Text

Univ of Virginia Reactor Facility Annual Rept,1991. W/
	ML20094M430
Person / Time
Site:	University of Virginia
Issue date:	12/31/1991
From:	Farrar J; VIRGINIA, UNIV. OF, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
To:	Mendonca M; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	NUDOCS 9203310256
	Download: ML20094M430 (48)
	v • d • e

-

M ll(Mil O!

ENGINEERING @

& APPL. LED SCIENCE lH litR1 W.\ 1 Of M Cl LAR I,\bl.\liI:1.\ G A 1 \Ul\ll RI\G l9/D/0 Unisersity of Virpnat Rextor l'aohi)

(%rlottesulle \'A 2Noh2442 Aavi 4 7136 l' AN soun .2taa March 26, 1992 Mr. Marvin Merr.lonca U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comntission Office of Nuclear Reactor Rcqulation Non - POWor Reactor, Docxrnissionity and Envirottaental Project Directorate Washirgton, D.C. 20555 Re: Dcxiet No. 50-62 Docket No. 50-396

Dear Mr. Mendonca,

We hereby subnit, as required by Section 6.6.2 of the auchnical Specifications, our annual report of the operations of the University of Vin 3 inia Reactor (UVAR), License No. R-66, Docket No. 50-62 and the CAVALIER Reactor, License No. R-123, Docket No. 50-396 durity the period January 1, 1991 through D m Mr 31, 1991. This report has been reviewed and approved by the Reactor Safety Ctznittee. _

Sincerely,

b. . RAW JT P. Farrsr, Administrator U.Va. Reactor Facility cc: USNRC, Region II n n.,,s n ;

v.tUU J

\'

l 9203310256 911231 PDR 1

R ADOCK 05000062 PDR

1 .

B 1

4 UNIVERSITY 1

OF VIRGINIA .

a .

[..

s REACTOR FACILITY t

h e DJL Ol lO. 1 0 oO. l o-. .iouO.i0 ui v v .

v

. L b .

9 1991 ANNUAL REPORT w

1 P

a L NIVERSITY OF '

D VIRGINIA 3 REACTOR FACIIJTY '

AeQoQoQoQoA v v v v v v

?

a 1991 i

AOCAL REPORT D

D f

g.

1991 ANNUAL REPORT UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA REACTOR FACILTFY Table of Contents 0 Page

1. INTROL)UC110N . . . . . . .......... .. ...... ......1 A. Reactor Facility Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . ....1

., 1. Reporting Peried . . .. . .... . ..... .. 1 J

2. Basis for Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 1 B. Reactor Facility Description . ... .. . .. . I

1. 2 MW UVAR Reactor . . . ... . . .. .. . ....1 0 2. 100 Watt CAVALIER Reactor . ....... ... ... . 3

3. Past Operating History . . .... . .... ........3

4. Sun. mary of 1991 Reactor Utilization ... ...... .5

a. UVAR Reactor . . . . ... .. .... . . .... .5

b. CAVALIER Reactor . .... . . . ... .5 D 5. Special Facilities . . . . . . . . . ... .,...... 5 C. Reactor Staff Organizaiion . . . . ... . . .. .7

1. Operations Staff . . . . . . . . ..... ..... .... ....7 m 2. Ilealth Physics Staff . . . . ...

lul 4 .. . . ... .... 7

3. Reactor Safety Committee . . . . . ... . .. .7 II. REACTOR OPERATIONS . . . ........................9 A. UVAR Reactor . . . . .... .............. . . .9

1. Core Configurations . ... ... .. . . ... 9

2. Standard Operating Procedures .

. ........ . .9

3. Surveillance Requirements . . . .... . .. . ....9

4. Maintenance . . . . . ......... ....... . . 15

5. Unplanned Shutdowns . . ... .. .... .. .. . . 17

6. Pool ' Water Make-up .

. ... ... . .. ... . 18

7. Fuel Shipments . . .. . .. .. ..... ....... . 19

a. Fresh Fuel . . . .

...... . . .... 19

b. Spent Fuel . . .......... ....... . 19

8. Personnel Training and Instruction . ... ..

J .. . 19

a. Reactor Facility Staff . . . . ... . .. ... . 19

b. Summer Course for High School Teachers ... . 19

c. Disadvantaged American Operator Training . ... 19 Program

9. Reactor Tours . . ... ... .... .. . 20 6

B. CAVALIER Reactor . . .. .. . . . 20

1. Core Configuration D

1

g. . !

1 n I l

, Page H 111. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE , ...... . . . . . . 21 !

A. Reactor Safety Conunittee . .... .... .. . .. . 21

1. Meetings . . . . . . . ..... .. ..... . . 21

2. Audits . . . . . . ..... .. ...... . . ... 21

] 3. Approvals ... ... ........... .. ... . . 21

4. 10 CFR 50.59 Reviews ... ... ...... . 21 B. Changes to Reactor Facility .. .. . .. .. . . 22

1. LEU Conversion Plans . . .. ., . . , . . 22 m

J C. Inspections . . . ... . . . . . ........ . 22 D. Licensing Action . . . . ... ... ... . 22 b E. Emergency Preparedness ,, ....... . . . .. . 22 IV. HEALTil PHYSICS ... ... . . . .... ...... . . 24 A. Personnel Doses . . . . . . .... . ... .. . . 24 y'

1. Visitor Exposure Data For 1991 . .... .. ... . 24

2. Reactor Facility Personnel . . . . . . . .... .. . . 24

a. Monthly Whole Body Badge Data . , . 24

b. Neutron Exposures ....., .. ... .. . .. 26

c. Extremity Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 26 x d. Direct reading Dosimeter Exposures . .. .. 26 a . .

B. Effluents Released During 1991. . ......... . ..... 27

1. Airborne Effluents . . . .... . . . ... 27

2. Ligaid Effluents . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .-. ......27

3. Solid Waste Shipments . .. .,.. ... 29 a

C. Environmentai Surveillance . . ... .. ... . 29

1. Air Sampling . . . . .. ... .. .. .... . . . 29

2. Water Sampling . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. 29 9 D. UVAR Facility Surveys . . . .... ... . . . 33

1. Radiation and Contamination Surveys . . .. .. 33

2. Airborne Radioactivity . . . . . . . . .... ... . . . 33 E. Spills .. . ... ...... .. .. . . . 33 4

F. Quality Assurance . . . . . . .33 G. Summary . . . . . .. .

. . 33

'3

m I

l

g. .

iii

EnLe V. RESEARCII, EDUCATION AND REACTOR SERVICES 37 A. Irradiation and Research Facilities Available . .. . . 37

, B. Research Activities . ... .... . .... . 37 C. Service Projects ... . . .... . 39

( D. Reactor Sharing Program . . . . .. .. . - . , .. 40 E. Reactor Facility Supported Courses and Laboratories . . 41 F. Degrees Granted by the Department of Nuclear . .. . . 41 Engineering and Engineering Physics l

b VI. FINANCES . .. .. ... . . . 42 A. Expenditures . .... . ..... . . .. 42 B. State Support and Service Income 3 . . . . 42 D

1 l

D D

D i

\

. ~ . . - . - - - . - - -. - - - - - -

E

y. .-

1 l

1991' ANNUAL REPORT ]

b University of Virgmia Reactor Facility I. INTRODUCTION A. Reactor Facility Reporting Requirements

1. Reporting Period i This report on Reactor Facility activities during 1991 covers the period January 1,1991 through December 31,1991, 1

2. Basis for Reporting An annual report of reactor operations is required by the UVAR and CAVALIER Technical Specifications, section 6.6.2. Additionally, it is the

) desire of the facility management to document and publicize the most important results derived from reactor operations.

B. Reactor Facility Description The Reactor Facility is located on the grounds of the University of Virginia at

)

Charlottesville, Virginia and is operated by the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics. The Facility houses the UVAR 2 MW pool type reseaich reactor and CAVALIER 100 watt training teactor (now shutdown, awaiting decommissioning). The Facility also has a 6,00r curie cobalt-60 gamma irradiation facility, a hot cell facility with remote

[

manipulators, several rndiochemistry laboratories with fume hoods, radiation detectors, counters and laboratory counting equipment, computerized data acquisition analysis systems, and a fully equipped machine shop and electronic shop.

