo*,

Reactor Staff.

lE Radiation and contamination surveys are performed in the radiochemistry labo-ratory where the new NAA Instrumentation and Counting Facility has been con-lg structed. Reactor power running was also done to allow periodic checkout of the " Rabbit" facility to assure efficient rapid transfer for remote sample in-I sertion and removal from the UFTR core region especially when new rabbit cap-sules are first utilized.

Gaseous Release Determinations - Argon-41 Stack Measurements - Dr. W.E. Bolch, Dr. W.G. Vernetson, P.M. Whaley* , Reactor Staff.

I A cobalt-60 Standard Sample has been applied in standardized controlled mea-surements of radioactivity (Ar-41) in stack effluent. A direct detailed stan-dard operating procedure (UFTR-SOP-E.6: Argon-41 Concentration Measurement) has been developed and approved on January 19, 1984 as the best practicable evaluation of Ar-41 releases from the UPTR facility as required by UFTR Tech-nical Specification on Effluents Surveillance in Section 4.2.4, Paragraph (2).

38

This SOP has been applied and will continue to be applied to obtain a statis-tically significant number of data points and eventually to investigate the effect of variable core vent flow on total Ar-41 releases.

Nuclear Engineering Laboratory I - (ENU-4505L) - Dr. E.E. Carroll , Jr. , Reac-tor Staff.

ENU-4505L is the nuclear engineering laboratory for undergraduate senior level students in Nuclear Engineering Sciences. The UFTR is used for a variety of I exercises and experiments, including radiation dose aeasurements, measurement of induced radioactivity and reactor physics parameters as well as operational measurements.

I Nuclear Engineering Laboratory II - (ENU-6516L) - Dr. E.E. Carroll , Jr. , Reac-tor Staff.

ENU-6516L is the main laboratory. course for Nuclear Engineering graduate stu-dents. It involves radiation and reactor-related measurements and experimenta-tion on a more advanced level than ENU-4505L particularly in applying compu-I ters for acquisition of data and subsequent analysis of that as part of the l laboratory report requirements.

Reactor Operations Laboratory (ENU-4905) - Dr. W.G. Vernetson, Reactor Staff. l Students of the Reactor Operations Lab (Summer Semeter,1984) spent about three (3) hours weekly at the controls of the UFTR performing reactor opera-7l E

tions under supervision of licensed reactor operators. The lab encompasses training in reactivity manipulations, rencor checkouts, operating procedures, standard and abnormal operations and all applicable regulations. Specific exercises directed toward development of understanding of light water power

.I reactor behavior are included as this laboratory course serves as basic prepa-ration for students entering the utility industry in the test and startup area as well as plant operations.

.I Reactor Operations - (ENU-5176L) - Dr. E.T. Dugan, Dr. W.G. Vernetson , Reactor Staff.

l E Students in the reactor operations course (Spring, 1984) spent about two hours weekly at the controls of the UFTR performing reactor operations under super-vision of licensed reactor operators. The lab encompasses training in reacti-

.I vity manipulations, reactor checkouts, operating procedures, standard and ab-normal operations and all applicable regulations. Specific exercises directed toward development of understanding of light water power reactor behavior are included as this laboratory course serves as basic preparation for students entering the utility industry in the test and startup area as well as plant operations. A special effort is made to correlate UFTR exercises with the classroom lectures on various aspects of LWR operation.

Radiation Protection and Control Field Exercises - (ENV-6211 ) - D. Munroe , H.

Norton, M. DesRoches*, Reactor Staff.

This course provides students in various disciplines with practical experience in radiation protection and control such as performing radiation surveys in and around the UFTR cell and environs , calibrating area radiation monitors ,

etc. These exercises also serve as training for radiation control technicians.

39

IX. THESES, PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS OF WORK RELATED TO THE USE AND OPERATION OF THE UPTR I 1. Dana Morton, " Effects of Drilling Fluids on an Experimental Seagrass (Thalassia testudinum) Community: Potential for Bioaccummulaton of Barium and Chromium," Masters' Thesis in Biclogy Department, University of West Florida, Pensacola, degree expected May,1985*.

2. E.T. Dugan , N.J. Diaz and R. Hommerson, "Themal Hydraulic Calculations For Modificaton of the UFTR From High Enrichment MTR Fuel to Low Enrich-I ment SPERT Fuel," International Symposium on the Use and Development of Low and Medium Flux Research Reactors, MIT, October,1983, and also Atom-kernenergie/Kerntechnik, 44, pp. 515-521, 1984.

3. E.T. Dugan , N.J. Diaz and G. Kniedler, "Neutronic Calculations for Modi-fication of the UFTR From High Enrichment MTR Fuel to Low Enrichment I SPERT Fuel," International Symposium on the Use and Development of Low and Medium Flux Research Reactors, MIT, October, 1983, and also Atom-kernenergie/Kerntechnik, 44, pp. 508-514, 1984.

4. J. Samucls, " Implementation of DSNP (Dynamic Simulator of Nuclear Plants) and Application to the Analysis of Transients for the UFTR," Masters' Thesis Project in Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department, University of Florida, degree expected May, 1985.

