|
|
Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | number = ML20148D815 | | | number = ML20148D815 |
| | issue date = 10/13/1978 | | | issue date = 10/13/1978 |
| | title = Safety Evaluation Rept Supporting Amend#26 to Facil Oper Lic#R-28 Concluding That an Increase from 1 Mw to 2 Mw in Maximum Allowed Pwr of Fnr w/10-plate Fuel Assemblies in E,W & Core Positions Is Acceptable | | | title = Safety Evaluation Rept Supporting Amend 26 to Facil Oper Lic R-28 Concluding That an Increase from 1 Mw to 2 Mw in Maximum Allowed Pwr of Fnr w/10-plate Fuel Assemblies in E,W & Core Positions Is Acceptable |
| | author name = | | | author name = |
| | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR) | | | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR) |
Safety Evaluation Rept Supporting Amend 26 to Facil Oper Lic R-28 Concluding That an Increase from 1 Mw to 2 Mw in Maximum Allowed Pwr of Fnr w/10-plate Fuel Assemblies in E,W & Core Positions Is AcceptableML20148D815 |
Person / Time |
---|
Site: |
University of Michigan |
---|
Issue date: |
10/13/1978 |
---|
From: |
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
---|
To: |
|
---|
Shared Package |
---|
ML20148D805 |
List: |
---|
References |
---|
NUDOCS 7811060019 |
Download: ML20148D815 (3) |
|
|
---|
Category:SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT--LICENSING & RELATED ISSUES
MONTHYEARML20151Z2701998-09-17017 September 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 45 to License R-28 ML20217K8811998-04-23023 April 1998 Corrected First Page of Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 44 to License R-28,changing Date in First Paragraph to 970930 & Date in Second Paragraph to Oct 1996 ML20216J3501998-04-16016 April 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 44 to License R-28 ML20245F9791989-08-0404 August 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 33 to License R-28 ML20236U2031987-11-24024 November 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 32 to License R-28 ML20141N1111986-02-24024 February 1986 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 31 to License R-28 ML20136G8911985-11-0505 November 1985 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 30 to License R-28 ML20148D8151978-10-13013 October 1978 Safety Evaluation Rept Supporting Amend 26 to Facil Oper Lic R-28 Concluding That an Increase from 1 Mw to 2 Mw in Maximum Allowed Pwr of Fnr w/10-plate Fuel Assemblies in E,W & Core Positions Is Acceptable ML20148C8061978-10-12012 October 1978 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 25 to License R-28 1998-09-17
[Table view] Category:TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
MONTHYEARML20210P3051999-08-0505 August 1999 Ro:On 990708,credible Single Failure in SR Temp Sys Could Result in Loss of Capability of Temp Sys to Protect Limiting Safety Sys Settings.Single Failure Is Loss of 15 V DC Power Supply.Mod Request 134 to Temp Sys Was Submitted ML20209E9771999-07-0808 July 1999 Preliminary Rept of non-routine Occurence Re Identification of Possible Single Failure for Safety Related Temperature Sys on 990706.Low Temperature Auto Rundown Proposed & Problem Rept Initiated to Document Review of Event ML20205B0631998-12-31031 December 1998 Rept of Reactor Operations for Jan-Dec 1998 for Ford Nuclear Reactor Michigan Memorial - Phoenix Project Univ of Michigan,Ann Arbor. with ML20206P3021998-12-31031 December 1998 Revised Rept of Reactor Operations for Jan-Dec 1998 for Ford Nuclear Reactor Michigan Memorial - Phoenix Project Univ of Mi,Ann Arbor ML20196B2091998-11-25025 November 1998 RO Update:On 981028,reactor Was Shutdown Upon Discovery That RB Ventilation Dampers Would Not Automatically Close.Damper Cylinder Was Repaired on 981102 & Reactor Operation Resumed