1, - 2 MW UVAR Reactor The UVAR reactor is a light water cooled, moderated and shielded type reactor that first went into operation at a licensed power level of one

,_ -megawatt in June 1960, under facility license No._ R 66. In 1971, the

)_ authorized power level was increased to two megawatts. In September of 1982, the operating license for the UVAR_ was extended for 20 years.

Figure 1 shows a layout of the reactor and the various experimental facilities associated with it.

)

2

). 4

)

UVAR Experimental Facilities '

)

i TANGENTIAL BE AM PORT --

TARGET DOX l } _

} ] - FUEL ELEMENT

s. ~

/k \

) -

_T Af 4GENTI A DE AM TUDE d7 NEUTRON

/

~

-a r r i rct-)

N

) BEAM -

=- -

PORTS SOUTHEAST ACCESS i, -

FACILIT Y SOUTH ACCESS

) FACILIT Y 2

Figure 1

)

.l 3

3

2. 100 W CAVALIER Reactor I

f The CAVALIER (Cooperatively Assembled Virginia Low Intensity J Educational Reactor) first wen: into operation in October 1974, under i facility license R 123, at a licensed power of 100 watts. The reactor was ,

built to accommodate reactor operator training and perform experiments for undergraduate laboratory courses. The operating license was renewed T in May 1985, for a period of 20 years. - Figure 2 shows a layout of this reactor and its control room. A dismantlement plan was submitted in November,1987 to the NRC. The NRC requested a decommissioning plan which was submitted early in 1990.

) 3. Past Operating IIistory

a. UVAR Reacter The UVAR reactor operating history is as follows:

Y Year (s) MWhours Hours Onerated 1960-1965 1218 1500~

1966-1970 2742 3000 1971 1975 1654 1800 '

1976 1978 1769 1480 1979 4426 2764 1980 4610 2863 1981 4988 3568 1982 5507 3024 <

1983 6079 3556

> 1984 5687 3166 1985 927 718 1986 1330 891 1987 1220 801

-1988 910 621

) 1989 1378. 869 1990 1837 1087 1991 2360 1365-During the years 1979 through 1984, the UVAR reactor was operated h ~110 hours per week to irradiate metal specimens for radiation damage studies on pressuie vessel steels. Since that time, the reactor has operated on a variable schedule up to 40 hours4.62963e-4 days 0.0111 hours 6.613757e-5 weeks 1.522e-5 months per week. The intent of the reactor management is to perform various on-going small and diverse irradiation projects, rather than a single large irradiation

) project.

f

Qa '

4 r- LECRM Text Q ,f IQU1FENT book l

_; y

{' r __

t O '

nicurnt exon STAIRS To " 6 MEZ ?.AN I NE O

ortRATIvo na

- _ ' e,* . 'a[CCNCREII SHIr1D

a s

f 4 a i

!,, a, 4 PIACTOR 2CDEPATOR O Tux

_ -r m

44 ,:

px7 s

4 . . .v L

g Plan Viev of CAVM.IER Operating At ea CONCRETE SKIr1D O

8'

/ _A

'9 8

[s $

'k'*

CROUND HOOR tzm.

3a ,.*4, QL.,* MODERATOR ,',d ;. , , ,.g

.' TME _

O -

4 a . .-':r

6 11' ' .* .

4 .' & DEIONIZIP, ',

a EARE .*

a ' s a FILL .

