ML20138M151

Annual Rept,1996 Il Advanced Triga

ML20138M151
Person / Time
Site:	University of Illinois
Issue date:	12/31/1996
From:	Holm R, Bradley Jones ILLINOIS, UNIV. OF, URBANA, IL
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9702250280
Download: ML20138M151 (11)

Text

1

\\

University of Illinois Departm:nt of College of Engineering

~

i Nucli;a Enginrring at Urbana-Champaign 214 Nuclear Engineering 217 333-2295 1

Laboratory 217 333-2906 fax 103 South Goodwin Avenue Urbana, IL 61801-2984 Februaiy 14,1997 Docket No 50-151 U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Conunission ATrN: Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

ANNUAL REPORT: Illinois Advanced TRIGA Reactor License No. R-115 / Docket No. 50-151 The following is written to comply with the requirements of section 6 7.f of the Technical Specifications and the conditions of 10CFR50.59. The outline of the report follows the numbered sequence of section 6.7.f of the Technical Specifications.

Sincerely,

)

./+/

YA

~

Richard L. Holm J

Reactor Administrator

]

1 l

j)

S Mrclay G. Jones,ffead //

Departrnent of Fuclear Er@ncering c: Regional Administrator, Region 111, USNRC Nuclear Reactor Committee American Nuclear Insurers File b

f Page1 of1I 2500so 9702250200 961231 ADOCK0500g1 DR

STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF CHAMPAIGN Richard L. Holm, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he has affixed his signature to the letter above in his official capacity as Reactor Supervisor, University ofillinois Nuclear Reactor Laboratory; that in accordance with the provisions of Part 50, Chapter 1, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, he is attaching this affidavit; that the facts set forth in the within letter are true to his best information and belief.

we

^

RTchard L. Holm

~"

Reactor Administrator Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and for the County of Champaign, State ofIllinois, thisc7(2[ day of [AlvizaLo,

. A.D.,1997.

U~

Nichb8.04 2-i9-acoo Ng{ary Public ofIllinois h

My Conunission Expires OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN M. DYSART

' NOTARY PUBLIC,8 TATE OFILLINOIS

,WYCOMMitBION EXPlRES 819 2000 i Page 2 of11 l

ANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1,1996-DECEMBER 31,1996 j

ILLINOIS ADVANCED TRIGA FACILITY LICENSE R-115 1.

SUMMARY

OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE A. Summary of Usaae During 1996 the reactor was operated an average of 15.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per week. Operations consisted of normalirradiations and training.

CATEGORY PERCENT OF OPERATION 1

Research Projects 14.6 %

Irradiations 65.4 %

Education & Training 15.0%

Maintenance & Measurements 5.0%

Presently there are four individuals with a Senior Operator License. The facility operates with a 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> week schedule, a staff of 4.0 full time equivalent operators and one full time reactor health physicist.

B. Performance Characteristics

1. Fuel Element Lenath and Diameter Measurgments These checks were made on the B and C rings during the month of January. The pulse number at the time of the checks was 11.397. For the eighteen elements in these rings, there was an average increase in the length of about 18.5 mils over the original installed i

measurements. The accuracy of a given measurement is estimated at 15 mils. There was no measurable change in the diameter of the fuel elements checked.

'i There were 56 pulses in 1996, bringing the total since 1969 to 11,397. For a standard $3.00 pulse, the values for pulse height, reactor period and fuel temperature were consistent with

)

those measured in previous years.

2. Reactivity Control Rods: The measured reactivity values have not changed significantly due to fuel insertions and movements. The relative worth of each rod has maintained approximately the same as previous values.

Core Reactivity: The net loss of reactivity attributed to fuel burnup during the year was

$0.45. This value was determined by a comparison of the cold critical xenon-free control rod position at the beginning and at the end of the year and correcting for core reactivity gained by the addition and movement of fuel during the year. A certain inaccuracy is inserted here Page 3 of 11

2 in that the rod worth calibrations are performed in April and October. As the period since the calibration has been performed lengthens the inaccuracy obviously increases.

)

1 II.

TABULATION OF ENERGY AND PULSING A. Hours Critical *- Enerav - Pulsina J

Hours Critical = 822 Energy (MW-hrs) = 406

1. of Pulses = 56

• Because of the type of operation, the Hours Critical time includes the time during continuous pulsed operation between pulses when the reactor is not critical in the normal sense.

111.

REACTOR SCRAMS There were 169 unplanned scrams and no emergency shutdowns during this time period. These scrams were attributed to instrument Malfunction (153), Operator / Operator Trainee Error (1) and Extemal Causes (15). This is increased quite a bit from 1995. The majority of these scrams are due to problems with the General Atomics digital control console.

Instrument Malfunction (163)

NPP-1000 Percent Power (6): This is a power level scram required by Technical Specifications.

it occurs when the signal exceeds about 108% of rated power. This scram occurred due to noise spikes.

CSC/DAC Watchdoa Scram (141) : This scram is required by the Technical Specifications.

These scrams occurred due to the Control System Console screen locking up and thus causing the watchdog circuit to time out and initiate a scram. The initiation of this scram has various manifestations with little pattem to assist troubleshooting. Various methods have been tried to 4

reduce the frequency of these scrams with little success.

DAC DIS 064 Time-out (2) : This scram is not required by Technical Specifications. This scram occurs when input tu the DIS 064 board does not occur at the proper interval.

Database Time-out (4): This scram is not required by Technical Specifications. This scram occurs if for some reason the CSC computer cannot talk to its database. This scram usually occurs in conjunction with a CSC/DAC watchdog scram.

External Causes (14) l Electrical Noise (8): One (1) Primary Flow Scram occurred due to noise in the secondary control panel. Three (3) high tank level scrams and four (4) low tank level scrams occurred due to a noise problem in the relay circuit. Subsequent cleaning and replacement of a relay seems to have resolved this problem.

4 i

Page 4 of i1

=

Loss of Secondary Flow Scram (1): One (1) scram was caused by a loss of secondary flow with power greater than 1.0 MW due to a flow oscillation when the diverting valve was opened that sends flow to the cooling towers.

Loss of Electrical Power (5): Five (5) scrams occurred due to loss of electrical power to the console.

Ooerator Error (1)

Primary Flow Scram (1): One (1) scram was caused by no primary flow prior to attempting to take reactor power greater than 1.0 MW. The operator was conducting a laboratory exercise in natural circulation that requires the reactor to be taken close to 1 MW and had a power spike due to rod movement that caused power to momentarily exceed 1 MW and hence cause a scram.

IV.

MAINTENANCE 11 is estimated that about 700 hours0.0081 days <br />0.194 hours <br />0.00116 weeks <br />2.6635e-4 months <br /> were spent on maintenance related activities. These hours account for time spent carrying out repairs and scheduled surveillance activities. The significant items of maintenance are given below.

NM-1000 Troubleshootina: The NM-1000 has a considerable amount of noise in the output that various methods have been tried to correct with little success.

Console Lockun Troubleshootina: The control console locks up with great regularity causing reactor scrams. Troubleshooting continues in this area but is hobbled by the design of the n

system and availability of support.

Fast Transient Rod Failure: In December the Fast Transient Rod failed due to a breakage of the connecting rod that passes through the dashpot assembly. Upon removal of the rod it was also

.)

found to have a wear spot on the upper section of the borated graphite portion of the rod that had

i wom through the cladding. This necessitated construction of a new control rod.

Bulk Shieldino Facility: Due to a leak that developed in the Bulk Shielding Facility it was decided to pump the facility dry, repair and re-paint it. The cracks in the concrete were sealed and the facility recoated with two layers of epoxy paint. Allindications are that this sealed up the leak.

V.

CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 50.59 OF 10CFR50 in 1996 three analysis were performed under the auspices of a 50.59 review.

Installation of a Bottom Fittina on Ten (10) Northrop Elements: This 50.59 provided for adapting ten Northrop TRIGA elements for use in the Advanced TRIGA. An adapter was manufactured that provided a bottom fitting similar to the ones on our standard TRIGA Fuel elements that could be mounted on the Northrop elements which only have a pin on the bottom of the element.

Review for the Installation of a System Particulate. lodine and Noble Gas (SPING) Detector:

This review provided for the installation of a SPING in the effluent monitoring system.

Page5of11

___._._--m 1

I Review for the Modification to the Retention Tank Discharue System & Review for inMe!!etion of a 6 filter Assembly in the Liould Effluent Discharoe System: These reviews involved replumbing the retention tank discharge system and adding filters in order to meet solubility criteria for discharge to the sanitary sewer, i

. VI. Release of Radioactive Material

)

A. Gaseous Effluents

1) d'&

a. The average concentration released via the Exhaust Stack was 1.4 E-7 Ci/ml.

l

~

b. The total activity released was 5,247 mci or 5.2 Cl.

c. The monthly range of activity released was 65 to 1,187 mci.

. 2) 'd The estimated release of H (Tritium) to the Reactor Building atmosphere (and consequently.

out the Exhaust Stack) from the evaporation of water in the TRIGA and LOPRA Reactor Tanks was 2.363 mCl. This was based on the measure of the activity of 'H in the TRIGA tank (LOPRA makeup water is supplied from the TRIGA tank) multiplied by the total volume of makeup water additions since the tanks were last sampled (yearly) calculated as follows:

4 concentration of the TRIGA tank (7.5E Ci/mi) multiplied by the evaporative loss volume 7

(3.15 E mi) equals 2363 Ci or 2.363 mCl. The Average Concentration released via the 2

Exhaust Stack is calculated as follows: assume an average stack flow of 1200 fpm

• 2 ft =

g 2400 ft'/ min

• 2.83 E' ml/ft = 6.792 E ml/ min

• 5.256 E min /yr = 3.57 E' ml/yr. Then,2363 H

7 l

Ci estimated release divided by 3.57 E" ml = 6.6 E-"

Ci/ml Average Concentration.

3) Fission Product Releases from "Mo Experiments Trace amounts of gaseous and volatile fission products were released in conjunction with a d

Molybdenum production experiment. A 20% enriched Uranium metal target is dissolved in i

acid, sealed in quartz and irradiated. After the irradiation, the sample is then transferred to a i

Glove box for the separation procedure. An eight inch ventilation connection is ducted to a 1

HEPA ventilation system and then to the building exhaust system. Once the quartz vial is j

opened, the Oaseous and volatile fission products are released to the glove box, exhausted through the HEPA ventilation system, and then to the building exhaust system and out the stack. The safety analysis report for the experiment also allows for the irradiation of a solid target with the dissolution and Molybdenum separation performed in the Glove box. There were three such experiments performed in 1996. An amendment to the experimental safety analysis allowed for additional experiments to be performed utilizing a solid depleted uranium sample in the same manner the solid 20% enriched uranium target was used. One such experiment was performed in 1996. The fission product inventory for each experiment was calculated using the computer code ORIGEN. It is assumed that the entire inventory of Krypton, Xenon, and iodine is released. Gamma Spectroscopy of the target after irradiation has shown that only approximately 40 to 60% of the lodine isotopes are actually released, however it is assumed that the entire inventory is released to be conservative. For each Page 6 of i1 1

isotope released as a result of this project in 1996, the total activity and average concentration are shown in the table below:

Fission Products From "MO Project isotope Total Ci Ave Conc. (pCi/ml) 1-129 1.43E-14 4.00453E 22 1-130 2.53E-08 7.08738E-16 l-131 4.63E-05 1.2967E-12 1-132 0.000174 4.86264E-12 1-133 0.000674 1.88785E-11 1-134 1.35E-07 3.78205E-15 l-135 0.000535 1.49693E-11 Xe-129m 9.18E-14 2.57116E 21 Xe-131m 1.32E-08 3.68671E-16 Xe-133 0.000127 3.55958E-12 Xe-133m 7.46E-06 2.08808E-13 Xe-135 0.000941 2.63473E-11 Xe-135m 8.17E-05 2.2883E-12 Kr-81 3.53E-21 9.88419E-29 Kr -83m 1.69E-05 4.73551E-13 Kr-85 1.09E-08 3.04471 E-16 Kr-85m 6.75E-05 1.89103E-12

,)

Kr-87 4.73E-07 1.32531E-14 Kr-88 5.66E-05 1.58592E-12

4) Summary of Gaseous Effluents Released A Summary of all gaseous effluents for 1996 (Sections 1+2+3 above) is shown in the following table, which includes for each isotope; the total activity released, the average concentration, A

the 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 2 limit, and the fraction of the limit released. The sum of the fractions for all isotopes released is listed at the end of the table.

Isotope Total Cl Ave Conc. ( Ci/ml)

App. B Table 2 limit Ave. Conc. / limit 1-129 1.4E-14 4.00453E-22 4.00E-11 1 E-11 l-130 2.5E-08 7.08738E-16 3.00E-09 2.36E-07 l-131 4.6E-05 1.2967E-12 2.00E-10 0.006484 l-132 0.00017 -

4.86264E-12 2.00E-08 0.000243 j

1-133 0.00067 1.88785E-11 1.00E-09 0.018878 1-134 1.4E-07 3.78205E-15 6.00E-08 6.3E-08 l-135 0.00053 1.49693E-11 6.00E-09 0.002495 Xe-129m 9.2E 2.57116E-21 9.00E-07 2.86E-15 Xe-131m 1.3E-08 3.68671 E-16 2.00E-06 1.84E-10 Xe-133 0.00013 3.55958E-12 5.00E-07 7.12E-06 Xe-133m 7.5E-06 2.08808E-13 6.00E-07 3.48E-07 i

Xe-135 0.00094 2.63473E-11 7.00E-08 0.000376 l

Page 7 of 11

Xe-135m 8.2E-05 2.2883E-12 4.00E-08 5.72E-05 Kr-81 3.5E-21 9.88419E-29 3.00E-06 3.29E-23 Kr -83m 1.7E-05 4.73551E-13 5.00E-05 9.47E-09 Kr-85 1.1 E-08 3.04471E-16 7.00E-07 4.35E-10 Kr-85m 6.8E-05 1.89103E-12 1.00E-07 1.89E-05 Kr-87 4.7E-07 1.32531E-14 2.00E-08 6.63E-07 Kr-88 5.7E-05 1.58592E-12 9.00E-09 0.000176 Ar-41 5.2 1.40E-07 2.00E-06

• 0.07 H3 2.36E-03 6.60E-11 4.00E-08 0 00165 Sum =

0.100387 < 1.0

• Ar-41 Concentration Limit is specified by the facility Technical Specifications.

B. Liauid Effluent

1) Waste Water dischamed to the municipal sanitary sewer system Waste Water is cMW.ed in the Reactor Building Retention Tank and sampled prior to, and during discharge. The water is passed through a 0.45 micron process filter with the outboard isolation valve closed and a pre-release sample is colheted and counted separately for soluble and insoluble activity. If the results are satisfactory then the contents of the tank are discharged to the municipal sanitary sewer system through the same 0.45 micron process filter with the outboard isolation valve open and a post-release sample is collected and counted separately for soluble and insoluble activity. This procedure was followed until a detectable amount of insoluble activity was identified in a post-release sample on 4/12/96. The NRC was notified and a report submitted in a timely fashion. The total insoluble beta-gamma activity released was 0.084 Ci at a concentration of 8.9 E'8 Ci/ml(MDA = of 4.1 E'8 Ci/ml).

Subsequent to this event, in May 1996, the system was modified and a Holdup Tank was placed downstream of the Retention Tank and upstream of the outboard isolation valve. The discharge procedure was revised and additional process filter assemblies were added. As a result of these changes the water from the Retention Tank now passes through a coarse and a fine filter assembly on route to the Holdup Tank where it is sampled. It is not released from the Holdup Tank into the mualcipal sanitary sewer system until the results are satisfactory and it is verified that no insoluble aglivity is present, if insoluble activity is detected before the discharge then the contents of the Holdup Tank can be recirculated through a 0.4 micron process filter until the insoluble activity has been removed and it is verified that no insoluble activity is present.

The Average Concentration of all soluble beta-gamma activity released in 1996 was 7.6 E Ci/ml.

This is well below the 10 CFR 20, App. B, Table 3, " Releases to Sewers" limit of 9.0 E

Ci/ml for I

the most restrictive isotope not known to be absent, *Cs. The Average Concentration aH d

released concurrently with the above was 1.3 E Cl/ml. This is well below the 10 CFR 20

• release to sewer" limit of 1.0 E.2 Ci/ml for H.

2) Waste Water discharaed to the Environment Also in May 1996 leak repairs became necessary on the Bulk Shielding Facility, a 2,880 Gallon Tank that formerly contained the LOPRA Reactor. This water was sampled, counted and compared to the 10 CFR 20, App. B, Table 2, " Effluent Concentrations", Col. 2 limits prior to this one time Page 8 of i1

9 9

j 1

i 4

I release. The Average Concentration of all beta-gamma ac"vity released was < 4.6 E Cl/rM. This 7

is well below the 10 CFR 20, App. B Table 2,

• Effluent Concentrations", Col. 2 limit of 9.0 ',T Cl/ml for the most restrictive isotope not known to be absent. *Cs. The Average Conceritation 'H 4

released concurrently with the above was 5.9 E Ci/mt. This is well below the 10 CFR,.0, /(pp. B, Table 2, " Effluent Concentrations", Col. 2 limit of 1.0 E

Ci/mi for 'H.

Vll. Environmental Surveys Continuous Radiation Monitoring utilizing Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs) supplied by a vendor (Landauer, Inc.) was conducted at the Site Boundary and in the surroun6ag Environs.

j A. Site Boundary The site boundary is established at the Reactor Building Walls with extenvons at the fence around the Cooling Towers and the perimeter of the roof over the Mechenical Equiprnent Room.

This is also defined as the boundary between the Restricted and Unrest (cted Areas. The average annual dose at this perimeter was 119 mrem with a range of 40 mRer' to 260 mrem. However, pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1302 (b) (1) an Annual Site Boundary Dose Cr/culation for Members of the Public, based on Occupancy Time, was performed. The highest mlculated dose at the site boundary for 1996 was 0.7 mrem for the Year. These calculations tre maintained and updated in the files of the Reactor Health Physicist.

B. Surroundina Environs The Environs and University Owned Buildings in near proximity t! the Reactor Building were monitored. The average dose recorded was 31 mrem with man) locations equal to or less than j

the Lower Limit of Detection (LLD = 10 mrem / Quarter). The higi est location reading for 1996 i

was 90 mrem for the year.

Vill. Personnel Radiation Exposure and Surveys within the Facility A. Personnel Exposure

1) Whole Body A total of 11 individuals who were assigned Film Badges at he facility received a measurable

[

exposure (LLD = 10 mrem / month). There were 4 full time employees working 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> / week, and 2 students working 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> / week. All others averaged ess than 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> / week in the facility. The badges are read by Landauer, Inc.; a National h oluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredited Dosimetry Vendor. The table and explanations below outline the Whole Body Dose received by all 11 individuals who remived a measurable exposure.

Whole Body Exposure (mrem)

' Number of Individuals 10 to 100 8

> 100 to 250 3

> 250 0

Total 11 l

ManRem Total: 0.750 Averace: 68 mrem j

Page 9 of i1 o

c l

s Summary: The highest individual Whole Body Exposures were 160,150, and 130 mrem. These exposures were received by the Reactor Health Physicist and two Assistants. All of these exposures were received as a result of handling radioisotopes, radwaste, and/or experimental devices.

I

2) Extremity Exposure l

l ManRem Total: 3.260 Averaae: 326 mrem. No individual approached within a significant l

percentage of the Annual Limit for Extremity Exposure so no further discussion is warranted.

l l

3) Skin Dose i

i There were no significant deviations between the Shallow Dose and Deep Dose reported by l

the vendor for any personnel.

l l

4) Intemal Exposure There were no incidents or events that required investigation or assessment of intemal exposure. Contamination levels are acceptably low and areas few (see B. below). There were no evolutions performed or events that occurred which caused, or could have caused,'he presence of Airbome Radioactivity.

5) Visitor Exposures All visitors received < 2 mrem and most recorded exposures by Electronic Pocket Dosimeter (EPD) were 0 mrem.

l B. Contamination Surveys l

Smear surveys from various locations around the laboratory were taken Routinely; weekly, monthly, and quarter 1y as appropriate to the area of concern; and Specifically; to assess experimental devices, tools and equipment, potentially contaminated areas, or to evaluate adverse trends. The removable contamination was determined by counting the smears on an Eberline BC-4 Beta Counter, RM-14/HP-210T, and/or a SAC-4 Scintillation Alpha Counter.

l The maximum gross Beta / Gamma Contamination was usually found in the two posted contamination areas where irradiated sample containers are handled. There were [(XXXX))

samples irradiated and handled during the year. In the sample unloading bin (1.5 ft ) the average 2

2 removable activity was 25K dpm/100 cm with a high of 204K dpm/100 cm. This area was 2

immediately decontaminated when removable activity exceeded 100K dpm/100 cm. In the 2

2 sample preparation area (5 ft ) the average removable activity was 3,700 dpm/100 cm with a 2

liip)h of 28K dpm/100 cm. The balance of the posted contamination area, the reactor br 2

ft, had average removable activity of 300 dpm/100 cm. Smears from other areas of the 2

laboratory, within the restricted area, were less than 330 dpm/100 cm. In the Control Room and other clean areas, outside the restricted area, the maximum detectable contamination was less 2

l than or equal to a Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) of 75 dpm/100 cm,

Routine surveys for Alpha Contamination were all less than or equal to a MDA of 18 dpm/100 2

i cm,

Page 10 of 11 i

I l

I l

s.'

4 I

Total contaminated surface area = 18 ft2 I

IX. Nuclear Reactor Committee Dr. David Miller (Illinois Power Company and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering) i i

continued as Chairman of the Nuclear Reactor Committee for the 1996-1997 Academic Year. The l

l following members remained on the Committee. Mr. Daniel Hang (Professor Emeritus of Nuclear l

Engineering), Dr. Brent Heuser (Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering), Dr. De Wu (Nuclear i

Engineering Visiting Resident Scientist), Mr. David Scherer (Campus Radiation Safety Officer), Mr.

Rich Holm (Reactor Administrator), and Mr. Mark Kaczor (Reactor Health Physicist and ex-officio member). Dr. Magdi Ragheb (Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering) was replaced by Dr. Erik Wiener (Assistant Professor of Nuclear Engineering).

The committee held 6 meetings during the calendar year. Major topics reviewed were: Reactor Operations, Surveillance, and Health Physics Procedures and Activities; NRC Annual Report, inspection Report, and a Technical Specification Required Report [see Section VI.B.1) above);

Biennial Review of the Physical Security Plan; 50.59 Reviews for, Installation of bottom fittings on Northrup Fuel Elements, Modification to the Retention Tank discharge system and installation of a six filter assembly, and installation of a System Particulate, lodine, and Noble Gas (SPING) detector; Safety Evaluations and Amendments for experiments, such as, Radiation Darnage on Optical Fibers, "Mo Production Project, and Neutron Scattering Research; Reactor Committee Audit of Operations; Peer Review Audit; Annual Review of the Radiation Protection and ALARA Programs; LOPRA Reactor Annual Report and Decommissioning documents; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Annual Effluent Release Report; Occupancy Time / Dose Calculations for the Site Boundary; and the Emergency Plan Exercise Critique Report.

l Page11 of11 l

l l