on 981103 ML20155J1131998-10-29029 October 1998 Part 21 Rept Re Failure of EDs to Automatically Close.Cause Due to Discovery That Air Cylinder That Operates RB Ventilation Supply & EDs Was Hanging Up.Reactor Will Remain Shut Down Until Damper Cylinder Is Repaired ML20154J6761998-10-0909 October 1998 RO 20:on 980925,Reactor Operators Made Error at Ford Nuclear Reactor in Implementing Calorimetry Procedures to Raise Power Level.Upon Discovery of Error Made in Linear Level Setpoint Reactor Power Was Reduced by 1% to Compensate ML20153H0841998-09-28028 September 1998 Special Rept:On 980925,inadequate Procedure Implementation Resulted in Possible steady-state Reactor Operation at 2.02 MW Thermal Power.Interim Reactor Manager Reviewed Calorimeter Data & Did Not See Any Obvious Errors ML20151Z2701998-09-17017 September 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 45 to License R-28 ML20151Z1571998-09-17017 September 1998 Revised Ro:On 980817,980811 Event Re Slow Inward Drift of CR Reoccurred.Caused by Worn Worm Gear & Missing Full Turn of Worm Thread.Installed & Tested Drive Gear Coupling. Previously Submitted Ltr Rept Dtd 980911,deleted Text ML20151W6391998-09-11011 September 1998 Special Rept:On 980811,swing Shift Operators Noted That CR Would Slowly Drift Inwards When in Manual Control with CR low-raise Switch in Neutral.Cr lower-raise Switch Was Removed,Inspected & Cleaned,Then Reinstalled & Tested ML20236W0781998-07-30030 July 1998 RO 19:on 980720,determined That Reactor Was Operating W/ Inoperable Alarm Circuit on Bridge Radiation Monitor.Caused by Spurious Alarms Due to Temp & Humidity Sensitivity. Maint Procedures CP-216 & CP-219 Were Modified ML20236T0741998-07-23023 July 1998 Non-routine Rept:On 971112,reactor Operators Shut Down Ford Nuclear Reactor to Remove Piece of Polyethylene Irradiation Container.Caused by Lack of Oversight.Method Will Be Adopted to Track Quartz & Polyethylene Samples ML20236T0801998-07-23023 July 1998 Development of Model Characterizing Heat Transfer in MTR Fueled Ford Nuclear Reactor ML20236S2921998-07-20020 July 1998 RO-19:on 980720,reactor Operation w/in-operable Alarm Circuit on Bridge Radiation Monitor,Was Disabled.Caused by Spurious Alarms Due to Temperature & Humidity Sensitivity. Reactor Shutdown Pending Further Investigation ML20248L5931998-06-0303 June 1998 Ro:On 980510,discovered 75 Gallon Loss of Pool Water to Radioactive Liquid Retention Tank Sys.Caused by Leak in One of Two Resin Columns Comprising B Hot Demineralizer (Hot Di) Sys.Modified Operating Procedure OP-211 Encl ML20217K8811998-04-23023 April 1998 Corrected First Page of Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 44 to License R-28,changing Date in First Paragraph to 970930 & Date in Second Paragraph to Oct 1996 ML20216J3501998-04-16016 April 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 44 to License R-28 ML20217H1891997-12-31031 December 1997 Rept of Reactor Operations Jan-Dec 1997 for Ford Michigan Memorial - Phoenix Project Univ of Mi Ann Arbor ML20137F2251996-12-31031 December 1996 Rept of Reactor Operation Jan-Dec 1996 for Ford Nuclear Reactor Mi Memorial - Phoenix Project Univ of Mi Ann Arbor ML20137K7671996-12-31031 December 1996 Annual Rept of Reactor Operations for Period 960101-1231 ML20057F4521993-10-0606 October 1993 Follow-up on RO 18,dtd 930805 Re Release of low-level Radioactive Water from RB to Drain Tiles Around Foundation of Bldg.Line from Foundation Tiles Drains to Reactor Cold Sump,Through Which Water Released Permanently Sealed ML20059M3161993-08-0101 August 1993 Rev 2 to Safety Analysis ML20128D4641992-11-25025 November 1992 Ro:On 921124,control Rod Interlock Sys Removed from Reactor Control Sys.Caused by Wiring Error Made During Mod That Disabled Interlock That Drops Reactor