s

! AEU

. REACTOR

. 1981-1985 1278 388 1986 147 37 1987 28 29 1988 Permanently Shutdown

> The CAVALIER reactor has been used primarily for reactor operator training and undergraduate lab experiments, although it has not been operated over the past three years. A dismantlement plan was submitted to the NRC in November,1987 but the NRC decided the facility should submit a decommissioning plan. A complete
, decommi3sioning plan was submitted in January,1990. The CAVALIER fuel and start-up source were unloaded on hlarch 3, 1988.
4. Summary of '1991 Reactor Utilization
a. UVAR Reactor During 1991, the UVAR was operated for 1365 hourt, and a total integrated power of 2360 hiegawatt hours. 'the following experiments were perfonned utilizing the UVAR reactor.
$21 NAA samples were run in the pneumatic tabbit system No NAA samples were run in the hydraulic rabbit system 13 sets of samples were run in the hiineral Irradiation Facility 11 separate runs were made in the Rotating Irradiation Facility 278 hours0.00322 days 0.0772 hours 4.596561e-4 weeks 1.05779e-4 months of reactor operations were dedicated to Neutron Radiography 49 hours5.671296e-4 days 0.0136 hours 8.101852e-5 weeks 1.86445e-5 months of reactor operations were dedicated to beamport work
b. CAVALIER Reactor The CAVALIER reactor was permanently shut down in 1988 and will no longer be operated.
l
l 9 .
6
5. Special Facilities
, The following facilities are operated in connection with the UVAR:
J Two neutron beam ports, of eight inch diameter entrance, stepped to 10 inches at the exit, are available. One beam port is currently dedicated to neutron radiography.
O
Two access ports (6 ft x 4 ft). One port is currently configured for a high energy photon beam, and the othei port for a neutron beam.
Hydraulic rabbit, for activation analysis, permitting samples with a less than 0.69 inch diameter and 6 inch length.
Pneumatic rabbit, for activation analysis, permitting sample diameters of 1 inch and length not exceeding 2.3 inches, accessing either a thermal or an epithermal irradiation facility.
9
Epithermal neutron irradiation facility, for trace element analysis with reduced thermal neutron flux.
Solid gel irradiator for electrophoresis.
O
Epithermal neutron mineral irradiation facility.
A rotating irrac..ation facility currently used for activation of iridium seeds for cancer implantation therapy.
'O
Irradiation facilities with environmental control.
Cobalt-60 gamma irradiation facility with 6,000 Ci permitting ex-posures at rates up to 200,000 R/hr.
'O
Depleted uranium suberitical facility.
Small hot cell, with remote manipulators Machine and Electronic Shops, well equipped.
Several radiochemistry labs with fume hoods, counters and standard lab equipment.
Low-background counting room with shielded, solid sta'e O germanium and silicon detectors and computerized data acquisition / analysis system.
.O
7 C. Reactor Staff Organization
1. Operations Staff A Reactor Facility organi,zation chart is shown in Figure 3. Personnel on the reactor staff as of the end of 1991 were:
+ R.U. Mulder . . . Reactor Director J.P. Farrar . . . . . Reactor Administrator P.E. Benneche . . Services Supervisor B. Ilosticka . . . . . Research Scientist D.R. Krause . . . Senior Reactor Operator D LL Scheid . . . . Reactor Operator W.E. Brown . . . . Operator Trainee Under DOE Grant W.N. Wilson . . . . Operator Trainee Under DOE Grant V.G. Hampton . . Electronic Shop Supervisor J.S. Baber . . . . . Machine Shop Supervisor 3 V.S. Thomas . . . . Reactor Facility Secretary
2. Ilealth Physics Staff at the Facility D.Steva . . . . . . . Reactor Health Physicist
) C. Glennie . . Radiation Safety Technician S. Garver ... Radiation Satety Technician The Health Physicist is assisted by a Reactor staff membei paid from '
reactor services income. Other health physicists and technicians employed
,3 by the University are on call with the Office of EnvironmentalIIcalth and Safety. ~
3. Reactor Safety Committee The Reactor Safety Committee is composed of the following individuals:
-D A.B. Reynolds . . . Professor, Nuclear Engr. - Chairman R.A. Rydin . . . Associate Professor - Nuclear Engr.
J.S. Brenizei . . . Associate Professor Nuclear Engr.
J.R. Gilchrist . . . Assistant Director, EH&S 3 K.R. Lmvless . . . . Profersor - Material Science R.U. Mulder . . . Reactor Director and Asst. "'if., Nuclear Engr.
R.G. Piccolo . . . Radiation Safety Officer As of July 1,1991 Dr. Reynolds resigned from the committee due to his y appointment as department chairman and Dr. Rydin assumed the position i
of acting chairman of the committee.
1 L- _ - - - - - - - - - - --- --- ---- --- ----
. . . .m ... .. . . _ .
PfES 004T OF ftE U. OF vtRotHIA i
l DEMf 50coLof DC. e APPLifD SC t ENCE FEACTM SrfETY RADIATIG4 SrETY C0h4JlTTE l cones TTEE 01AINm fDEPT. er VEAD f 0FFICE of
~
HUC. D D. t D C DNIRO404TrL IfALTH ,
Ptfr$tCS t i eve l 13 ond StfETY
'I l
DtMcTOR f U.VA.
U.VA. RADIATION REACTm F?tiLITY ~
tteves 1)
I i 1 REACTOR SfSERVISOR t/Ostt41STRAT10N) ,ggg, (level 31 gg ,,, 33 ;.
g r 1 1 I FACILITY OPG ATID4 f PEACTOR SERvlCES e adAINTDetCE a RESErAoi PHXiP/M5 DC SLF M '(fevel 41 4feve1 4.1 O W EELS of PELPOdiBfLITY OwaELS of C064&dtCATt0N Figure 3 Organizotlonal Structure of U.Va. Reactor Facility en
o- * -
i n 9 ,
11. IlliACTOlt OPlillATIONS ;
i A. UVAlt Iteactor
,0- i
1. Core Configurations !
u A typical UVAR cose configuration is shown in Figure 4. The reactoi !
L employs three boson stainless steel safety rods and one stainless steel !
O regulating rod for fine power control. The fuel elements are of the MTR curved plate type elements, utiliting a U AL alloy. 'lhe fuelis approximately 93% enriched, ne clernents have 18 fuel plates per i element, with a loading of approximately 195 grams / clement. The control
? rod elements have 9 fuel plates with a loading of approxhnately.97.5 10 gramrMenwat. ' A plan view of these elements. is shown in Figure S.
2. Standard Operating l'rocedures Three sections of the UVAR standard operating procedures were changed
'O during the year in the areas of: operating conditions checklist, irradiation request forms and waste release to the sanitary sewer system. The Iteactor l Safety Committee reviewed and approved these changes.
I
3. Surveillance Requirements f
The following surveillance items were completed during the year as requis >d by Section 4.0 of the Technical Specifications: !
I s. Bod Drop Tests and Visual Inspection I M Technical Specification Requirernents 1
Rod drop times are measured at least semi annualle, ur wh ..scr r
rods are moved or maintenance is performed.. -
A Magnet telease time should be less than 50 milliseconds ad face drop thnti less than 700 milliseconds.
Reds are visually inspected at least annually.
O ,
L
a o.
..a L. . = . . . . . _ . . - - - . - - - - " - - - - - ~ ~ -
). .
10 LHIVIR111Y CF V11CINIA IGMill Cu3 IIWillt3111R3tAH (UU" 11AD1143 ,,,,.2f}-L 11RJHGH WJCl}l 0.02 iddL(L.);/}L I IWPE J311y.,1b ,1991 IXCIRIlu?frIVI1Y , M 1_Ljid R l'dh. i 1
(F235 3 f53 GPNG .._ _ 1%P13dMINT lANGit i
Li'LLAda 5',ll, P - Ibntal swl ritment P - Crid Plate Pity ly - Iwatial I w l 1;1enant itYD IWI - lifdraulic Ikstbit 04 - Control lui lul 1:16mvit 1103t IW1 'Hmmal immitic Ikstbit G - Cratitite Elment 11'I IWI - Ipitimtal twmatic lulbit
!! - Craittite r<urts Elenunt tal Itv11atitri IkvAct luu cmtrol lut Iwl 1.1tamt witn luplatity Int lui norths si -2.913 12 -2JtL) tL-L2L1 liu2_-A2R !
)
Kun:wL 11oW)1AT1cti FAc11xlY
=,. ,
y y y y y -
o V-os V-04 v-02
) 11 12 13 1
_4-V-03 15 16 V-o1 17 0 it 18 P
F F P-Ou F F A o y-o6 v-14 v.18 V-27 1w07 T P 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 H
g F F-Ot2 l' r F G D WO8 V-19 1'09 1'10 1'18 P 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 I 30 11 F F F T-00 l' 11.
C V-09 V-11 v-10 1'31 7'30 P 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 I 48 A
) G G F
T-13 l'-IU C T-32 F
1'14 PT
'F-3 P C.
P 51 52 53 L4 55 56 57 - bH 13'I G G G 101 IW1 S P P 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
) 11u31 IfYD C IW1 0 C C C l<All 18 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 C C G G G G P G 81 82 03 84 05 86 87 08
?
lasiirg Arproved itfl Ibtat Figuro 4
)
l i
L 11
- l'U
. - - E-l,- 1'.L- - _Eli . t(1.17:;~.
I 4 2.996 __ p i
,s. y #,,_ ___. - w__ _ % w- _sNN~.~p . .
p m E
.~
_ . ,--%- ~ ls g g -~
L t' c)C~. -- . .$22 :::-c::s'f ~2]'
..f. ,1y@ __C~Q.-_,-s s : -- _
%ye,
~
,_ m ,,
s a o- -
( _
+ - - - - ~ ~=+ s.s. y,
..%. ~:. ::,
> 7, 5,
c
-~ -~~---- ~. ~%
a 2
.p n g;g g g g o -
-___.__._40~,,~-~-
g0._- ---.--.~~_.._..,_~%.(-a ~
3 S
s" o.lg.r.:: W rrr - ~ -~~~==='= ==~~C: % ~- Q~J ,t s . %,
1.%_ , :% _ ~b j 3 tw , ._..:r :-
5
- ~~ , 2 y
5 J.:;53 ~ - .--- ._.. . __n%::::J 5
1 - - - - ::: .. : '.
~- ~1 -
I.a-D 4- -2.996 - p p1._ s :- -:r_.: : Fs;' --~.:,~- T ." - 7 ', : , N-~.Ns ,_ A-
- )i
> .1(~'.~- - : := == ====()=;Q ==~ ~::~ &~ \'=k>
~ ,
f
.A- ._
3.250 Cot 1 TROL n
m ,
r-i.
> b
-~**FW***Wap.i a g
p
_g . , 4se W *- *'N- - . g g **B q
, "* "* * -~ ~ * ~- *~,*[ %'.'
,p ._'. 3
--~
+.:~.s_a3 f !m_. .-;.s.-.+.c. . ---- -~--.-.- ~, .%.,- , Ag Qj 3 l[yy:% ; M S Y d 2. M k
_J N =;. y D
Figure 5 D
12 Rod drop tiines were incasuicd on the UVAll reactor as follows:
Af ter visual inspection of the iods on 1-07 91 hiagnet 1(od hiagnet 17 ee Total Current l'osition 1(elease Diop Drop lbi _Lulal_ _{in) l
_ (n151 l uts)_ .{rted_
1 160 26 21 471 492 2 160 26 29 454 483 3 75 26 31.5 454 485.5
> Seini. annual surveillance on 7 02 91 1 160 26 17 483 500 2 160 26 34 447 481 3 75 26 31 452 483 After rod inspection on 12-02 91 1 160 26 20 495 515 2 160 26 25 463 4 8
3 75 26 23 591 614 The iod drop tirnes continue to be within the limits icquired by Technical Specifications j .
'lhe UVAll control rods were visually inspected on 1-07 91 The following is abstracted from the reactoi log book and the surveillance files:
> Rod #1 - Inspected rod under ~4 feet of water. Dose sate at surface of water was ~10 inr/hr. Itod looks good. No sign of cracking or rub marks. Itod passed 0.95 inch gauge easily.
Itod #2. Inspected rod under ~4 feet of water. Dose rate at p
surface of water was ~10 un/hr. No evidence of cracking. A few rub marks noted. Roc' passed 0.95 inch gauge easily.
Rod #3 Inspected rod under ~4 feet of water. Dose rate at surface of water was ~12 mr/hr. No evidence of cracking or iub marks. Passes 0.95 inch gauge easily.
).
13 The rods were inspected again on 12 02 91 lied (1. In>pected rod under ~4 feet of water. Dose rate at surface of water was ~42 nuihr. No evidince of rubbing or cracking. Passes 0.95 inch gage easily.
Rod #2 Inspected rod under ~4 feet of water. Dose rate at surface of water was ~25 mr/hr. No evidence of rubbing or cracking. Passes 0.95 inch gage easily.
, J1nid Inspected rod under ~4 feet of water. Dose rate at surface of water was ~44 mr/hr. No evidence of rubbing or cracking. Passes 0.95 inch page casily.
b. Tests and Calibrations Data on these tests and calibrations are on file at the Facility.
p
1) Monthly Operational checks of the ventilation duct, personnel door, truck door and emergency exit cover were performed as required.
, 2) Semi Annually Visual inspection of gaskets on personnel door, ventilation duct and truck door was completed.
' Calibiation checks of r,ource range channel, linear power channel, core gamma monitor, bridge radiation monitor, reactor d face Inonitor, duct argon monitor, constant air inonitor, pool level inonitors, pool ternperature monitors, core differential pool temperature monitors, and primary flow were done.
3) Annually The emergency cooling ,.ystem was tested during the month of September,1991. The results are as follows:
S.li Tank S.W. Tank kal' mild h al/111]D) minimum required flow 11.0 11.5 919 91 actual flow 12.2 12.1 last five year lange 11.3 12.1 12.2 12.9 No pattern was observed in the variation of the test results for the last five years. .
i
3 .
M
4) Daily Checklist Tlie daily checklist, which is completed when the reactor is to bc
).
operated, provided for checks on all the significant automatic shutdown systems associated with the reactor.
5) lleactor Pool Water Quality 11:e Technical Specifications require that the pil and conductivity of the pool water be measused at least once every two weeks. These measurements were actually made on a daily basis when the reactor was operating and at least once each week. These measutements have indicated that the water quality
). was maintained well within the Technical Specification Limits of pil between 5.0 and 7.5 with conductivity < 3 micromhovem.
6) Core Configuration Changes 3 The control rods were re. calibrated in January,1991 after the existing core had accumulated ~1029 MW. hrs of operation. The rods were visually inspected and the reactivity worth of all experiments and experimental facilities were remeasured. In July, two elements with the highest burnup were removed fiom
) the core and replaced with new elements to compensate for burnup over the last year. The rods were again recalibrated and the worth of experiments and experimental facilities remeasured.
In December, a partial element was removed from the core and replaced with a full element to compensate for burnup. The
) rods were visually inspected and recalibrated and the worth of all experiments and experimental facilities were remeasured.
7) Communication Checks The security system and emergency communications with the
.) University Police were checked on a weekly basis thioughout the year.
8) Alarm System Checks
] The fire alarm system was t ucked during the month of December for proper alarm functions, t>oth in the Facility and at the University Police Department.
Data on all of these tests and calibrations are on file at the 3 facility.
3 15
[ 4. hiniiacaauce The following maintenance was performed on the UVAll scactor system
) during the calendar year 1991:
1 28-91 Waste Tank Level Indication.1.ight in Demineralizer lloom not i on when float switch contact closed. Corrective action: Replaced bad bulb.
B 21491 Bridge Scram Itclay. Itelay was actuated whenever secondary ,
console was bumped. Corrective action: Replaced relay. i 31191 Reg Rod Drive System. Rod sounded as if it were laboring a during travel. Corrective action: 1 ubricated lead screw and aligned mechanism.
31891 Rod #3 hiagnet Current Rheostat. Switch shaft stuck. Unable to adjust current. Corrective action: Cleaned and lubricated
, shaft. Works smoothly.
40891 N 16 hionitor. Would not respond to external source. Found bad pen in connector. Corrective action: Replaced connectos.
, 41191 Demineralizer System. Seal cooling line leaking several drops per second through copper fittings. Corrective action: Replaced copper fittings with stainless steel Swagelok fittings.
5 16-91 Solid State Relays. Intermittent. Found dirty contacts and 8 overheating. Corrective action: Replaced connectors, three resistors and cross-over relay.
62591 Linear Power Recoider. Seemed to have dead spot in slide wire.
Corrective action: Cleaned both the pen slide wire and the transmit slide wire (to rod drive servo). Checked and ieplaced 3 D vacuum tubes in servo unit.
6-21-91 Cooling Tower. Annual cleaning and inspection. Drained and cleaned.
p 7 11-91 Bridge Radiation hionitor. llesponse was erratic, probably due to high humidity in reactor room. Corrective action: Switched detector with hot cell detector. Recalibrated both detectors.
Responds correctly.
B 7-17 91 Room Argon hionitor. No response. Found range switch wafer broken and input preamp (OP Ah1P) bad. Corrective action:
Replaced range switch wafer and OP Ah1P in preamp. Cleaned system and lubricated range switch.
D
1 s
p.
16 72291 Reactor Face hionitor. Detector reading upscale in the absence of a radiation field. No response fioni Cs 137 source. Corrective action: Replaced detector and calibrated system.
80191 Linear power Recorder. Step changesin recorder indicatien while inaintaining steady state power. Irregular signal fram recorder feedback slide wire. Corrective action: Replaced entire slide wire.
80891 Rod #3 Position Indication. Did not track tod inotion. Updated position when switch was released. Corrective action: Found and replaced bad IC chip, 10-07 91 Yellow Springs #3 Temperature Probe Reads down scale.
Found probe open. Corrective action: Replaced probe -
relocated downstream of primary pump in isolatable section of primary pipe.
10 21 91 Power Range #2. Detector responding O.K., but just in specs with liigh Voltage at 100% Low megger readings. Coticctive action: Replaced detector and cable connectors at detector.
liigh megger readings and responded well on next startup.
11-07-91 Rod #1. Rod kept dropping while attempting to withdraw.
Corrective action: Removed drive unit and cleaned magnet face and extension rod face. Reassembled and performed rod drop test.
11-20 91 Delta T System. Delta T malfunctioning. Erratic. Corrective action: Removed RTD probe from pool, found insulation badly deteriorated. Replaced probe and calibrated. Functioning normally.
12 03 91 Scram Logic Drawer. Several scrams unaccompanied by any annunciator indication. Corrective action: Found power supply
P025200 reading low on voltage and found insulation bad on wire and an unsoldered connection. Replaced wire and resoldered had connection Checked voltage,25 volta solid.
12 11-91 Power Range #2. hiaximum reading of 90 % at 2 htW with detector inserted as far as it would go. Corrective action:
Checked detector with megger. Read low. Removed and replaced detector. Checked out at 2 hlW, adjusted to read 100 N.
No significant trends were noted in the maintenance.
I
), i 17
5. Unplanned Shutdowns
( The following unplanned shutdowns occurred on the UVAR reactor during the calendar year 1991: ;
l 09 91 Rod #1 and #3 dropped during manipulation of rods for rod calibration measurements, hiagnet current was low. Adjusted current.
l 11 91 Reactor wram - loss of building power 21391 Scra.n noise in secondary console relay when replacing Argon monitor cover. Itclay found to be unstable, lleplaced relay K 3.
3-07 91 Scram Noise in Power 1(ange #2 while moving Fission Chamber.
3 08-91 Scram - Noise in Period hieter while moving rods.
3 20-91 Scram Noise in thidge hionitor.
50191 Scram - 1 ow flow in gas flow system in NilF experiment.
, 50991 Scram - Spurious spikes in Intertnediate Channel.
51691 Scram Relay chatter while moving rods. Started up again but had second scram from relay chatter. Found dirty contacts on SSR units and S3R resistors had over heated. Cleaned SSR
, contacts, rephced resistors and crossover relay.
51791 Scram Loss of building power during thunderstorm.
52291 Scram - Noise in liridge hionitor.
D 6-17 91 Scram Nois.e in secondary console when replacing duct monitor cover.
71091 Scram - Noise in liridge hionitor. Switched detector with 1101 Cell monitor and recalibrated system.
7-16-91 Scrany - North Neutron lleamport hionitor. Suspect air bubble in sight glass.
72291 Scram - Period on intermediate scram when loading hot" fuel
> with its "high" gamma ray emission rate.
7-30 91 Scram - Noise in low flow relay when moving secondary console.
f
).
!8 8 16-91 Seram North Neution lleampori hionitor. Suspect air bubble in sight glass.
90691 Scram hiomentary loss of building power.
10-02 91 Scram Noise in Reactor Face hionitos.
10-16 91 Scram Noise in period channel.
10 22 91 Scram - Noise spike on Intermediate Chani,el.
10-24 91 Scram Intermediate Period Ganuna noise from channel being ove compensated.
11 06 91 Scram Electronic noise in console. Annunciator indicated ground floor manual, reactor toom manual, escape hatch, air to header, truck door and range switch. Investigation revealed nothing wrong. Assumed to be spurious noise. Reset scrams and p testarted reactor, 11 22 91 Scram lluilding power failure.
12 04 91 Scram - Intermediate period due to compensating voltage spike.
12 05 91 Scram - licader down, pump on indication. Spurious signal.
Was operating in natural circulation mode and in the process of shutting down.
12-17-91 2 scrams Power Range #1 unstable meter reading.
12 18 91 Scram Power Range #1 while adjusting detector position.
12 20 91 Scram hiomentary building power failure No significant trends were noted in the unplanned shutdowns.
i 6. Pool Water hinke up p
During the calendar year 1991, make up water to the UVAR pool averaged approximately 28 gallons per day. Over the past 14 years, the pool water make up has varied from a minimum of 16 gallons per day to a maximum of 85 gallons per day, depending on reactor operation. The loss of water is mostly due to evaporation from the pool while operating at full p power.
g. -
19
7. Fuel Shipments
a. Fiesh Fuel D
No fresh fuel was received at the facility during 1991,
b. Spent Fuel D No spent fuel was shipped from the facility during 1991.
8. Training and instrut tion
a. Reactor Facility Staff D
At the end of 1991 the staff had four senior reactor operators and one reactor operator, Two new staff members joined the facility in December as part of a D.O.E. sponsored training program and are presently training for an NRC Operatoi License. All licensed y operators participated in the Facility's operator requalification program, which was carried out during the year. The program consisted of periodic lectures, participation in the daily operation of the facility (including performing check lists and start ups of the UVAR reactor) and taking an annual written examination B administered by the Facility management.
b. Disadvantaged American Reactor Operator Training h U.Va. has, since 1984, administered a reactor operator training program for disadvantaged americans sponsored by the Department of Energy. The program involved four other universities, but at the beginning of 1990 only UVa remained active in the program. The progiam was scheduled to terminate at the end of 1990 but sufficient funds remain in the program to justify its continuation. UVa D
requested and was granted a no cost extension of the program. The female trainee hired in November,1990 applied for admission to the U.Va. medical school and was accepted. She left the training piogram in July,1991. Two trainees were hired in December,1991. The DOE grant will not support the two trainees for the entire year, but the p Reactor Facility will supplement this through local funds. The program is due to terminate in December,1992,
c. Reactor Security and llealth Physics Orientation a Security and health physics orientation was provided to new students and staff members during the year. The existing faculty, staff and students attend a re orientation lecture at the beginning of the academic year.
{
1 D !
b 20
9. Ileactor Tours During the calendar year 1991, the staff guided 57 groups on touis of the Facility, for a total of 766 visitors.
11. CAVAlllill lleactor
> 1. Core Configuration The scactor was coinpletely and perinanently unloaded during the first week of March,1988, A nuinagenuent decision has been inade to shut down the CAVAL.llill reactor and a Disinantlernent Plan was subinitted to
> the NitC, however, the NitC requested that a complete deconunissioning plan be submitted. This was accomplished in early 1990.
f
)O-
21 l 111. REGULATORY COMP 1. LANCE 3
A. Reactor Safety Committee
,1 0 '
1. Meetings During 1991, the Reactor Safety Committee met six times, on the following dates:
January 18,1991 Jure 7,1991 j- February 4,1991 September 24,1991 March 18,1991 December 19,1991
O- 2. Audits During the year sub-committees of the Reactor Safety Committee l performed two audits of the facility in the areas of: reactor operations log book, the irradiation log book, the QA/QC program, experimental lO procedures and operator training. .
3. Approvals .
, The Reactor Safety Committee approved three changes to the UVAR i
O Standard Operating Procedures during the year concerning the operating conditions checklist, irradiation request forms and waste release to the sanitary sewer system,
4. 10 CFR 50.59 Reviews iO The following 10 CFR 50.59 analyses were performed during the year and were reviewed by the Reactor Safety Committee:
a. Installation of plexiglass cover over escape hatch in UVAR reactor room.
O
b. Changes to Mineral Irradiation Facility (MIF) cooling.
c. Gamma Shielding Tank for Neutron Ileamport. .
40 d. Installation and operation of SE Ileamport Facility,
c. Design and Testing of a new MINIRIF (Rotating Irradiation Facility).
1' ))x% -
}' ei
'O i
I t
O.
O' '
22 H. Changes to the Reactor Facility
1. Low Enriched Uranium Conversion Plans 0
The NRC mandated in 1986 a change from liigh Enriched Uranium (llEU) fuel to Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuel, with the date of conversion to depend on several factors. Le U.Va. Facility will be among the initial group of research reactor facilities to convert to LEU fuel. A O study funded by DOE was begun in the spring of 1986 to accomplish this.
A management decision has been made to shut down the CAVALIER reactor and a Dismantlement Plan was submitted to the NRC, however, the NRC has requested that a complete deconunissioning plan be submitted. Thh was accomplished in early 1990. The present plans call O for the conversion of the UVAR reactor in 1992, but will depend on the availability of new LEU fuel and a cask for spent fuel transport. A Safety Analysis Report on the LEU fuel and revised Technical Specifications were submitted to the NRC in November,1989.
j O'
C. Inspections During 1991 the Facility underwent four NRC rampliance inspections, at the following times and in the areas of:
0 7 23-91 Security and Material Accountability 82091 Reaetc,r Operations 91291 llealth Physics 11 06 91 Emergency Preparedness f
O D. Licensing Action No licensing changes were c.itiated during 1991.
f F
E. Emergency Preparedness
1. On Tuesday, January 29,1991, at 2:05 P.M. the evacuation alarm for the criticality monitoring system located in the CAVALIER room was initiated by a staff member as part of an annual drill. The drill was unannounced.
l Everyone in the building evacuateJ in an orderly manner.
'O i- 2. On Monday, October 7,1991, at 3:32 P.M. the public address system was used to announce an evacuation of the building. All personnel evacuated the building in ~3 minutes.
o 3. On Wednesday, November 7,1991, the facility held an annual drill that did
- not involve outside support agencies. Two NRC personnel were present to observe the drill. The scenario involved severe weather conditions with heavy rains and winds up to 70 mph. The telephone lines and all power to l
'O
O '
23 the building were assumed lost. The emergency tenni was assenibled and all personnelin the buildNg were evacuated to a roorn without windows near the front entrance of the facility in case windows were shattered by O the high winds. Personnel were assigned to nionitor the pool le,>cl in the reactor room. Conununication with the U,Va police departinent was established through the use of two-way radios. The police could have notified outside agencies if deemed necessary. The NitC personnel felt the drill was conducted appropriately, however they indicated that they
,0 would like to have seen more " action"iterns included in the scenario and l we should always have conununication capabilities included so these can be I practiced in a drill. l
1. On Friday, Decernher 20,1991, a cornmunications drill was held with the i
10. emergency team. Each member of the team was given a scenario involving a small lab fire with personnelinjury and radioactive contamination. Each '
person was asked to use the Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures (EPIP) to work through the steps necessary to respond to the emergency, and in particular those items requiring communications with off site
~O agencies. At least one off site agency was called by each person to confirm the phone number listed in the EPIP. All phone numbers were confirmed to be coricct. Each person's competency with the use of the telephones and radios was also checked.
'O
=O
!O
-O l
O O
L
21 IV. IIEAl!!'ll PilYSICS A. Per sonnel Doses
1. Visitor Exposure Data For 1991 Visitors to the UVAll primarily consist of students, snaintenance personnel and vendors. Visitor xposure at the UVAll is monitored through the use of ganuna and X ray sensitive direct reading pocket dosimeters. During 1991, there were 2,098 visitor entries into the Reactor Facility. Of these entries,1332 were individual visitor entries and 766 were visitors as part of 57 tour groups. No visitor's dosimeter registered more than five milli-roentgens in any one visit.
2. Reactor Facility Personnel Dosimetry Data For 1991
a. Monthly Whole llody lladge Data p Radiation doses received by Reactor Facility personnel were measured using Landauer film badges. The film badge dosimeters measured exposure from beta, X, gamma and thermal neutron radiation. In 1991, all personnel working with the neutron beamports at the Facility were issued neutron dosimeters in addition to their
, whole body film badges. The neutron dosimeter.s used were Landauer Neutrak ER badges which allowed detection of an extended range of neutron energies. All dosimeters were cl anged out on a monthly basis.
I The dose distribution for personnel badged at the Reactor Facility during the period January 1 through December 31,1991 was as follows:
I b
l .
25 3 Tablo l WHOLE DODY DOSES RECORDED FOR BADGED INDIVIDUALS AT THE REACTOR FACILITY IN 1991 3 Measured Doso
Number of Occurrencos (mrom) In 1991 Less than 10 83 11 - 20 12 D 21 - 30 0 31 40 0 41 50 1 51 - 60 0 61 70 0
71 - 80 1 81 - 90 0 91 100 0
> 100 1 (190 mrem)
whole body doop doso only aJ measured by filtn bad 0o dosimotors D
Number of badged pontonnot: 98 persons Total doso >n 1991 for this group: 0.47 person rom NOTE: The dosimotors used by the Roactor Facility had D
a detection minimum of 10 mrom for gamma. X and thormal neutrons and 40 mrom for energetic beta particles.
D The individual with the highest exposure (190 mrem) was a Reactor Facility staff member routinely assigned to the handling of radioactive materials for neutron activation analysis.
O R
S
j. .
20
b. Neutron Esposures Seven Facility personnel weie issued Neutral, lift neutron badges in
) 1991. 'lhe neutron dose distribution for this group is as follows:
~
Monsured
Number of Occurrences Neutron Doso in 1991 (mrom)
Less than 20 7 21 30 0
> 100 0 NOTE: Thesr dosimeters have a minimum reporting dose of 20 mrem D c. lixtremity Exposures During 1991,21 Facility personnel wore TLD ring badges in addition to their whole body badges. The following is a summary of the extremity doses received by Reactor Facility personnel who wore ring p badges during the period Januaiy 1.1991 through December 31,1991.
Measured Number of Occurrences Extremity in 1991 Doso (mrom) b Less than 100 16 101 500 3 501 1000 1
> 1000 1 (1170 mrem)
D
' The individual with the highest extremity exposure (1170 mrem) was a Reactor Facihty staff member routinely assigned to the handling of radioactive materials for neutron activation analysis
d. Direct reading Dosimeter Exposures l
Direct reading dosimeters are worn by UVAR personnel when ti!ey are handling irradiated material which has a calculated or measuied exposure rate of gieater than 100 mR per hour, measuied at one foot
" from the source. If the exposure totals more than 5 mR in one day, the exposure is logged in an exposure log kept in the control ioom.
This information is helpful in assessing the amount of exposure received during specific operations. The total of all exposures recorded in the log book during 1991 was 83 mR.
D l __ __ _ ____ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-).
27
11. Effluents Released During 1991
1. Aliborne Effluents I
Argon 41 gaseous telease concentiations are calculated using a 1 methodology described in a June,1977 meinorandum entitled: " Memo to Senior Opciators argon 41 production in UVAR." The methodology desciibed in this memorandum assumes:
9
a. a maximum production rate for Ar-41 (given the present UVAR core loading)
b. inunediate evolution of Ar-41 fiom the pool water into the UVAR 3 confinement atmosphere
c. no decay
d. air saturating the UVAR pool water at 68'F.
9 Dased on this method, and using the known amount of time the scactoi was at power during 1991 (2 MW for 1180 hours0.0137 days 0.328 hours 0.00195 weeks 4.4899e-4 months ), the calculated total activity of Ar-41 released was 3.4 Curies.
, 2. Liquid Effluents Liquid radioactive waste generated at the UVAR is disposed of by one of two means. Liquid waste genciated in the student laboratories is poured into approved containers which are collected and disposed of by the 8 Environmentalllealth and Safety Office. Other liquid wastes generated by the UVAR operation are released off site in accordance with 10 CFR 20 release limits. The majority of liquid released off site is from an on site pond. This pond receives surface runoff and water from a creek which flows into it. In unusual situations, it may receive a direct discharge from the facility (e.g. draining of the reactor pool). Regeneration of the UVAR S
demineralizer system is the major source of radioactivity in the effluent from the Facility. Prior to release, the regeneration liquid is stored in two 5,000 gallon underground tanks where it is circulated through Cuno filten The liquid in these tanks is analy7ed for radioactivity content and then released through the pond spillway where it is diluted with pond water.
3 Prior to, and during all liquid releases, water samples are collected and analyzed for radioactivity content. During 1991 there were 36 releases of liquid effluent to the environment (See Fig. 6),
in 1991 it was verified that leakage was occurring through the pond a spillway to the release standpipe at an average rate of thice gallons per minute. As this was considered release of pond water, it was sampled on a monthly basis and analyzed for gross beta activity. Consequently, the volume and activity released via this pathway is included in the 1991 liquid e
Figure 6 .
Liquid Effluent Releases Gross Beta Analysis Results (uCi/ml)
January-December 1991 MPC: 1. 00 E-7 1.0E-07 lr e b I L
h- e T - t . ,i n r i . . . . I- ,8:
wit ft pond _
l T l
V
+
l. r 5
o
, , ;I
\- i ,! \ i i ,
, T .'l 1 t , .
\ }\ :
/. / \
I i r
j t \
l k\/r/' I
,1 \\ l! !\ l \
i l' \\, ll \
r
\ \.
\
. 1
! \ l1
' ,' , i; \i 11 \ .l
\
\
l &
t 1.0 E - 0 8 ,_ i ,. ij ; .zf . j t ,
El V lj i / \ j x l i r s'
'/ b I
i/ \t j
i l t ;
l f7 V - , , . .
4
! \l \u n si s
\, <
\ \f k \,; ;
5 l
_ i l.
i
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '''''''''' ' ' ' ' I 1.0 E - 09 1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Release Number o
Apriori LLD: 3.0 E-9 uCi/mi m
29 release totals. The total volume of liquid released offsite in 1991 was 30,000,000 liters (7,900,000 gallons).
The avetage concentration of radioactive material (as measured by gross beta analysis) released in effluent from the UVAll site was 1.3 x 10' uCi/ml. This concentration was 1396 of the applicable MPC. The total activity (excluding tritium activity) cleased in this effluent was 383 uCi.
This activity includes naturally occurring radionuclides contributed to the pond from sources described above.
The average tritiurn concentration in effluent from the site was 5.0 x 10' uCi/ml. This concentration was 0.01696 of the applicable MPC. The total tritium activity released during 1991 was 11 inCi. In previous yeais, the
> calculation of total tritium activity included sample results which were less than or equal to the LLD and which were averaged into the release summation at the corresponding LLD concentration. It was decided that this method was overly conservative. Consecpiently, the calculation for total taitium in 1991 did not include activities based on concentrations
, which were less than the LLD.
3. Solid Waste Shipments During 1991,28 fifty-five gallon drums of dry solid waste were shipped
, from the reactor facility to the Ells waste storage facility for consolidation with other waste being prepared for shipment for disposai.
C. Environmental Surveillance
1. Air Sampling Environmental air samples are collected on a monthly basis at the following locations:
A 1 lloof of reactor building A 2 indicator approximately 0.13 mi. E of UVAll A 3 Control approximate'y 3.1 mi. NW of UVAll Fixed sampling locations are utilized to collect air samples at locations A-2 and A-3. Sampling time is approximately 96 hours0.00111 days 0.0267 hours 1.587302e-4 weeks 3.6528e-5 months . Air samples nic collected at location A 1 using a portable air sampler which is run for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months . All air satuples collected at these locations were particulate air samples and were analyzed for gross beta activity. Ilesults are provided in Table 3.