5. R.E. Griffith, "A Probabilistic Risk Assessment of the University of I Florida Training Reactor," Masters' Thesis Project in Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department, University of Florida, January, 1984.

I 6. W.G. Vernetson and P.M. Whaley, " Expanded Scope of Education and Training Programs at the University of Florida Trairing Reactor," paper proposed for the 1985 ANS-Reactor Operations Division meeting planned for August, 1985 in Williamsburg, Virginia.

7. John E. Carswell, " Application of Neutron Activation Analysis to Deter-mine the Concentration of copper, Chromium and Chlorine in Environmental I Samples," a summer project report of a Florida Foundation of Future Scientists student (prepared for consideration for use as a High School Science Fair project), Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department, Univer-sity of Florida, August, 1984.

8. Mark Goldberg, " Application of Neutron Activation Analysis to Detemine Concentraton of Titanium Diffused into Glass Slidea," a summer project report of a Florida Foundation of Future Scientists student (prepared for consideration for use as a High Lchool Science Fair project), Nuclear En-gineering Sciences Department, University of Florida, August,1984.

I

• It is expected that the results of this work will be publiohed in a jour-nal article at a future date under Dr. Reaga Rao, Biology Department, University of West Florida, Pensacola.

40

E 9. W.G. Vernetson, " Summary Evaluation of the Florida Power Corporation E Reactor Operations Training Program Conducted February 15 - March 6, 1984," Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department, University of Florida, May 4, 1984.

10. W.G. Vernetson, " Summary and Certification of the Reactor Usage Opera-tions Program for Georgia Power Company Dee, reed Personnel Conducted I August 10-11, 1984," Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department, University of Florida , August 16, 1984.

I

~

11. H. Carvajal-Osorio and E.E. Carroll, "Out-of-Core Gaseous Cerenkov Detec-tor for Reactor Noise Analysis," paper accepted for ANS Winter meeting in Washington, D.C., November 11-15, 1984.

12. H. Carvajal-Osorio, " Development of an Out-of-Core Gama Radiation Detec-tor for Nuclear Reactor Diagnostics," doctoral dissertation project with-in Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department, University of Florida, degree expected December, 1985.

13. Charles G. Ievy , "Recent Progress in the Cerenkov Detector Experiments at I' the University of Florida," Senior Project, Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department, August 3, 1984.

14. John Trefry, " Interim Report to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-I ministration on P-PRIME Project," Florida Institute of Technology, Sep-tember 30, 1984.

15. Eduardo N. Barreto, " Trace Element Analysis of Serum Fran Bone Marrow =

' = Transplant Patients Using Neutron Activation Analysis ," Doctoral Disser-tation, University of Florida, August,1984.

16. W.R. Marion, C.E. Roessler, G.S. Roessler and H.A. VanRinsvelt, " Environ-mental Contaminants in Birds: Phosphate-Mine and Natural Wetlands," Final I Report to the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, May , 1984.

17. A.W. Sorenson, T. Guilarte, J. Enterline, A. Mahoney , G. Roessler, K.

I Neilson, "The Evaluation of a Food Composition Data Base," Grant Applica-tion to the Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Ser-vice , March , 1984.

18. W.G. Vernetson, " Final Report on a Reactor-BasM Radiation Protection and Control Cooperative Work Training Program for Central Florida Community College Students ," August 13, 1984.

19. W.G. Vernetson and N.J. Diaz, " Brochure on University of Florida Nuclear Facilities Division Reactor Operations Training Programs," August, 1984.

20. W.G. Vernetson, " Reactor Usage Operations Program Manual for Georgia Power Company Degreed Personnel," August, 1984.

21. N.J. Diaz and W.G. Vernetson , " Nuclear Reactor Operations Training Manual," Crystal River III Nuclear Power Plant, Florida Power Corpora-I tion, February, 1984.

41

I

22. V. Ramaswamy and I. Najafi, " Ion-Exchanged Waveguides for Small Signal Processing Applications - A Novel Electrolytic Process," Proposal to be submitted to various agencies, August, 1984.

23. J. Samuels, "The Application of DSNP (Dynamic. Simulator for Nuclear Power Plants Programming Language) as a Teaching Aid," presentation at ANS' -

I Eastern Regional Student Conference, Transactions Page A-7, April 5-7, 1984.

I I

I

.g I ,

LI I

I LI I

1

I l I ,

'I l I

,I 42

I I ,

I -

I '

I I

I APPENDIX A I UFTR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE E.6 ARGON-41 CONCENTRATION MEASURDIENT 4 - '

I I ,

l I

I I

I I ~

l I

I I SOP-E.6 PAGE 1 OF 14 UFTR OPERATING PROCEDURE E.6 I

1.0 Argon-41 Concentration Measurement 2.0 Approval I Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee (/f v M% I/ I1/ b pate/

Facility Director s

') '

/

7.!9!Ih Date l

I 71 I

I lI l

I I

I .

REV. O ,1/84 l

u

S0P E.6 PAGE 2 0F 14 3.0 Purpose and discussion 3.1 Air in the cracks and void spaces in the reactor is activated in the neutron flux near the core; the core I

• vent system is designed to prevent the isotopes formed from exfiltrating to the UFTR cell by means of exhausting air from the core into the environment. This effluent air stream is continuously monitored by the stack radiation monitor.