Out of Automatic Control.Control Rod Withdrawn to 23 Inches ML20058N7841990-08-0606 August 1990 RO 13:on 900721,tritium Content in Heavy Water Tank in Excess of 50 Ci.Samples Sent to Kms Fusion.Health Physics Procedure 107 Corrected to Reflect Correct Density of Heavy Water ML20055H1141990-07-18018 July 1990 Requalification Program Ford Nuclear Reactor ML20245F9791989-08-0404 August 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 33 to License R-28 ML20246F3881989-05-0303 May 1989 RO 12:on 881227,concentrations of I-131 & Xe-133 Discovered in Reactor Pool Water.Caused by B&W Element 204 Releasing Fission Products.B&W Contacted to Review Mfg Process.Air Samples Will Be Taken Above Pool on Monthly Basis ML20150C6951987-12-31031 December 1987 Rept of Reactor Operations,1987 ML20236U2031987-11-24024 November 1987 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 32 to License R-28 ML20141N1111986-02-24024 February 1986 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 31 to License R-28 ML20136G8911985-11-0505 November 1985 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 30 to License R-28 ML20126M2631985-07-31031 July 1985 Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Renewal of the Operating License for the Training and Research Reactor at the University of Michigan.Docket No. 50-2.(University of Michigan) ML20138L5791984-06-30030 June 1984 Low Enrichment Fuel Evaluation & Analysis Program Summary Rept for Jan 1983 - June 1984 ML20138L5731982-12-31031 December 1982 Low Enrichment Fuel Evaluation & Analysis Program Summary Rept for CY81 & CY82 ML20138L5621980-12-31031 December 1980 Low Enrichment Fuel Evaluation & Analysis Program Summary Rept for CY80 ML20138L5491980-03-10010 March 1980 Cycle 184 Reactor Operations Summary Rept for 800226-0310 ML20138L5241979-12-31031 December 1979 Low Enrichment Fuel Evaluation & Analysis Program Summary Rept for CY79 ML20148D8151978-10-13013 October 1978 Safety Evaluation Rept Supporting Amend 26 to Facil Oper Lic R-28 Concluding That an Increase from 1 Mw to 2 Mw in Maximum Allowed Pwr of Fnr w/10-plate Fuel Assemblies in E,W & Core Positions Is Acceptable ML20148C8061978-10-12012 October 1978 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 25 to License R-28 ML20138L5181978-04-20020 April 1978 Revised Safety Analysis:Utilization of Intermetallic U Aluminide (UAI3,UAI4,UAI2) & U Oxide (U308) Cermet Fuel Cores in Ford Nuclear Reactor 1999-08-05
[Table view] |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
- UNIT E D STATEti f #
1 NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
- ..s ..$ W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t !
%, ...../ .
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION _
SUPP_0RTING AMENDMENT NO. 26 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. R-28 UNIVERSITY OF. MICHIGAN FORD NUCLEAR REACTOR
. DOCKET NO. 50-2 Introduction By letter dated June 27, 1978, the University of Michigan (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. R-28. The requested amendment would authorize the Ford Nuclear Reactor (FNR) to operate at a maximum power level of 2 Mw with 10-plate fuel assemblies, acquired from the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) Research Reactor, in the east, west and south fringe locations of the FNR core. The Commission authorized, by Amendment No. 24 to Facility License No. R-28 dated October 12, 1977, operation of FNR at power levels up to 1 megawatt (Mw) with the 10-plate PSU fuel assemblies intermixed with the normal 18-plate FNR fuel assemblies. This request is necessary to improve the FNR's utilization for experiments by allowing the power level to be increased to the normal value of 2 Mw while continuing to use the excess 10-plate fuel assemblies from PSU.