, 2. Water Sampling Environmental water samples are collected on a monthly basis from the locations indicated in Table 2.
b
-_ _ . . -. - - . = - -. - - . - - - - - - - -
p. .
30 Gross beta analysis was performed on all water samples collected. The results of the analysis are provided in Table 4. The average gross beta concentration measuicd at each location was less than the applicable MPC.
e-Tablo 2 8
LOCATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL WATER SAMPLES TAKEN FROM AROUND THE REACTOR FACILITY IN 1991 Location Description Distance / Direction g from UVAR W1 Creek upstream of on site pond on site W2 University water filtration plant 0.2 6 m l. S E D- W3 Meadow Creek near Barracks Road, 1.8 ml. NE downstream of main University water discharge point (2 samples taken short distance apart on creek, results are averaged)
D D
D e
D
). .
31 Tablo 3
) ENVIRONMENTAL AIR SAMPLING RESULTS Gross Beta Analysos Results D Roo OF UVAR 0.13 Ml. EAST 3.1 Ml. NW f-ACILITY OF UVAR OF UVAR uCi/ml i 2 sigma error JAN 1.1 + 2.0 E 13 8.0 + .63 E-14 9.0 .65 E 14 FEB 1.2 + .26 E 12 1.4 4 .08 E 13 1.9 i .09 E 13 p MAR 1.6 i 2.1 E 13 1.3 4 .08 E 13 1.4 + .08 E-13 APR 2.4 i 2.5 E 13 1.5 .08 E 13 1.2 i .07 E-13 l MAY 1.5 i .32 E 12 1.5 i .07 E 13 1.4 i .07 E-13 JUNE 2.5 i .39 E 12
1.8 + .09 E 13 2.2 + .10 E-13 JULY 8.5 3.1 E 13 2.0 .09 E-13 2.0 .09 E 13 AUG 7.2 _+ 2.6 E 13
_. 2.2 .+_ .10 E-13 2.7 .+_ .11 E 13 SEP 2.5 i .37 E 12 '!.5 i .11 E-13 2.51 11 E 13
'l OCT 1.6 .38 E 12 6.9 .21 E 13 *
6.41 17 E 13 D NOV 2.5 .39 E 12 1.1 .08 E 13 1.1 .08 E-13 DEC 5.1 2.6 E 13 2.7 i .11 E 13 2.8 .11 E-13 p
filter paper counted before 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months waiting period
running time meter indicated sampler ran for 20 hrs. less than usual.
If running time meter malfunctioned, then true concentration should be 5.4 E 13.
e 1
3, Tablo 4
)
ENVIRONMENTAL WATER SAMPLING RESULTS
)
UPSTREAM FILTRATION MEADOW CREEK OF POND PLANT W1 W-2 W-3 y pCl/mi i (1 sigma error '4) t JAN 4.1 x 10' (21) 3.6 x 10' (22) 4.9 x 10' (15)
FEB 1.7 X 10' (8) 8.1 X 10 '" (92) 6.0 X 10' (13)
MAR 3.4 X 10* (31) 1.9 X 10' (-37) 3.0 X 10' (24)
APR 2.1 X 10' (8) 1.1 X 10' (72) 5.3 X 10* (15)
MAY 1.6 X 10' (9) 2.7 X 10' (31) 9.7 X 10' (10)
JUN 8.6 X 10' (16) 5.5 X 10" (1761) 5.2 X 10' (18)
> JUL 5.4 X 10' (26) 5.5 x 10' (19) 9.6 X 10' (12)
AUG 9.3 X 10' (14) 1.4 X 10' (54) 4.6 X 10' (17)
SEP 1.2 X 10 8 (11) 4.2 X 10' (22)
D 8.7 X 10' (10)
OCT 7.0 X 10' (17) 3.9 X 10' (23) 9.8 X 10* (9)
NOV 6.6 X 10' (18) 4.6 X 10' (21) 8.2 X 10' (11) p DEC 9.9 X 10' (13) 3.6 X 10" (25) 1.1 X 10' (8)
AVG. 1.0 X 10* 2.5 X 10' 7.2 X 10' B
b g _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ . - - - - - - --- -
3 33 D. UVAll 1:acility Surveys
1. Radiation and Contarnination Surwys Daily, weekly and inonthly surveys are performed throughour the Facility to inonitor radiation and containination levels. All iequired a ca :adiation and contamination surveys were perforined during 1991.
The levels of contarninatien detected in the Facility during 1991 were generally very low (typically less than 100 dpm!!00 cin ). Although the 2 d
proce ural definition of " contamination"is an activity of 2200 dpm per 100 2
cm or greater, ruost areas are decontaminated if found to have greater than 50 dpm!!00 cm 2 This is in keeping with the philosophy of ALARA.
Area radiation levt ' surveys revealed no overall increase in background or systems related rar .. on levels.
2. Airborne Radioactivity A particulate air sample is collected in the reactor room as part of the wer'ly survey of the Reactor Facility. The average concentration of radioactive innterial detected in the air in the reactor room (as measured by gross beta analysis of the particulate sarnples) was 5.6 x 10" uCi/ml.
The airborne radioactivity detected was prirnarily due to radon and thoron
, daughters. None of the measured concentrations exceeded the applicable MPC. (See Fig. 7).
E. Spills No reportable spills occurred at the UVAR Facility during 1991.
I l
ll ll\ .) 1I ,i j 1
r. .
ub
,:l;;ih 3 u jl, i" ; *
.Iirt i?!{, ,
,tI' 5 t n
0 u 5 o
' c r
, u c
. s . '
5 c l
e '
.s 4 4 2
p . ' -
a l r -
m )/ - i r
- 0 F
u a /m 4
a -
. S/C e s
i r (u 1 9
l o
c L 5
A s 91 n 3
t a -
o -
el t u r
r. ..
e
. l aseb x r
0 uRme s e
y 3 k
c ic s i r
1_ . .
C e 7
i '
e t
r se e 4n. \ '
5W e
r al yD a
s r . ,; '
2
.g u Pa-r n y x n
e \
i F Aa - - :/
'm a u e w ..
i l 0 ot n a c
\
'- 2 oeB J
/j .
i1
\.
R s hv\'e .\l tn '
f a
. rs :;; . 5 /
m
4 t
oor .
e 1 C w
cG \;:.
r u
o' 3
1 a ,
,1
,, l;:,j h
' E e n s
0
' t_
. R -
c o.
f s u.
f 2 '
2
. C 3 s l v ' L
. ,' L c , oa 1 ' 5 6 7 o w -
e r
s; tide 5!+!l>3 /' c A
h!< !f t(e '
__ - _. - -.-J[~
b c u. -[- ,nL
. {!S
! 4 il L Li ;L ;,Li1i! 1
. 0 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 E E E E 0 O. O. 0 1 1 1 1
' ,il l l, l{- 'f [l ,( (llllil I ll!1I ft
l.
3.$
F. Quality Assurance
, The UVAll I?acility participates in the U.S. linvironinental Piotection Agency (lil'A) laboratory luteicontparison Studies l'rogram as part of its quality ecatrol program for radiation tucasureinent of air and water samples. The UVAll Facility pa ticipates in the following studies:
i Garnma in Water on a triannual basis
' Gross Alpha, Gross lieta in Water on a triannual basis Tritium in Water on a semiannual basis Gross lieta on A.r Fiiict on a semiannual basis Three independent determinations for each radionuclide included in a study are _
made and analysis results are reported to the !!.PA. A ieport of all participating laboratories results is generated by the !!PA. This teport contains analytical precision values which are used as a basis for judging n laboratony's performance.
Table 5 gives the results of the UVAll's pellormance in the anove mentioned studies. The fifth colunin in Table 5 (norrnalized deviation) is a measure of the UVAll's analytical accuracy. It is the difference of the UVAll'-
resuhs from the known values.
G. Sunnuary During 1991, no State or l'ederal limit for exposure to personnel or the general public was exceeded, c
h 6
10-l 36 Tablo 5
~ ~
iinTe Study Known UiAR Normalized O Value averae Deviation
valuo 3 29 91 Air Filter Grnss deta 124.0 pCi/F 133.67 2.79 O 8 30,91 Air Plter Gross Beta 92.0 pCi/F 108.00 2.77 2 22 91 Tritium in Water 4418.0 pCl/l 4774.33 1.40 6-2191 Tritium in Water 12480.0 pCi/l l'd755.33 0.38 O
2-08 91 Gamma in Water Co-60 40.0 pCl/l 35.33 1.62 Zn 65 149. pCl/l 148.67 -0 04 Ru 106 186.0 pCl/l 183.67 0.21 o Cs 134 8.0 pCl/l 7.33 -0.23 Cs-137 0.0 pCl/l 7.67 0.12 Ba 133 75.0 pCill 68.67 -1.37 6-07-91 Gamma in Water Co 60 10.0 pCi/l NRR Zn 65 108.0 pCi/l O 124.33 2 57 Ru 106149,0 pCl/1 129 33 2 Xr' Cs 134 15.0 pCi/l 14.0 4 35 Cs 137 14.0 pCl,'l 16.67 0.92 Be-133 62.0 pCl/l 63.33 0.38 O 10-04 91 Gamma in Watu . NRt1 KEY: NRR: No results reported by UVAR Facility F: Filter O
4
!! thit value is between 2.00 and 3.00; analytical process precision is in the warning zone; if it exceeds 3.00 it is out of control.
O o
P O
9 O
. j .11 :
y V ,.
37 i
- V. RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND SFRVICE ACTIVITIES I 1
l y A. Available Research Facilities i
A summary description of the experimental facilities available at the UVA Reactor is listed in section 1.B.5. During 1991, no substantial changes were ;
made to any existing experimental facilitics but one new facility was added. '
The hot cell Facility for a number of years has been used only for the
) temporary storage of low level radioactive waste prior to combined shipments.
A professor currently doing research at the Reactor obtained an X ray tr.achine to complement other research utilizing neutrons. This X ray machine was installed in the hot cell.
3- One minor experiment involving the gamma irradit Hon of some fiber optics like material was carried out in a facility in the reactor pool using a lead shield and eight cobalt u; rods in a linear array. The lead shield reduced the dose to one ud of the fibers by a factor of 100.
) . B. Resea rch Aethities
1. A continuing program of research was pursued on behalf of the Philip Morris Company. This work was supervised by Dr. Jack Brenizer and conducted primarily by graduate students with Reactor Facility staff g assistance. The major projects were neutron radiographic examinations of burning cigarettes, neutron activation analysis of various tobacco products and other substances used in the tobacca industry and the analysis of the distribution of smoke from a smoked cigarette through spiking of tobacco with radioactive iso
opes.
) _ 2. Staff assistance was provided for one major project and several minor projects utilizing the cobalt-60 irradiation facility. The major project is on behalf of sponsors related to the nuclear power industry. It involves the gamma irradiation of radiation sensitive components from nuclear power plants. Dr. Albei Reynolds is the principal investigator for this project
[ which should last several more years.
One of the other project: %. , onsored by the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBArj in Newport News, Virginia. The researchers there are investigating the possible radiation degradation of
)- fiber-optic type radiation scintillation detectors that are scheduled for ese with the accelerator. Additional work related to this project is anticipated in 1992.
A local firm, Biotage, is also using the cobalt facility. A large number of
) samples have been irradiated to test polymer coated stationary phases for liquid chroinatography.
f' ,
38 Several researchers at both UVA and other universities provided a number of different kinds of.:amples to be sterilized in the cobah facility.
3. A nuclear engineering facuuy member, Dr. W.R. Johnson, and several j
students used reactor produced radioisotopes to perfonn sponsored research investigating methods of early detection of corrosion inside steel pipes.
~
4. The Ciba Geigy pharmaceutical company continued sponsoring work involving NAA and production of saniarium and erbium radioactive tracers. The interest is to develop methods to measure and control drug delivery and release mechanisms which employ hydrogel bead technology.
D 5. A studem in the UVA Chemistry Department utilized the services and l equipment at the Reactor Facility to perform neutron activation analysis on a number of geologic samples as part of his PhD research.
,3 i 6.
A professor from Yugoslavia, Dr. P. Vukotic, who had received a Fulbright 3 fellowship, spent about nine months at the Reactor Facility working with the Reactor Facility Director and the reactor staff using neutron activation analysis of special foil to assist the development of a neutron self-shielding correction i
PC program.
3
'7.
A professor from Egypt, Dr. H. Hamroush, also on a Fulbright fellowship, spent about three months at the Reactor Facility worki_.g with an UVA n mistry department professor and the reactor staff performing neutron a tiv tion analysis on Nile River sediments to determine their source and I 9.m ifer the climatic conditions which existed when the sediments were
,. A cLwn. -
8. . avent in the UVA Engineering Phys!cs program utilized the neutron an ation analysis services and the assistance of a reactor staff member to determine the ratio of iodine to thallium in sodium iodide etystals he D made.
D i
-B L _- __ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - - --
O^*
39 l
l C. Service Projects
1. Iodine determinations by epithermal neutron activation analysis (ENAA)
O were performed on behalf of several sponsors. The substances analyzed were infant formula, liquid diet supplements, surgical diets, pet foods and various chemical compounds.
2. Rhodium determinations by neutron activation analysis (NAA) were
.O , performed on a number of chemical mixtures for a major chemical manufacturer.
3. The project involving the color enhancement of various gemstone grade minerals by fast neutron irradiation was pursued by the reactor staff on O behalf on several sponsors involved in the commercial gem trade.
4. Researchers from two local historical sites sought the assistance of the Reactor Facility in determining tl e trace element composition of various building materials in order to determine their place of manufacture.
O
5. A number of small gold pellets were irradiated for use by the Department of Radiological Physics at the University of Virginia Health Sciences Center in the treatment of inoperable cancerous tumors.
6. A cdmpany which supplies various radioactive sources to industry had the O
Reactor Facility irradiate and ship numerous sources for use by companies perfoquing oil well drilling.
7 A number of small radioactive sources were produced for use in graduate and undergraduate nuclear engineering laboratories.
8. Silicon wafers from a major electronics manufacturer v ere analyzed by a member of the Reactor Staff in order to determine the composition of thin films on the wafers.
O O
O O
3. .
l 40 D. Renctor Sharing Program The Department of Energy has for funded a program at the University entitled 3 Reactor Sharing for the past thirteen years. The purpose of this program is to make available the UVAR facilities to faculty and students at universities and -
other educational institutions which do not have nuclear science facilities. Over the years, hundreds of students and dozens of professors have used this arrangement to enhance both their educational and research opportunities.
O This past year a number of tours, laboratories and research projects were conducted under this program.
The following is a list of both the directly and indirectly funded activities completed in 1991.
O School t;urs:
Ten tours from eight high schools, middle schools and elementary schools involving 214 students and teachers.
9 Nine tours by special groups of junior high school and elementary school aged students involving 190 students.
College tours:
Twelve tours from five colleges involving 171 students and professors.
O Special tours in conjunction with UVA programs:
Thirteen tours involving 196 individuals.
College lab.s:
Two of the college student tours involved laboratories which were O participated in by 19 individuals.
Research projects:
Several research projects utilizing neutron activation analysim or cobalt 60 gamma ray irradiation were conducted by students and O faculty from other schools during the year.
O c
0
D*
41 E. Reactor Facility Stinfo_tted Courses and I aboratories
, 1. Academic Courses and I,aboratories The following courses and laboratories were taught by professors in the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics during 1991 utilizing in part services provided by the Reactor Facility.
D NE 488 - Nuclear Power Plant Operations NE 3S2 - Nuclear Engineering Laboratory During June 1992,32 high school teachers from the state of Virginia attended a one week special course at the Reactor Facility. The title of D the course was " Science of Nuclear Energy and Radiation: Environmental Issues and Safety." It consisted of lectures by University of Virginia i
nuclear engineering faculty, laboratoiy experiments using the reactor and a tour of the North Anna Nuclear Power Station.
D F. Degrees Granted by the Dept. of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics The following number of degrees were awarded during 1991 by the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics.
, Bachelor of Science, Nuclear Engineering . . . . 7 Bachelor of Science, Engineering Science . . . . .4 hiaster, Nuclear Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 hiaster, Engineering Physics ..............5 Doctor of Philosophy, Nuclear Engineering . . . 2 8 Doctor of Philosophy, Engineering Physics . , . . _Q TO TA L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 The following theses by students in the D,epartment of Nuclear Engineering nd Engineering Physics were completed during 1991 in part using services or facilities provided at the UVA reactor.
Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis: Resolving Interferences in (n y)
Reactions Due tof,p.p) and/or (n.a) Reactions, hts thesis in Nuclear Engineering by hiichael C. hiorrison.
D Degradation of EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid), hts thesis in Nuclear Engineering by hiatthew J. hiueller.
Radiation Aging Effects on Electric Cable Insulation, hiS thesis in Nuclear Engineering by Laurent Quintric.
D The research wori: for several other theses is in progress utilizing Reactor Facility support.
B
.o a 42 VI. FINANCES A. Expenditute6 j Expenditures for 1991 were as follows:
Direct State SupportReactor Service income Received Salaries: $213,760 $92,070 Operations: 44,350 33,210 Subtotals: $258,110
~
$125,280 TOTAL: $383,390
11. State Support / Research and Service income The University of Virginia is supported by allocations from the State of Virginia. Of these monies, a portion is allocated to the Department of Nuclear and Engineering Physics for the operation of the Nuclear Reactor Facility. These funds cover many of the expenses directly related to the operation of the reactor but additional monies arc necessary to provide for remaining services provided to the university community by the Facility.
Additionalincome is in the form of fees received for research and senice work support. This amount billed for these services totaled about $200,000 in I
1991. The income is 'not business related income" because it is primarily used to pay the salaries of those professional staff members at the Facility whe, are not state supported. Currently, there are two staff members receiving the majority of their salaries from local funds and two other individuals who receive partial support.
e Many staff members take courses and receive degrees at the University while their salaries are paid from monies generated by service work. In effect, this is another method by which the Reactor Facility supports science education at the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics.
k i
i N
3 k
_ - -

ML20094M430

Text

Dear Mr. Mendonca,

Navigation menu

Search