3.1.1 A sample of the effluent air stream is also periodically I analyzed to ensure that the most significant isotope, Argon-41, does not exceed acceptable limits for offluent discharge as specified in the UFTR Technical Specifications.

3.1.2 in addition, as required by UFTR Technical Specifications I surveillances, the 100 kW instantaneous release concentration and the average monthly release of Argon-41 are calculated and reported in the UFTR monthly report and the Annual activity Report submitted to the Nuclear I Regulatory Comm.ssion.

3.2 An accurate determ i nat i or. of the efficiency of the counting system used to analyze the samples is essential to determine the Argon-41 concentration. A Cobalt-60 standard, counted on the systems to be used, permits determination of I the efficiency of the systems over a small energy range that brackets the Argon-41 decay energy. The Cobalt-60 standard is impregnated in a plastic matrix Inside a Marinelli beaker,

~

duplicating the geometry of the sample itself.

3.3 Samples should be drawn from the core vent effluent and then l analyzed with as little delay as possible in order to prevent I excessive decay of the Argon-41 (110 minute half life) and

, resultant poor counting statistics. This provision will ensure that a statistically significant Argon-41 decay rate occurs over a relatively short count time. Consequently this lI procedure should be coordinated with the laboratory intended to provide the analysis.

3.4 The Argon-41 emission level as indicated by the stack monitor l requires about four (4) hours of reactor operation to stabilize; therefore the UFTR should be operated at steady state full power I for at least four (4) hours prior to collecting the core vont effluent samples.

,E 3.5 The folls. wing material should te available for use in drawing 3 the sample :

1 3.5.1 Purge volume container (a one gallon plastic carton is recommended as-it is of sufficient size, and easily l obtained);

l REV 0, 1/84

!Il

S0P E.6 PAGE 3 0F 14 3.5.2 Plastic, tygon, or polyethylene hose, at least 18 inches long; 3.5.3 Bucket capable of holding all the water from the purge I volume and the Marinelli beakers (1 gallon purge and about 1 gallon-4 liters- from the beakers);

3.5.4 Cobalt-60 standard source; 3.5.5 Marinelli beakers (4 beakers, nominally 1 liter each).

4.0 Limits and precautions 4.1 The Argon-41 discharge concentration shall be measured I semi-annually at Intervals not to exceed 8 months as per UFTR Technical Specifications Section 4.2.4, Paragraph (2).

4.2 The concentration of Argon-41 in the gaseous effluent I discharge of the UFTR is determined by averaging it over one month as per State of Florida regulation and UFTR Technical Specification Section 4.2.4, Paragraph (1);

I therefore the monthly release rate of Argon-41 is based on an average release using values calculated for the I.nstantaneous release rate and a period of one manth.

1 4.3 A factor of 200 may be used to account for atmospheric I dilution of Argon-41 for determination of stack effluent i concentrations, as per UFTR Technical Specifications, I Section 4.2.4, paragraph (2). This dilution is in addition f to that resulting from the operation of the stack Diluting l

Fan, which is required to produce stack air flow at a rate i

of 10,000 cfm or greater as per Technical Specifications, l

, Section 3.4.2, Paragraph (2). l lg 4.4 After calculations as indicated in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, i3 discharge concentrations of Argon-41 shall not exceed MPC l (4.0 E-8 microCurles/ml); release from the facility above

g the maximum permissible limits (MPC) as specified in

^Ppendix B, Table ll, 10 CFR 20 when averaged over 30 da/s 15 Is immediately reportable as a violation of Technical l

Specifications, Section 3.4.2, which contains the limiting l

' conditions for operation concerning Argon-41 discharge.

4.5 This procedure for the measurement of Argon-41 effluent

,g discharge concentrations is based on sampling core vent l3 flow prior to dilution by the Diluting Fan, and prior to l

Inclusion of the authorized atmospheric dilution factor of 200.

REV 0, 1/84 lI ,

I -

UFTR SOP-E.6, PAGE 4 0F 14 4.6 Throo samplos are required to be analyzed and averaged for reportablo concentrations; however, four (4) will normally be drawn and counted so that one inconsisfent sample or faulty measurement may be disregarded, and thr. requirement for three samples wil'l stilI be met.

I 4.7 All time measurements should be made using the same timepiece, or time standards must be correlated to calculate delay times.

!g 4.8 Argon;41 detection efficiency must be calculated for each ,<

g detector used in the. counting process.

4'.9 The volumetric vent and stack air flow will be determined I concurrently with the determination of the Argon-41 discharge concentration.

4.10 it is recommended that personnel accomplishing the measurment of stack air flows maintain radio-  ;

communications with an operator at the control console.

5.0 References 5.1 UFTR Semi-annual File S-4 hI 5.2 UFTR Technical Specifications 5.3 UFTR Safety Analysis Report 6.0 Records required I 6.1 Caiculations and results shall be ritained as specified >

In UFTR Technical Specifications, Section 6.7, " Records" 6.2 Letter generated by the Reactor Manager specifying limits on monthly Kilowatt-hours of UFTR energy generation to prevent exceeding the limits on the average Argon-41 dischaige

~

concentration 6.3 UFTR Daily Operations Log 6.4 Monthly report tabulations of UFTR kW-ht energy ;eneration 6.5 Annual Report summarizing Argon-41 releases

! -7.0 instructions

.la 7.1 Conduct a reactor startup as per S0P A.2 and allow the Argon-41 emission level Indicated by the stack monitor to stabilize (at-least 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />).

I .

I- REV 0, 1/84

\ \

I _ _ .-

, ll UFTR SOP-E.6, PAGE 5 0F 14

!L- 7.2 Collect samples representative of core vent effluent as f follows :

7.2.1 Collect a purge volume in the designated container as follows :

7.2.1.1 Fill the purge volume container with water; I 7.2.1.2 Check closed the sample line quick-throw valve on the stack monitor access platd; 7.2.1.3 Connect one end of the hose t; the sample line connection; 7.2.1.4 Place enough water in the bucket so that the purgo volume container opening may be placed completely under water, forming a water seal that holds water in the purge volume container while the bulk af the container remains above the surface of the water . the bucket; 7.2.1.5 Place the loose end of the hose connected to the sample line under the surface of the water in the bucket, and into the neck of the purge volume container; 7.2.1.6 Open the sample line quick throw valve, so that the water in the purge volume container no longer has a water seal holding water in that container; 7.'2.1.7 When the purge volume container is drained, close the sample line quick throw valve, remove the hose from the '

, container, remove the container from the bucket.

7.2.2 Collect 4 air samples in the Marine. beakers as follows :

I- 7.2.2.1 Fill the beakers completely with water (the recommended method is to submerge the beaker and open all valves on I the beaker, repositioning the beaker under water to remove as much air as possible).

7.2.2.2 Connect the loose end of the hose to the sample line connection on the beaker.

7.2.2.3 Open the quick, throw valve on the sample line connection on the beaker;-

7.2.2.4 Open the quick throw valve on the sample line connection mounted on the stack monitor access plate; 7.2.2.5 Open the pot-cock on the beaker, allowing water to gravity '

drain into the bucket, replaced by core vent effluent air, until all the water is removed.

7.2.2.6 Close the pet-cock, and record the time on UFTR Form SOP-E.6A.

REV 0, 1/84 1

UFTR SOP-E.6, PAGE 6 0F 14 CAUTI0tt All time measurements shou!d be made using the same timepiece  ;

I to prevent inaccuracles in calculating delay times of samples 7.2.2.7 Close the sample line connection quick-throw valves on the the Marinelli beaker and on the stack monitor access plate.

7.2.2.8 Repeat the process (In Steps 7.2.5.1 through 7.2.2.7) for for all 4 beakers. When all 4 beakers are filled with core vent effluent, transport the samples to the counting facility raserved for sample analysis.'

7.3 Analyze the samples; 7.3.1 Count each sample and the Co-60 standard us'ing a GeLi detector system (or a' system of comparable capability) and a multi-channel analyzer.

7.3.1.1 Record the time when counting begins for each sample on UFTR Form SOP-E.6A.

7.3.1.2 Count the Cobalt-60 standard separately on each detector used to provide the basis for an Independent measurement

of each detector efficiency for Cobalt-60.

7.3.1.3 Determine the net number of counts under the poak at 1.293 MeV. for each sample, Lnd the number of counts under the two peaks for Co-60 (1173 Kev and 1332 Kev).

7.3.1.4 Record the net count rate (number of counts / sample count time in minutes) on UFTR Form SOP-E.6A.

7.3.2 Calculate the delay time (as previously noted) between the time the sample was taken and the time when the counting begins; record the applicable delay time on UFTR Form SOP-E.6A separately for each sample.

7.3.2.1 Using the recorded delay time, correct the count rates back to the time sampling was completed using the radioactive decay formula as noted on UFTR Form SOP-E.6A :

CPM (CORRECTED) = CPM X EXP[(0.693/110 min) X DELAY TIME (min)]

7.3.2.2 To obtain the average concentration, average tho count rates and record on UFTR Form SOP-E.6A.

7.3.3 Using the calibration data for the Co-60 source, calculate the applicable decay time of the source to the date on which it is used.

REY 0, 1/64

SOP-E.6, PAGE 7 0F 14 I 7.3.4 Calculate the activity of the Co-60 source in DPM; then determine the counting efficiency for each of the two Co-60 peaks; record the results of that calculation on UFTR Form SOP-E.6B.

I 7.3.4.1 Interpolate between the efficiencies for the Co-60 peaks (1.17.and 1.33 MeV) to find the officiency for the Ar-41 energy peak (1.29 MeV) 7.3.5 Using the calculated detector efficiency for Argon-41, I determine the activity of the samples in DPM, (CPM /EFFiCENCY) 7.3.5.1 Record calculated sample activities on UFTR Forn SOP-E.6A.

7.3.6 Record the average value of the sample activities on UFTR Form SOP-E.6A.

7.3.7 Convert the average sample activity (OPM) to microCuries by using the equivalence that one microcurie is 2.22E6 DPM and record'these results on UFTR Form SOP-E.6A.

7.3.8 Determine the average Argon-41 concentration (activity) of the samples (microCurles/ml) by dividing the Curie content I -

by the volume of the sampic (the volume of the Marinelli beaker); record the undiluted concentration value on form UFTR Form SOP-E.6A.

I 7.3.9 Determine applicable average stack air flow rate (see section 7.4) and record the value on UFTR Form SOP-E.6B. ,

7.3.10 Calculate the dilu'ed effluent concentration by multiplying the undiluted concentration (from 7.3.8) by the formula given below. (This value.shall be recorded as the I instantaneous Argon-41 stack release concentration on UFTR Form SOP-E.6B.)

CORE VENT FLOW (CFM) 200 X [ CORE VENT FLOW (CFM) + MEASURED STACK FLOW (CFM)]

7.3.11 The determination of the total monthly release (Curies) of Argon-41 fcr the monthi.y UFTR General Activities and Utilization Report w8lI be calculated as foilows :

RELEASE (Curies) = [KW-HR OPERATION] X [ EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION 0 100 KW(Ci/ml)]

3 X [ STACK FLOW (cfm)] X [60 mir./hr][28317 ml/ft ]

7.4 The volumetric elr flow will be determined concurrently g

with the measurement of the Argon-41 d!scharge concentration.

REV 0, 1/84 I _ - -

SOP-E.6, PAGE 8 0F 14 7.4.1 Measure chimney action at the stack exhaust.

7.4.1.1 It is recommended that personnel accomplishing the measurment of the stack air flow rate maintain radio-communications with an operator at thefcontrol console.

7.4.1.2 Secure the core vent and the dilution fans.

7.4.1.3 Using a 3 by 3 grid-sectional pattern,. measure with an I anemometer the air flow at the conter of each of 9 sections at the exhaust of the stack for 1 minuto each; record values on UFTR Form SOP-E.6C.

7.4,1.4 Record the sum of all values.

7.4.1.5 Record the average of all values.

7.4.1.6 Record the correction f. actor for the averaged value determined from the calibration chart, Appendix II.

7.4.1.7 Record.the sum of the average value and the correction f actor as True Chimney Acilon.

7.4.2 Measure and calculate normal stack air flow rate :

7.4.2.1 Start the dilution fan.

!I 7.4.2.2 Using a 3 by 3 grid-sectional pattern, measure with an-anemometer the air flow at the conter of each of 9 sections i at the exhaust of the stack for 1 minute each; record values on UFTR Form SOP-E.60.

7.4.2.4 Record the sum of all values.

7.4.2.5 Record the average of all values.

7.4.2.6 Record the correction factor for the averaged value determined from the calibration chart, Appendix II.

I 7.4.2.7 Record the sum of the average value and the correction factor au True Normal Action.

7.4.3 Calcul e1e ai r flow as indicated on UFTR Form SOP-E.6C and enter thet value on UFTR Form SOP-E.6A for use in the Argon-41 dilution calculation.

I I

I Rev.0, 1/84 I . _ - _ _ - _ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _

I SOP-E.6, PAGE 9 0F 14 l

l l

l l

APPENDIX !

FORMS FOR ARGON-41 CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS AND CALCULATIONS l

l i

I

I

'I I

I REV 0, 1/84

WiMH2 BW-@.@,1PlKGE E@ @ff E4 l

UFTR FORM SOP-E.6A DETECTOR EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT PART 1: DATA ON COBALT-60 STANDARD Serial Number:

Assay Date:

Assay Activity:

PART II: MEASUREMENTS ON COBALT-60 STANDARD A Co-60 standard source with two primary gamma ray energies spannlag the Ar-41 primary gamma energy is used to determine the ef ficiency of the detector system used

> to measure the Argon-41' activity in the UFTR core vent air samples. The calculations and results for the detector efficiency measurement are documented as follows:

ISOTOPE ENERGY CALCULATED

• MEASURED ** DETECTION DETECTED ACTIVITY _(A2 ) ACTIVITY EFFICIENCY ***

(kev) (DPM) (DPM)

Cobalt-60 c =

E_1 = 1173 4 Cobalt-60 E = 1332 c ~

2 -2

• CalculatedactivityofCo-60sougeisbasedupontheinitialactivity(A)andthe 5.271 year half-life: A =Ae where A = 0.693/5.271 yr.

j 2 g

• • Measured activity is the activity recorded by the counting system.

• • • The Energy-dependent Detectior Efficiency for the two Co-60 gamma energies is simply easured Activity c(E) = Calculated Activity PART III: ARGON-41 DETECTION EFFICIENCY CALCULATION The detector efficiency for Argon-41 gamma rays (E = 1293 kev) is determined as a simple linear interpolation of the efficiency for counting the two different energy

.I Cobalt-60 gamma rays as follows:

C - C C

3 (1293 kev) =

1 2 x (E 2 -E)+ eg E ~

, l 2 .

Resultant Argon-41 Gamma Detection Efficiency: c3(1293 kev) = .