Background
In our Safety Evaluation (SE) supporting Amendment No. 24, we found that substituting the 10-plate fuel assemblies for 18-plate fuel assemblies was acceptable if the maximum reactor power level was limited to 1 Mw.
This finding was based on:
l
' Reducing the maximum FNR power level from 2 Mw to 1 MW results in nearly identical thermal / hydraulic performance of 10-plate and 18-plate fuel assemblies for the forced convection cooling mode;
' Extensive operating experience which proved the design accept-ability of the 10-plate fuel assembly; and
' Ascertaining that reactivity parameters were within existing Technical Specification (TS) values by performing startup tests.
Evaluation To support the return to operating the FNR at power levels up to 2 Mw, the licensee has performed experiments to measure the thermal flux level for various core loadings of 18-plate and 10-plate fuel assemblies. The 781 M Ool
measurements were made at 1 Mw using a self-powered rhodium detector.
Since the normal 18-plate fuel assembly contains less of the fission-able uranium isotope (U-235) than the PSU 10-plate fuel assembly,140 -
grams verses 169 grams U-235, it is expected that the 10-plate fuel assembly should generate more power (increased neutron flux level) than the 18-plate fuel assembly. The experiments confirmed that operating at 1 Mw with 10-plate fuel assemblies in the center of the core results in a power generation increase of about 18 percent. However, in the fringe (outside row) of the core, the neutron flux data indicated less effect on the power generation of the 10-plate fuel assemblies. In one experiment, substituting a single 10-plate fuel assembly on the north fringe decreased the neutron flux by about 14 percent, while in another experiment with 3 adjacent 10-plate fuel assemblies on the south fringe, the neutron flux increased by about 10 percent. The results of the experiment with 3 adjacent fuel assemblies were provided in a supplement from the licensee dated September 14, 1978. Extrapolating these experimental results for a confiauration with 10-plate fuel assemblies in all locations along a fringe, we conclude the maximum flux value will occur in a mid-fringe assembly and that the overall increase will be insignificant.
The conclusion reached by the licensee is that the peak power generation of 45 Kw, corresponding to a normalized measured neutron flux of 0.045 presently authorized for 1 tb operation, will not be exceeded by the power generation of PSU 10-plate fuel assemblies located in the east, west and south fringe positions of the core with the reactor operating at 2 Mw. This conclusion was justified by the experimental data showing that the maximum power generation during 1 Mw operation, of a fringe 10-plate fuel assembly was 22 Kw and increasing the authorized reactor power level to 2 Mw will, because of the cosine shape of the neutron flux, increase the fringe assembly power generation by less than a factor of 2. Therefore, the power generation of a 10-plate fuel assembly in a fringe location will be less than 44 Kw. The licensee did not apply to load the PSU 10-plate fuel assemblies in the north fringe core positions because of the neutron flux peak shift toward the heavy water shielding tank located against the north face of the core.
We conclude that an increase from 1 Mw to 2 Mw in the maximum allowed power of the FNR with 10-plate fuel assemblies in the east, west and south core positions is acceptable. He base this conclusion on:
eAs shown above, increasing the maximum FNR power level from 1 tk to 2 Mw, results in peak power generation in 10-plate fuel assem-blies in fringe locations to be less than or equal to that gener-ated in central core locations at 1 Mw. Therefore, the thermal /
hydraulic performance of these fuel assemblies in fringe locations at 2 Mw will be nearly identical to that of fuel assemblies located ~
in the central core at 1 Mw for the forced convection cooling mode, eExperimental evidence indicates that the power generation of the 10-plate fuel . assemblies located in the fringe, operating in a core limited to power level of 2 Mw, is bounded by the power generation of these fuel assemblies operating in a central core location at a core power level of 1 Mw;
' Operating experience with the PSU 10-plate fuel assemblies that shows reactivity parameters are within existing Technical Specification values.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 651.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amend-ment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regu-lations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the L
common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: October 13, 1978 6
6
- - - - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _