ML19341C605
| ML19341C605 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | General Atomics |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1981 |
| From: | Mowry W GENERAL ATOMICS (FORMERLY GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC./GENER |
| To: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 67-2044, NUDOCS 8103030825 | |
| Download: ML19341C605 (6) | |
Text
.
m I
GENERAL ATOMIC COMPANY P O. DO X 81608 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92138 In Reply
(
- February 27, 1981 Refer To: 67-2044 Mr. James R. Miller, Chief j
Standardization and Special Projects Branch i
Division of Licensing U.S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Cocnission 1
Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Facility License R-67; Docket 50-163 Submittal of Annual Report (3 copies)
Dear Mr. Miller:
,The following is an annual report for the Mark F reactor prepared in the same format as that required for the Mark I (R-38). While the Technical Specifications for Mark F require no annual report, the nunbered sections belov are the sections referred to, for example,.in Section 9.6e of the Technical Specifications of the R-38 (Docket 50-89) reactor.
Part 1 A brief narrative sumary of (1) operating experience (including experi-ments performed), (2) changes in facility design, performance character-istics and operating procedures related to reactor safety occurring durinc l
the reporting period, and (3) results of surveillance tests and inspections.
i 1.
The Mark F reactor (R-67) was operated during the year to provide j
steady-state irradiation for uurerous experinents. A limited nun-j ber of pulses were perforned as part of a pulse test of LEU fuel development. The steady-state operations included irradiations of samples or pieces of equiprent, production of cold neutrons for l
neutron radiography, and reactor training exercises.
During this year, significant experiences associated with Mark F g
g operation being reported are:
I U
g
%;y!-
$ a.
The LEU fuel tests started in 1977 have continued to be suc-ic -.
c
&m cessful. During this year a series of 30 high-level pulses Qi were run in an effort to test tore stringently one of the-
":1
. N specially constructed 1.5-in diameter LEU fuel elements.
c n;
Thirty pulses were conducted with no unexpected or deleter-c
[
Ei ious effects.
EE
%~
!?2 b.
The situation on tranp uranium reported first in 1978 and again in 1979 is unchanged.
This situation causes no prob-lem but is, as before, under continuous scrutiny.
The weak k
81030go
~
James R. Miller 67-2044 indication of fission products occurs only infrequently and i
is uncoordinated with any particular mode of reactor oper-ation.
3 2.
No changes were made to the Facility in 1980.
~
j 3.
Surveillance tests and inspections were performed as required by Sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 of the Mark r Technical Specifications.
Summary results are presented below.
Fuel Surveillance i
l The FLIP fuel was inspected visually and for bending and length I
changes on 7/22/80. All elements were satisfactory for continued service.
In addition, the special fuel test pins were inspected frequently. All passed the required tests.
t Control Rod Surveillance i
The visual inspection for deterioration was conducted on 7/25/80.
All but one control rod were found to be satisfactory.
Small micro pits in the aluminum surface were~ found. A metallurgist 4
1 examined the rod and pronounced the pits as self-limiting. The rod was put back into service.
In December 1980, the rod was inspected again. No change in the status of the pits. The fueled followers located on some of the control rods were inspect-i ed for bend and found to be satisfactory.
i Pulsing System Surveillance The mechanical components of the pulsing systen (pulse control rod, air piston, lip seal, anvil, and accuuulator) were inspect-
]
ed, cleaned as required, lubricated, and reinstalled on January 30, 1980.
The mechanical components of the pulsing system were inspected again on July 29, 1980.
Reactor Safety Surveillance i
As specified in the Technical Specifications, Channel Tests of the reactor safety systen channels, Channel Calibrations of the Power Level monitoring channels, Calibration of the Temperature and Chan-nel Checks of'the fuel-element temperature-measuring channels-were I
performed. The tests were performed at least as often as required, and the results were satisfactory.
In no case was a required safety channel found to be operating outside the specified safety limits.
e The reactor power-level monitoring channels were calibrated at j
least monthly during the reporting period, the last in the year l
on December 10, 1980. Three of these monthly tests required changes i
in the calibration of at least one channel by an amount greater I
than 5% but less than 157..
One required all channels to be changed by a larger amount because-the core configuration was changed.
James R. Miller 67-2044 The monitor and survey systens were under surveillance during the reporting period. The frequency of calibrations was as indicated below.
Continuous Air Monitor Alarm setpoints were checked daily. The systen uns calibrated semiannually with three U-235 sources in front of the detector (600 cts / min,1500 cts / min, and 5500 cts / min).
Eberline Area Monitors Operation is checked daily; alarms are activated in response to a source every two weeks; calibration is performed semiannually with a 4 mci Cs-137 source.
Part 2 A tabulation showing the energy generated by the reactor (in megawatt-hours).
The energy generated in 1980 by the Park F was 67.38 negawatt-hours.
Part 3 The nunber of emergency shutdowns and inadvertent scrans, including the effect, if any, on the safe operation of the reactor, and the reasons for any correc-tive maintenance required, if any.
No inadvertent scrans occurred on Mark F in 1980.
Part 4 Discussion of the major maintenance operations performed during the period, including the effect (if any) on the safe operation of the reactor, and the reasons for any corrective unintenance-required.
1.
On 2/7/80 the pump motor for the demineralizer system burned out.
The heavy rains flooded the outdoor trench housing this pump motor.
It was replaced with a waterproof heavy-duty outdoor-type notor and has given no further problen.
2.
During the annual (July 1930) inspection, the central transient rod was found to have micropits in its aluminun surface. This was an old control rod that has been in and out of service since the mid-60s.
Careful metallurgical inspection of the pits plus competent technical advice shou that these pits are self-liniting and should not progress further. The rod was continued in service after the July discovery and reinspected early in Decenber 1980.
No change in pits was detected.
It was replaced by a different i
pulse rod for the 30-pulse test conducted in Decenber 1980.
If and when this rod is used again, careful surveillance will bc l
practiced.
l I
a i
{
l James R. Miller 67-2044 3.
The 20-hp notor for the Mark F cooling system burned out (9/9/80).
It was replaced 9/23/80.
No safety issues were involved since the reactor tank-water temperature was maintained at all times below the limit set forth in the Technical Specifications.
4.
The central transient rod was exchanged to provide a rod with air follower more suitable for the high-level pulsing progran conducted at the end of 1980.
(12/9/80).
5.
The center thermocouple element on ruel Element No. 6416TC failed.
It had been connected to Fuel Temperature Meter T3.
This failed thertocouple was replaced with the top thernocouple elenent in the same fuel element.
More thernocouple scrans from the fuel elecents are used than required by the license so no safety issues were in-volved.
(12/16/80)
Part 5 A summary of each change to the facility or procedures, tests, and experi-ments carried out under the conditions of 10 CFR 50.59 is presented below.
No facility changes were made during this year (1980).
Only one new test was performed under a 50.59 review.
It was a pulsing test of a single LEU fuel elecent. The new test differed fron earlier LEU pulse tests in that a snall size driver core was used to endeavor to reach higher teuperatures in the test LEU fuel element. A safety review was conducted under 50.59 and approval was granted.
The tests were conducted near the end of December 1980.
(11/3/80 - 12/23/80)
Part 6 A summary of the nature and amount of radioactive effluents released or dis-charged to the environs beyond the effective control of the license as meas-ured at or prior to the point of such release or discharge.
During the calendar year 1980,.0865 curies of Argon 41 were relcaued from the facility to the atuosphere.
All liquid and solid wastes are transferred to GAC's S:IM-696 licensed Uaste Processing Facility for ultinate disposal by a licensed disposal vendor.
Part 7 A description of any environmental surveys perferned outside the facility.
There have been no significant changes to the Environnental Surveillance Pro-gram for-1930.
See reference 38-675 dated February 24, 1976, Facility Lic-ense R-38; Docket 50-89, Subnittal of Annual Report, Attachment I, Cencral Atomic Company Environ.2ntal Surveillance Program.
The results of this pro-gram are submitted in our Semiannual Effluent Report.
I
James R. Miller 67-2044 Part 8 A summary of radiation exposures received by facility personnel and visitors, including the dates and tire of significant exposure, and a brief summary of the results of radiation and contamination surveys perforced within the facil-ity.
Facility Personnel Whole Body Exposures for the Year 1980:
(RE'I)
Number of Employees Monitored Iligh Low Average 4
0.610 0.190 0.377 Nonfacility CAC Personnel Whole Body Exposures for the Year 1980:
(PII)
Number of Employees Monitored High Low Average 87 1.420*
0.000 0.048
- Employee working in Neutron Radiography Departnent.
Contractor Personnel bhole Body Exposures for the Year 1980:
(PII)
Number of Persons Monitored Iligh Lou Average 49 0.250 0.000 0.032 Visitor Whole Body Exposures for the Year 1980:
(PSI)
Number of Persons Monitored Ifigh Low Average 58 0.010 0.000 0.000 Routine Wipe Surveys IIigh Wipe 1313 S DPM/100 cm Average Wipe 42 S DP' /100 cn}
Low Wipe
<25 6 DPM/100 cn Routine Radiation Measurecents Iligh 120 mRen/hr at 1 foot Average
<1 nRem/hr at 1 foot Low
<1 mRen/hr at 1 foot 9
l l
t
6 James R. tillier 67-2044 Should you desire additional infornation concerning the above, please let cle knoV.
Very truly yours,
(,//*
't illian R. FowTy Licensing Adninistr tor Nuc1 car IIaterials Control Division kTJI:hes cc:
R. II. Engelken, U.S. NRC, Region V l
l
[
~W~