ML20137F225
| ML20137F225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Michigan |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1996 |
| From: | Fleming R MICHIGAN, UNIV. OF, ANN ARBOR, MI |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9704010013 | |
| Download: ML20137F225 (19) | |
Text
. - .- - _.- _ . . .-
e ,=
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICH10AN PHOENIX MEMORIAL LABORATORY FORD NUCLEAR REACTOR ANN ARBOR, MICHlGAN 48109 2100 (313) 764-6220 March 24,1997 ,
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Region III Regional Administrator 801 Warrenville Road ,
Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351 l 1
Re: License R-28 l Docket 50-2
Dear Sir:
The enclosed REPORT ON REACTOR OPERATIONS for the period January 1,1996 to December 31,1996 is submitted to comply with Section 6.6 of the Ford Nuclear Reactor Technical Specifications.
Sincerely, Ronald F. Fleming
- Director, Michigan Memorial-Phoenix Project xc: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Attn: Theodore S. Michaels, Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Rextor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V, and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D.C. 20555 ZONDA R COOK Notary Pubb, U#esten Ccunty,M!
American NuclearInsurers !!y Commidon Ex;stes June 16,1933 Acung th Washtanaw Counir,Mi FNR Safety Review Committee FNR Health Physicist Cub:iited and sworn before ma, this d4 FNR Control Room &, ci NM 1991, a Noisry PuWic r fa fer (hsm*O
~
Count /,
Enclosure (1) .:. ,
-_ 6 j$ I 9704010013 961231 W "*
PDR ADOCK 05000002 ? CTMY PU2L!C gg PDR , .- e .,: m missk.n e:girss D de ,199 1.
I!IIE5ElEllijiERE!ll
REPORT OF REACTOR OPERATIONS January 1,1996 to December 31,1996 FORD NUCLEAR REACTOR MICHIGAN MEMORIAL - PHOENIX PROJECT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR March 1997 Prepared For The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Repon of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor January 1 - December 31,1996
{ ABSTRACT Technical Specifications for the Ford Nuclear Reactor (FNR) require the annual submission of this review of reactor operations to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The reactor schedule of ten days of continuous operation at licensed power of two megawatts
- followed by four days of shutdown resulted in 5,652.2 reactor operating hours,5,299.7 operating - -
l hours at full power,10,629.0 accumulated megawatt hours, and an overall reactor availability of 64.7 percent for the calendar year.
i
- There were no reportable occurrences.
There were 21 unscheduled reactor shutdowns during the year.
There were no radioactive effluent releases above 10CFR20 limits. The maximum radiation dose l equivalent received by an individual at the facility was 1.14 rem TEDE. The total radiation dose '
equivalent for all of the workers at the facility was 9.40 rem TEDE. l l
2
. -n., c-- , - - - - - - , , , a,. , -
. Repon of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor January 1 - December 31,1996 l FORD NUCLEAR REACTOR Docket No. 50-2 License No. R-28 1
REPORT OF REACTOR OPERATIONS l l
January 1,1996 - December 31,1996
'l This report reviews the operation of the University of Michigan's Ford Nuclear Reactor for the l period January I to December 31,1996. The report is to meet the requirement of Technical l Specifications for the Ford Nuclear Reactor. The format for the sections that follow conforms to l Section 6.6.(1) of Technical Specifications. !
The Ford Nuclear Reactor is operated by the Michigan Memorial-Phoenix Project of the University of Michigan. The Project, established in 1949 as a memorial to students and alumni of the University who died in World War II, encourages and supports research on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and its social implications. In addition to the Ford Nuclear Reactor (FNR), the Project operates the Phoenix Memorial Laboratory (PML). These laboratories, together with a faculty research grant program, are the means by which the Project carries out its purpose.
The operation of the Ford Nuclear Reactor provides major assistance to a wide variety of research and educational programs. The reactor provides neutron irradiation services and neutron beamport experimental facilities for use by faculty, students, and researchers from the University of Michigan, other universities, and industrial research organizations. Reactor staff members teach classes related to nuclear reactors and the Ford Nuclear Reactor in particular and assist in reactor-related laboratories.