I PART IV: VERIFICATION Form filled out Ly Date RM/FD Acknowledgment Date I __-____ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

Rev. O,1/84

' -~ ~

TWHM Bs@ G.@,1P/XM HR @ff E6 UFTR FORM SOP-E.6B

.l E ARCON-41 STACK EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION PART I: SAMPLING CONDITIONS Argon-41 Detection Efficiency (From form SOP-E.6A):

Stack Air Flow Without Core Vent:

Reactor Power Level and Stack Monitor Readings Prior to Sampling:

Length of Reactor run Prior to Sampling:

PART II: RESULTS OF LATA ACQUISITION SAMPLE TIME SAMPLING TIMS STARTEi) DELAY COUNT UNCORRECTED NUMBER COMPLETED COUNTING TIME DURATION COUNT RATE (sec) (min) (CPM)

>I I

PART III: RESULTS OF DATA REDUCTION SAMPLE COUNT RATE SAMPLE SAMPLE SAMPLE INSTANTANEOUS AR-41*

NUMBER COMPENSATED DECAY RATE ACTIVITY ACTIVITY CONC. IN STACK I FOR DELAY (CPM) (CPM /c3 ) (Curies) (Ci/ml) EFFLUENT (uCi/ml)

I -

.I

• Includes effects of core vent and diluting fan flow as well as NRC-TECil SPEC I 200-to-1 atmospheric dilution factor.

PART IV: VERIFICATION I

Form filled out by Date RM/FD Acknowledgment Date Rev. O,1/84

UFTR FORM SOP-E.6C ~ * ' O I4 STACK DILUTION AIR FLOW MEASUREMENT PART I: SAMPLING CONDITIONS CHIMNEY CROSS SECTIONAL AREA: 6.354 f+2 BAROMETRIC PRESSURE:

TEMPERATURf::

WIND SPEED AND DIRECTION:

I GENERAL WEATHER CONDITIONS:

ANEMOMETER DESCRIPTION (NORMALLY TAYLOR ANEMOMETER - MODEL 3132)

NOTE: THESE MEASUREMENTS SHOULD BE MADE DURING CALM WEATHER.

PART II: RESULTS OF DATA ACQUISTION Chimney Action Normal Rate N N a b c a b c d e f d e f

W W g h i g h i PART III: RESULTS OF DATA REDUCTION Chimney Action Sum: ft/ min Normal Action Sum: ft/ min I Chimney Action Ave: ft/ min Normal Action Ave: ft/ min Correction: ft/ min Correction: ft/ min-True Chimney Action: ft/ min True Normal Action: ft/ min STACK DILUTION AIR FLOW = (TRUE NORMAL ACTION - TRUE CHIMNEY ACTION) X CHIMNEY AREA STACK DILUTION AIR FLOW = ( ) X 6.345 FT 2 STACK DILUTION AIR FLOW

PART IV: VERIFICATION Form Filled Out By Date RM/RD Acknowledged Date -

Rev. O, 1/84

I I s0e-e.e. eAee is er ,4 I

I I

I I

I APPENDIX ll I

>I TAYLOR ANEMOMETER CAllBRATION CHART I

I W

I.

I I

I REV 0, 1/84

'AA I

u .

M M M M M -

M M M M M M M '

M co -

+10 _

o _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________

-10 -

=

E N

-20 -

+

.c Q

{ -30 -

~

Z w

E -40 _

U

[d

.c U

'> u .

l >

I D l a g -00 -

C l

l

~10 - N

n to O

e e e e e e t e e e r i e

,, g g i 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000

• m E IT.ASURED VI;LOCITY ( f t. /rnin)

'O

= >

e Ficure E.6-1 Anemometer correction chart (Positive values are added to ancrrometer readines while neaative Q

=

values should be subtracted from anernometer readinns. ) g w

• N O Co  %

F H

..m..

a. . _. . .. . - - _ .

i l

I '

I '

E l I

APPENDIX B UFTR EMERGENCY PLAN I REVISION 1 l

1

~

l 1

I ,

i l

l l

l l

I I

l l

l  !

!I I

I

, Y, j,ou,.oa..,4cfo= NUCLEAR FACILITIES DIVISION C.S vtLNET50N,LEACT04 MA8eAGE2 ,

NUCLEAR REACTOR BUILDING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA . .

CAintsvtLLE,FL0m004 32618 * .

PHONE (904)1921429 TELEX 561M June 25, 1984 MEMORANDUM TO: ' Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee

.FROM: W.G. Vernetson ...

SUBJECT:

UFTR Em' e rgency Plan Revis' ion 1 l Attached are four pages to constitute Revision 1 of the UFTR Emergency Plan.

All changes are clearly marked by vertical lines in the right hand margin.

None of these changes is considered to change the Emergency Plan substantial-I ly; therefore, the Plan continues to meet the needs for responding to UFTR-related emergencies.

I The revisions on pages 5-2 and 8-1 merely correct a poorly presented table and a typographical error respectively. These changes are not substantive but merely correct obvious errors.

The third revision page corrects the Section 8.4 description of the communica-

'tions metho'ds available for calling the Shands Hospital. There is only one telephone line in Room 108 NSC, not two as indicated in the original UFTR l Emergency Plan. The red emergency phone is a dedicated line and number at the Shands Emergency Room which is available as indicated to advise Shands of in-coming patients and their physical state to include whether.they are contani-I nated or have received a significant radiation dose. This change is a minor change in that there are not two phones in the Emergency Support Center (Room 108 USC).but the original descripton was never intended to claim two phones in I Room 108 NSC. So again this is a minor change to bring the Emergency Plan to agree with tha actual available communications which are still more than ade-quate to address UFTR-related emergencies.

The revision of Paragraph 8.3.1 on page 8-3 corrects the description of the decontamination facilities to coincide with changes to be incorporated as de-scribed and justified in' the June 19, 1984 memorandum to the Emergency Plan

.lmplementation File which is attached. This change is also considered a minor

-technical change though in this case it is needed because of an error in the original Emergency Plan. The change as incorporated and justified in the at-I tached memorandum of June 19, 1984 updates the Emergency Plan so that it coa-tinues to meet its ui>jectives for planning responses to UFTR emergencies.

WGV/ps Enclosures cc: H.J. Diaz I -- _

[

Tablo 5.1 UFTR Dnergency Classification Guide ACTION LEVEL PURPOSE

~ EMERGENCY CLASS Civil disturbances or receipt of (1) Alert staff to Class O a possible,escala- -

L:ss severe than bomb threat non-specific to the tion; the lowest class. Reactor.

I Personnel injury, with or with-(2) Initiate assessment; out radiological complications.

(3) Provide treatment.  !

I Minor fire or explosion within the operations boundary that is non-specific to the reactor or its control system.

Receipt of bomb t reat with pos- (1) Assure that emergency I

. Class.I personnel are ready to Notification sible radiological release im-respond lf situation of Unusual Event plications.

escalates or to perform I Fire or minor explosion which might adversely effect the reac- -

confirmatory radiation monitoring if required; tor or its control systems.

I Two area monitors above 50 mR/hr.

(2) Provide current status information to off-site authorities.

J Airborne contanination in excess

= of 10 MPC in the Reactor Cell and/

or 2 MPC at the operations boun-dary when averaged over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Visible damage to fuel bundle, si) Assure that response I Class II Alert other. visible failure. centers are manned; (2) Assure that monitoring Area monitors in reactor cell above 500 mR/hr. teams are dispatched; External radiation level of (3) Assure that personnel I 10 mR/hr measured at Decon Room, Airborne contamination in excess required for evacuation of on-site areas are at duty stations; I of 100 MPC in the Reactor Cell and/or 20 MPC at the operations boundary when averaged over 24 (4) Provide consulation with off-sito authori-

• hours, ties; I Major fire or explosion in the '(5) Pro'ide v information to the public through the UPTR cell which has affected the I reactor and/or its control systems. ,

UF Public Irformation Office.

E e

}

/

800 EMERCENC'.* FAC]LITIES AND EQUIPMENT This section of the Emergency Plan delineates and briefly describes the I emergency facilities, types of equipm3nt and their location that are avaflable in the event of a UFTR-related emergency.

8.1 Emergency Support Center Emergency support is to be given from a location designatad as the Emer-I gency support Center (ESC) which As to be moved to successively larger dis-tances from the reactor building as conditions warrant. Since the onset of an emergency condition (sounding of the UFTR Building evacuation siren) necessi-tates evacuation of the entire Reactor Building (UF Building iiS57), the Emer-I. gency Support Center is to be established in the Nuclear Sciences Center (UF Building #634) directly adjacent to the south of but separate from the Reactor Building. The Emergency Support Center is to be established initially-in the I Nuclear Sciences Decontamination Room, Room 108, NSC (Telephone Number 392-1428) located just outside the reactor building. If warranted by emergency conditions, Emergency Support Center locations are identified at increasing.

distances from the reactor building facility first floor entrance as follows:

Location 1. Nuclear Sciences Center Decon Room, Room 108 of the Nuclear Sciences Center, (Telephone Number: 392-1428).

Location 2. Parking Lot behind Nuclear Sciences Center (service drive)-

To be used if the radiation level outside Room 108 NSC in I the hall exceeds 10 mR/hr or if crowded conditions or in-volvement of contaminated and/or injured personnel make Location 1 undesirable or if high radiation areas, conta-mination, fire or other conditions warrant evacuation of the J

J Nuclear Science Center.

8.2 Assessment Facilities Equipment available at the Decontamination Room (Room 108 NSC) to be used to determine the need to initiate further emergency measures as well as that

!l to be used for continuing assessment include a high level wide-range survey

'5 meter (teletector) as well as a low level GM meter (E-140) as well as tuo or l3 more high level and low level dosimeters. In addition, the Radiation Control office in the Nuclear Sciences Center can provide additional portable curvey

!E meters and is equipped with low level counting equipment for assessment of I

l swipes. A high volume air-sampler for evaluating airborne particulate activity l

is also available at the radiation control office. A pancake detector to check

' for surface contamination as well as personnel contamination is also available l

from or through the Radiation Control Office. A list of equipment available l

from Radiation Control for radiation dose and level assessment is presented in l Table 8.1 Scintillation and semi-conductor gamma ray spectrometers o. a available in

'I the Nuclear Engineering Department Laboratories, from the Radiation Control Office and elsewhere on the University of Florida campus for radioisotope identification. Additional equipment (portable survey and low level counting) lg is also available at, or through, the UP Radiation Control Office.