Tours are provided for school children, university students, and the public at large as part of a j public education program. During the year 1531 people panicipatec in 104 tours. j The operating schedule of the reactor enables a sustained high level of panicipation by research !'
groups. Continued support by the Depanment of Energy through the University Research Reactor Assistance Program [ Contract No. J-KT-4000-000 (DE-AC02-76ER00385)] and the Reactor j Facility Cost Sharing Program (Contract No. DE-FG07-80ER10724) has been essential to 1 maintaining operation of the reactor facility.
3
. Report of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor January 1 - December 31,1996
- 1. OPERATIONS
SUMMARY
In January,1966, a continuous operating cycle was adopted for the Ford Nuclear Reactor at its licensed power level of two megawatts. The cycle consisted of approximately 25 days at full power followed by three days of shutdown maintenance. In June,1975, a reduced operating cycle consisting of ten days at full power followed by four days of shutdown maintenance was adopted. A typical week consisted of 120 full-power operating hours. In July,1983, the reactor operating schedule was changed to Monday through Friday at licensed power and weekend shutdowns. Periodic maintenance weeks vere scheduled during the year. In January,1985, a cycle consisting of four days or 96 full-power operating hours per week at licensed power followed by three days of shutdown maintenance was established in order to elimmate the periodic shutdown maintenance weeks needed in the previous cycle. Beginning July 1,1987, the reactor operating cycle returned to ten day operation at full power followed by four days of shutdown maintenance. This calendar year began with cycle 389 and ended wim cycle 401. A cycle covers four weeks; two of the ten day - four day sequences.
er level of two megawatts which produces a peak The thermal reactor operates at2x10 flux of approximately a maximum n
2 pw/cm /sec. An equilibrium core configurati consists of approximately 41 standard and 4 control,19.75% enriched, plate-typ fuel elements. Standard elements contain 167 gm of U235 in 18 aluminum clad fue. plates.
Control elements, which have control rod guide channels, have nine plates and contain 83 gm of U235. Overall active fuel element dimensions are approximately 3"x 3"x 24",
Fuel elements are retired after burnup levels of approximately 35-40% are reached. Fuel burnup rate is approximately 2.46 gm U235/ day at two megawatts.
1.1 Facility Design Changes None 1.2 Equipment and Fuel Performance Characteristics Reactor equipment and fuel exhibited no abnormal characteristics. Replacement of expended fuel elements resulted in an annual use of nine standard fuel elements and two control fuel elements.
No new standard or control fuel elements were received.
There were no spent fuel shipments.
1.3 Safety-Related Procedure Changes Safety-related procedures are those associated with operation, calibration, and maintenance of the primary coolant, the reactor safety system, the shim-safety rods, all scram functions, the high temperature auto rundown function, and the pool level rundown.
Calibration and Maintenance Procedure 206 - Safety System Period Channel C Cahbrat on
- 1. Revised to correct a few typographical errors.
4 i
I
Repon of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor l January 1 - December 31,1996 '
Calibration and Maintenance Procedure 216 - Ludlum Model 300 Area Monitorinc ~
Calibration Procedure
- l. Table 1 (Instmmentation List) was updated.
Calibration and Maintenance Procedure 219 - Ludlum 395 Ama Monitor Calibration
- 1. Table 1 (Instrumentation List) was updated. l i
Calibration and Maintenance Procedure 301 - Shim-Safety Rod Insnection
- 1. A reminder was added to the data sheet to perform rod drop and release time l measuremen's after rod inspections Operatine Procedure 101 - Reactor Stan-Up
- 1. Startup check after area monitor failure: the procedure was revised to add a j reminder that area radiation monitor repairs must be followed by a channel i test and setpoint verification. I l.4 Maintenance, Surveillance Tests, and Inspection Results as Required
. by Technical Specifications.
Maintenance, surveillance tests, and inspections required by Technical Specifications were completed at the prescribed intervals. Procedures, data sheets, and a maintenance schedule / record provide documentation.
r 1.5 Summary of Changes, Tests, and Experiments for Which NRC Authorization was Required. ,
j ModificatiorLReauest 116 - Boron-Aluminum Allov Shim-Safety Rods l Borated stainless steel shim-safety rods were installed in the Ford Nuclear Reactor in 1962. Rod reactivities decreased in the 10 to 20 percent range over the intervening 32 years. Replacement rods of essentially identical metallurgics' 4 composition were not available. An alloy of titanium diboride in 6351 aluminum !
was utilized as a replacement for the stainless steel. The titanium diboride, enriched !
to greater than 95 % boron-10, is a second phase dispersion that is uniformly l distributed in the grain boundaries of the 6351 aluminum.
1 Installation and testing occurred in 1995.
The University of Michigan agreed to the following inspection schedule for the boron-aluminum shim-safety rods during the first year after installation.
Between 25 and 45 days after installation; Between 2 and 4 months after installation;
>3etween 5 and 7 months after installation; Between 8 and 10 months after installation; and Between 11 and 13 months after installation; 5
. Repon of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor January 1 - December 31,1996 In addition to being subjected to an overall inspection for general indications of physical deterioratica, each rod is passed through a sizing jig that measures swelling in excess of 1/32 inch and bowing in excess of 1/16 inch. l The first-year-aftu-installation inspection program was completed in September 1996. Inspection results were consistently negative. Rod inspections will therefore revert to their normal annual frequency.
1.6 Operating Staff Changes The following reactor operations staff changes occurred:
Newiv Hired Position M ,
Tobi J. Hall Reactor Operator 07/29/96 Michael Hanman Reactor Operator 07/08/96 Benjamin Huck Rextor Operator 07/26/96 Richard McCue Reactor Operator 07/29/96 Resigned or Retired
- Position h Reed R. Burn
- Reactor Laboratory Manager 08/31/96 Steven Emerson Reactor Operator 08/31/96 ,
Philip Heuker lead Reactor Operator 06/28/96 Robert Kirchner lead Reactor Operator 06/27/96 Robert Wrona lead Reactor Operator 08/29/96 1.7 Reportable Occurrences l
None
- 2. POWER GENERATION
SUMMARY
The following table summarizes reactor annual power generation.
Orrating Full Power Megawatt Percent Cvele Inclusive Dates .ieun Operating Hours Hours Availability 389 01/08/96-02/05/96 491.6 477.7 958.7 73 390 02/05/96-03/04/96 482.7 455.2 916.0 72 391 03/04/96-04/01/96 503.7 483.0 977.2 75 392 04/01/96-04/29/96 391.0 344.0 692.6 58 393 04/29/96-05/28/96 487.7 471.2 946.2 73 394 05/28/96-06/24/96 466.0 429.2 862.0 64 395 06/24/96-07/22/96 441.9 418.5 840.7 62 396 07/22/96-08/20/96 415.4 374.3 718.8 56 397 08/20/96-09/17/96 394.1 367.2 744.0 55 398 09/17/96-10/15/96 480.5 457.2 918.3 68 399 10/15/96-11/12/96 491.0 473.5 950.1 71 400 11/12/96-12/10/96 395.8 357.4 720.4 53 401 12/10/96-01/07/97 210.8 191.3 384.0 31 Totals: 5,652.2 5,299.7 10,629.0 64.7 %
i 6
.- .-. . - - - . - --. -. - ~. . - - - -
Report of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor January 1 - December 31,1996
- 3. UNSCHEDULED REACTOR SHUTDOWN
SUMMARY
The following table summarizes unscheduled reactor shutdowns.
' 3.1 Unscheduled Shutdowns
. Total Unscheduled Shutdowns 21 Average Operating Hours Between Unscheduled Shutdowns 289 3.2 Shutdown Types
- Single Rod Drop (NAR) 0 Multiple Rod Drop (NAR) 0 l
Operator Action 0
- Operator Error 1 Process Equipment 0 i Reactor Controls 16 Electric Power Failure 4 3.3 Shutdown Type Definitions Single Rod Drop and Multiple Rod Drop (NAR)
An unscheduled shutdown caused by the release of one or more of the reactor shim-safety rods from its electromagnet, and for which at the time of the rod release, no specific component malfunction and no apparent reason (NAR) can be identified as having caused the release.
Ooerator Action A condition exists (usually some minor difficulty with an experiment) for which the operator on duty judges that shutdown of the reactor is required until the difficulty is corrected.
Operator Error The operator on duty makes ajudgment or manipulative error which results in shutdown of the reactor.
Process Eauipment Shutdown caused by a malfunction in the process equipment interlocks of the reactor control system.
7
- l Report of Reactor Operations j l - Ford Nuclear Reactor i January 1 - December 31,19% t l
- Reactor Controls !
i' 5
l Shutdown initiated by malfunction'of the control and detection equipment directly i
- associated with the reactor safety and control system. ,
i Electrical Power Failure i
l Shutdown caused by interruption in the reactor facility electric power supply. .
{ 3.4 - Cycle ' Summary of Unscheduled Shutdowns i
l Cvele 389 ;
l There was one unscheduled shutdown during cycle 389. There was a reactor scram
- due to a power flicker. The power flicker came from the Detroit Edison distribution )
!- system. The reactor was restarted without difficulty, i l Cycle 390 I 1 i There were two unscheduled shutdowns during cycle 390. Both shutdowns were a .
reactor scram due to building alarm, no action required. The cause was later . ;
2 determined to be a fuel vault monitor. Radiation levels in the FNR building were i i verified to be normal upon re-entry. The cause of the alarms was attributed to !
! intermittent electronics problems. Trouble shooting efforts were begun. The
]
reactor was restarted without difficulty. )
3 Cvele 391
~
j There was one unscheduled shutdown during cycle 391 due to reactor scram caused by Fuel Vault Radiation Alarm. Radiation levels normal. The scram was attributed to electronic noise in Fuel Vault Monitor #2. The FNR building was returned to .
', normal status and the reactor was restarted without difficulty. The monitor was i
replaced with an electronic-noise-resistant unit three days later during a scheduled 4
shutdown.
1 4
Cycle 392 There wer e four unscheduled shutdowns during cycle 392 due to reactor scrams caused by Flow Channel #2 low flow signals. After the first reactor scram the primary pump was replaced and the reactor restaited. After the second reactor scram, the flow sensor cells were inspected and vented. The reactor was then restarted. After the third and the fourth shutdowns (same day) the primary coolant system piping was drained for a physical inspection. A broken check valve disc was found in the #2 primary pump discharge line. The disc was removed, the q primary coolant system closed up, and re-filled. The reactor was restarted.
Primary coolant flow has been stable and normal since then.
8
_ ,_. ._, .-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . I
Report of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor January 1 - December 31,1996 Cycle 393 There were three unscheduled shutdowns during cycle 393.
The first and third were rextor scrams caused by a power Dicker. The electrical power flicker originated from the offsite distribution system. The reactor was restarted without difficulty. The second was a reactor scram due to Safety Channel A. No indication of high power. The scram was attributed to electronic noise. The cable connections for A and B Safety Channels were interchanged as a trouble-shooting technique. The reactor was subsequently restarted without difficulty.
Cycle 394 There was one unscheduled shutdown during cycle .594; a reactor scram caused by Safety Channel B. There was no other indication of high power. The reactor was restarted and operated satisfactorily for the remainder of the cycle. Based on trouble-shooting, the noise spikes causing the reactor scram signals are coming from what we call detector A or the cabling from detector A to the reactor bridge cable connections. At the shutdown subsequent to this event, the detectors and cables were inspected. The detector cables were cleaned and switched between detectors A and B. If we have any subsequent noise spike scrams from channel A, the noise will be coming from the detector. A scram from channel B will be from the A cable that was switched to channel B. One other possibility is something in the way of motion or vibration from the water tight housing for detector A. If another scram occurs in channel A, we plan to move detector A to B housing and detector B to A housing.
Cvele 395 There were two unscheduled shutdowns during cycle 395.
The first was a reactor scram due to handling safety channel cables. The cable handling (via the Triboelectric Effect) caused a dynamic transient current which was picked up by the period channel differentiator causing a shetdown signal from Safety Channel C. The reactor was restarted without difdculty.
1 The second was a reactor scram due to high power Safety Channel A. The scram l was attributed to electronic noise. The lead cables between chamber and bridge (A and B channels) were subsequently exchanged as a trouble-shooting measure. The reactor was restarted without difficulty.
Cycle 396 There were two unscheduled shutdowns during cycle 396 due to high power ,
reactor scram B channel.
The first shutdown signal was attributed to an intermittent noise signal from B ion chamber. The reactor was not restaned because the scheduled shutdown weekend was less than one hour away. The chamber cabies and connectors were checked during the subsequent maintenance interval.
9
-__.__-_._.._____._._y 1, .. .
l 4 ,
- t. Report of Reactor Operations . 1 i Ford Nuclear Reactor . i
, January 1 - December 31,19% {
l The second signal was received while raising reactor power towards 100% after a l startup and calorimeter. Reactor power could not be raised to 100%, during
- subsequent trouble-shooting. 'Ihe ion chamber was then removed from service i pending a thorough inspection and test. A spare ion chamber was installed in safety ;
channel B and the reactor was successfully raised to full power and experienced no 1 j further difficulties for the rest of the scheduled operating period. 1 i- Cycle 397 l 4 i l There was one unscheduled shutdown during cycle 397 due to a reactor scram :
l caused by Safety Channel A. All other instrument channels indicated no aroblems. !
- The shutdown is attributed to occasional signal noise from the 20 year olc. ion chamber. A purchase order for a new lon chamber has been issued. The new ion chamber is expected to a. rive in December 1996. !
Cvele 398 !
There was one unscheduled shutdown during cycle 397 due to a reactor scram l caused by Safety Channel A. All otherinstrument channels were normal. Checked !
cable connections.- The scram signal is attributed to age-related degradation of the :
ion chamber. Further trouble-shooting and analysis of the A chamber awaits the l arrival of one new ion chamber for channel B. ;
Cvele 399 I There was one unscheduled shutdown during cycle 399 due to noise spike on .
Safety Channel A. All other instrument channels indicated normally. The noise ]
spike is attributed to age-related degradation of the uncompensated ion chamber 1 detector. A new chamber is on order.
Cvele 401 There were two unscheduled shutdowns daring cycle 401.
The first was a reactor scram due to power loss. A transformer failed in the Detroit Edison substation feeding No'th Campus. The reactor was restarted without difficulty after power was res tored.
The second was due to secondary pump motor high temperature. The motor failed due to a bumed-out bearing. The motor was repaired and the reactor restarted.
- 4. CORRECTIVE MAINTENANCE ON SAFETY RELATED SYST"MS AND COMPONENTS None 10
Report of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor January 1 - December 31,1996
~
- 5. CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS CARRIED OUT WITHOUT PRIOR NRC APPROVAL PURSUANT TO 10CFR50.59(a) 5.1 Modification Reauest 120 - Primary Coolant System: #2 Pumo/ motor changeout and #2 Check Valve Removal.
Periodic decreases in primary coolant system flow rates from near 1000 gallons per minute (gpm) to as low as 700 gpm were experienced in the spring of 1996. The flow measurement system was ruled out as a possible cause. Then the installed 20 HP motor / pump was replaced with a 25 HP spare pump and motor that were available on-site. Flow decreases were still experienced, so the primary system was drained and opened for inspection. The disc for the #2 pump discharge check valve was found to have separated from the hinge assembly due to mechanical stresses. The disc would flop around in the check valve body and intermittently obstmet the outlet of the valve. The check valve internals were removed. The primary coolant system then performed normally and smoothly, with flows near 1150 gpm. ,
1 The pump [ replacement was judged to have no impact on safety because coolmg j flow was increased from about 1000 gpm to nearly 1150 gpm. j The check valve intemals removal wasjudged to have no impact on safety since the parallel #1 pump is never run any more. It is only for parallel pump operation that the check valve was needed. The removal of the check valve intemals also reduced the flow impedance.
As an aside, the physical condition of the primary piping, hold-up tank and rubber lining were found to be very good. Extremely minimal signs of degradeion were seen. l 5.2 Modification Reauest 121: Install time delav filters on primary coolant flow measurement system to damnen oscillations In order to dampen fluctuation in indicated primary coolant system flow, it was proposed to install passive filters (hydraulic snubbers) on the sensing lines. An analysis was performed which ascenained that with an assumed zero flow through the core, one "com volume" of water would heat up to the boiling point in about 7 to 8 seconds. Therefore, an effective 3 second time delay due to snubber installation would be within the analysis bounds.
The snubbers performed as expected upon installation, providing a 3 second time delay from pump stoppage to occurrence of the 900 gpm low-flow scram signal.
After one month of service, it was observed that the primary coolant flow signal came up to full value more slowly than expected. It was suspected that soine clogging of the porous metallic snubbers might be occurring due to silt or crud buildup. (The original installation of the snubbers was on the first vertical run of pipe below the flange taps).
As a conservative response, the snubbers were removed. We plan to reinstall the snubbers and monitor their performance after the instmment sensing lines are replaced. The replacement will incorporate the snubbers in a vertical run of tubing above a low-point tubing mn and associated flush-out valve.
I1
Report of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor i
. January 1 - December 31,1996 -
- 6. RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASE
! Quantities and types of radioactive effluent releases, environmental monitoring locations :
and data, and occupational personnel radiation exposures are provided in this section.
6.1 Gaseous Effluents Ar Releases !
i Gaseous effluent concentrations are averaged over a period of one year l
- ' ,s
l Quantity l Unit I i
- a. Total gross radioactivity. 3.58x 10' pCi :
- b. Average concentration released. 1.07x10'7 pCi/ml
- c. Average release rate. 1.14 Ci/sec i
- d. Maximum instantaneous concentration during Not pCi/ml special operations, tests, and experiments. Applicable
- e. Percent ofAr ECL (Effluent concentration Limit) 1073 Percent (1.0x10 Ci/ml) without dilution factor.
- f. Percent of
- Ar ECL with 400 dilution factor. 2.68 Percent 6.2 Radiohalogen Releases
- a. Total iodine radioactivity by nuclide based upon a representative isotopic analysis. (Required if iodine is identified in primary coolant samples or if ,
fueled experiments are conducted at the facility). Based on this criteria, this section of the report is not required. The analysis is based on primary ~
coolant activity following one week of decay. l Iodine-131 was not identified in the one week count of the primary coolant j samples.
Xenon-133 was not identified in the one week count of the primary coolant samples.
The pool water analyses show no indication of leaking fuel.
i
- b. "' Iodine releases related to steady state reactor operation (Sample C-3, main reactor exhaust stack).
i
- 1. Total "'I release. 70 pCi
- 2. Average concentration released. 3.6x 10 " pCi/ml
- 3. Percent of "'I ECL (2.0x10- pCi/ml) 0.18 Percent without dilution factor. l
- 4. Percent of "'I ECL with 400 dilution 0.00045 Percent l
factor.
- c. Radiohalogen releases related to combined steady state reactor operation and radiation laboratory activities (Sample C-2; combined secondary reactor exhaust and partial radiation laboratory exhaust 12
Report of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Rextor
, January 1 - December 31,1996 -
- 1. Total C-2 stack radiohalogen releases l Quantity Unit l
- I-131 71 Ci
- 2. Average concentration released i
Br-82 6.7x 10'" pCi/ml I-123 1.6x 10.i2 Ci/ml I-125 5.9x 10~'$ Ci/ml I-131 5.9x 10- Ci/ml
- 3. Percent of ECL without the dilution factor.
Br-82 1.33 Percent I-123 0.01 Percent
, I-125 0.2 Percent j I-131 0.29 Percent
- 4. Percent of ECL with factor of 400 dilution factor.
j Br-82 0.003 Percent 1 l
I-123 0.00003 Percent I-125 0.002 Perrent i I-131 0.003 Percent
- d. Total Facility Release of Radiohalogens
- 1. Total facility radiohalogen releases Br-82 15,717 Ci 1-123 89,296 pCi I-125 8,074 Ci I-131 6,449 Ci i
I 13 '
4 Report of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor January 1 - December 31,1996 l 2. Average concentration released l Quantity Unit l
!- j l
Br-82 3.0x 10'" pCi/ml )
j I-123 1.7x 10-' Ci/ml I
I-125 1.3x 10 " pCi/ml l ,
j I-131 1.1x 10'" Ci/ml I 4 1
- 3. Percent of ECL without the dilution factor.
l Br-82 0.59 Percent i I-123 0.85 Percent I-125 4.36 Percent i
! I-131 5.25 Percent
- TOTAL 11.05 Percent
- 4. Percent of ECL with factor of 400 dilution factor.
Br-82 0.001 Percent !
j I-123 0.002 Percent :
- 1-125 0.011 Percent L I-131 0.013 Percent ,
i i- TOTAL 0.028 Percent '
! 6.3 Particulate Releases ,
Particulate activity for nuclides with half lives greater than eight days i L j a. Total gross radioactivity. 327 pCi
- . b. Average concentration. 5.2x 10
{
pCi/ml
- c. Percent of I ECL (1.0x10-i2 pCi/ml) 52.4 Percent without dilution factor.
- d. Percent of ECL with 400 dilution 0.131 Percent '
factor. j Gross alpha activity is required to be measured if the operational or experimental )
- program could result in the release of alpha emitters
- e. Gross alpha radioactivity l Not Required l }
l 6.4 Liquid Emuents No radioactive effluents were released from the facility in 1996.
14
O
- Report of Reactor Operations
, Ford Nuclear Reactor knuary 1 - December 31,1996 i 6.5 Accident Evaluation Monitoring
! The accident evaluation monitors program for the Ford Nuclear Reactor facility 1- consists of direct radiation monitors (TLD) and air sampling stations located around
, the facility and selected water and sewer sampling stations.
i L a. TLD Monitors )
i TLDs located at stations to the north (lawn adjacent to the reactor building), )
- cast (Beal Avenue), south (Glazier Way), and west (School of Music) of the ;
it reactor facility are collected and sent to a commercial dosimetry company for analysis. The TLD technology has been changed from the lithium fluoride type to the more sensitive alummum oxide composition.
1 ,
Station Description Annual Dose Unit Lawn (N) 118 mrem Fluids (NNE)* 120 mrem l Beal (E) 107 miem j Glazier Way (S) 109 mrem School of Music (W) 100 miem i Background (UM Botanical Gardens) 107 mrem 1
)
- Annual dose estimated due to missing dosimeter (01/01/96 to 03/30/96).
Background is taken at a distance in excess of one mile from the reactor at The University of Michigan Botanical Gardens. None of the average readings for the indicator locations were statistically distinguishable from the background readings. Thus, the average dose at all the monitor locations is reported as zero,
- b. Dust Samples Four air grab samples are collected weekly from continuously operating monitors located to the north (Northwood Apartments), east (Industrial and Operations Engineering), south (Institute of Science and Technology), and west (Media Union) of the reactor facility. Each filter sample is counted for net beta activity. There are 42 samples included in this report. Background (University of Michigan Botanical Gardens) has not been subtracted from the mean radioactivity concentrations shown below.
Mean Station Description Concentration Unit '
Northwood (N) 2.4x 10"* Ci/ml Industrial and Operations Engineering (E) 2Ax 10"' Ci/mi Media Union (W) 2.0x 10"* Ci/ml i Institute of Science and Technology 2.3x 10"* Ci/ml !
Environmental Control.(Background) 2.6x 10"* Ci/ml 15
. l
. Report of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor January 1 - December 31,1996 -
l The result of air sampling expressed in percentages of the Effluent -
Concentration Limit are shown below.
Mean .
Station Description Concentration Unit -!
Northwood (N) 2.4 Percent Industrial and Operations Engineering (E) 2.4 Percent ,
Media Union (W) 2.0 Percent ;
Institute of Science and Technology 2.3 Percent Environmental Control (Background) 2.6 Percent -
l All of the sample concentrations were lower than the environmental control i station. Thus, the net values for concentration and percent of effluent ;
concentration limit are zero.
- c. Water Samples I
?
Since the fxility does not release any liquid radioactive effluents, the water ,
sample data is not applicable and is not included.
- d. Sewage Samples ;
1-Since the facility does not release any liquid radioactive effluents, the sewage sample data is not applicable and is not included.
- e. Maximum Cumulative Radiation Dose j The maximum cumulative radiation dose which could have been received by l an individual continuously present in an unrestricted area during reactor :
operations from direct radiation exposure, exposure to gaseous effluents, and exposure to liquid effluents:
- 1. Direct radiation exposure to such an individual is negligible since a survey of occupied areas around the reactor building shows insignificant radiation dose rates above background from the reactor.
I l
l l
l 1
1b
1
!, Report of Reactor Operations ;
Ford Nuclear Reactor January 1 - December 31,19%
- 2. Airbome Effluents f
. The airborne effluents from the reactor and the contiguous :
laboratory facility are as follows:
l Total Percent ofECL ,
Isotope Release Concentration Undiluted Diluted i
( Ci) (pCi/ml) ;
4 4'Ar 3.58x107 1.07x10 1,073 2.68 ;
s2 Br 15,717 3.0x 10 " 0.59 0.001 :
i2'I 89,296 1.7x 10" 0.85 0.002 !
i25 I 8,074 1.3x 10'" 4.36- 0.011 1
I 6,449 1. Ix 10'" 5.25 0.013 i Gross 327 5.2x 10 52.4 0.131 i Particulate TOTAL 1,136 2.84 ,
The total airborne effluent releases are well within the allowed release concentrations when the conservative dilution factor of 400 is applied.
l
- 3. Liquid Effluents j The annual dose from liquid effluu ts is zero since this facility does '
not release any liquid radioactive effluents. j
- f. Iflevels of radioactive materials in environmental media, as determined by an environmental monitoring program, -
indicate the likelihood of public intake in excess of 1% of those that could result from continuous exposure to the concentration values listed in Appendix B, Table 2, ,
10CFR20, estimate the likely resultant exposure to l individuals and to population groups and the assumptions o upon which those estimates are based. j Exposure of the general public to 1 ECL would result in a whole body dose of 50 mrem. The maximum public dose based on gaseous effluent releases of 2.84% ECL is 1.4 mrem. This dose is based on a member of the public continuously breathing airborne radioactivity at the point of minimum dilution near the reactor building.
6.6 . Occupational Personnel Radiation Exposures i
Two hundred and twenty five facility personnel were provided personal radiation i dosimeters. Individuals for whom extremity monitoring was provided received TLD ring dosimeters for each hand. No radiation exposures greater than 50 mrem were received at the facility by individuals under the age of 18. There are no declared pregnant females at the facility.
I l
I i
i 17 i
. ~ - _ - . . . . - _ _ , . _ - _ _ . . _ - . . . .. - , . - . . - . ...... . . . . - .
l Report of Reactor Operations Ford Nuclear Reactor ;
January 1 - December 31,1996 1
A summary of whole body exposures for the year is as follows: ;
Estimated Whole Body (DDE) Number ofIndividuals j Exoosure Range (rem) in Each Ranee i
No measurable exposure 166 I i
Measurable exposure:
l less than 0.10 34 0.10 - 0.25 11 0.25 - 0.50 10 l
0.50 - 0.75 1 j 0.75 - 1.00 1 1.00 - 1.25 2 Greater than 1.25 0 Total 225 Maximum individual whole body exposure: 1.14 rem DDE Facility total " deep" whole body exposure: 9.40 rem DDE Mean " deep" whole body exposure: 42 mrem DDE 1
j l
l l
1 l 1 1
I' 18 1
l t
I
_ . - -