3 I '

RFX 1, ~l/84 I

I I

8.3.4 Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics j The Shands Emergency Room handles all emergency cases and is also a des-ignated radiation accident emergency facility with the capability of handling radiation exposed and contaminated victir.is. This facility also serves as the '

designated radiation accident emergency facility for the Crystal River 3 nu-clear power plant on the coast of Florida about 75 miles away and necessarily )

I

~

provides continuing training, including the handling of radiation exposed or contaminated victims as outlined in its Plan for Emergency Handling of Radia-tion Accident Cases included as Appendix I to this UFTR Emergency Plan.

8.3.5 other Medical Support All conceivable medical assistance requirements can be supplied'by Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics so that assurance of services from off-site agencies is unnecessary.

8.4 Communications Equipment The Decontamination Room (Room 108 NSC) outside the UPTR building is I equipped with a normal telephone for primary communications (904-392-1428).

Shands' Hospital has a red emergency phone which is to be used to notify Shands directly of radiation accident or other victims about to be transported and to keep proper records on such personnel. Walkie-talkies are used for communica-I ting with support groups around the facility, using Physical Plant frequency.

The UPD will be the primary communication center and can provide communica-tions assistance via portable, hand-held radio equipment. If Civil Defense

) actions are warranted, then they become the primary control center and direc-tion / communications originate from this office.

I The UFTR Building intercom system links the reactor control room, the facility director's office and the operating staff office for internal com-munications. Telephones also connect various areas of the UPTR Building to the control room, main Nuclear Engineering office and the outside. Word-of-mouth communications will provide back-up for internal communications.

I I .

REV 1, /84 ll -

~

8.3 First Aid and Medical Facilities The Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., is a designated radiation accident emergency center. It has made a commitment through its " Plan for Emergency Handling of Radiation Accident Cases" to cope with irradiated and/or contaminated patients originating on the University of Florida Campus. 'Ihe Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics provides continuing training,. including I the handling of radiation exposure patients and contaminated victims as refer-enced in the " Plan for Emergency Handling of Radiation Accident Cases" which

[

is included .as Appendix I to this UFTR Emergency Plan. .

8.3.1 Decontamination'. Facilities A decontamination shower and sink is located in the Decon Room bEom c 108 NSC) and may be utilized for limited decontamination purposes since both are plugged' to hold up contaminated water which can then be directed to the radio-logical waste holdup tanks of the UFTR building. Other alternate showers and sinks are located in the Nuclear Sciences Center and the UFTR Facility com-plex; waste from these alternate facilities is directed to the waste holdup tanks. Note that waste from these tanks is not discharged into the sanitary sewer until cleared by the Radiation Control Office. Protective clothing and decontamination supplies are available in Room 108 NS.S'C and on the Emergency Equipment Cart. Additional supplies are available through the Radiation Con-trol Office.

If the extent of the victim's injuries are such that he/she cannot be yI decontaminated on site, then the victim will be transported to the designated depontamination site at the Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics Emergency Room by the Alachua County Ambulance Service or designated alternate using the multiple blanket contamination isolation method.

1 8.3.2 First Aid

.First aid is available at the Nuclear Sciences Center Decontamination Room through several UPTR personnel who are trained in first aid, or from the University Police Department or Gainesville Fire Department personnel who are certified in CPR and advanced Red Cross first aid. In addition, Alachua County Ambulance Service personnel are not only qualified in first aid but can pro-vide paramedical assistance. First aid kits are available in the UFTR control room and the Decon Room. Stretchers and litters as well as splints to immobi-lize. broken bones are also available in the 'Decon Room.

8.3.3 Ambulance Service

.I Ambulance service is provided through the Alachua County Ambulance Ser-vice. For a contaminated victim, a designated health physicist will accompany the victim in the ambulance to advise on proper handling, to minimize person-nel dose rates and the spread of contamination during transport, and to convey dose estim, ate and contamination information.

I .

' REV 1, ~l/84 I

7

+

g ..

• "="*=c= NUCLEAR FACILITIES DMSION

@ VERNETSON, REACTOR MANAGER.

NUCLEAR REACTOR BUILDING UNIVERSITY OF FLORDA . .

GAINESVRIE, FLORIDA 32611 . .

se rt PHONE (,94)3921429 TELEX $6330 November 27, 1984 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Standardization and Special Projects Branch Director, Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Facility License R-56 Docket No. 50-83

Dear Sir:

In compliance with our Technical Specifications reporting requirements, enclosed is one copy of the 1983-1984 University of Florida Training Reactor Annual Progress Report.

This document complies with the requirements of the UFTR Technical Specifications, Section 6.6.1..

Please advise if further information is needed.

! Sincerely, h a' k h . Y W  ;

William G. Vernetson Acting Director of Nuclear Facilities WGV/ps Enclosure cc: P.M. Whaley Acting Reactor Manager i 1

\

SQUAL DPPORfbNITY/ AFFitwAfitt ACTION f MPLOYER