ML20132H029
| ML20132H029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Purdue University |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1979 |
| From: | Stansberry E PURDUE UNIV., WEST LAFAYETTE, IN |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132H016 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9612270116 | |
| Download: ML20132H029 (10) | |
Text
, - - ..
...- ~
- ,H r ,
.4 n e
n'A g SCHOOL OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING b
i W ,
1 e.
Purdue University i
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 4
g
. e ;\ ~m
- o. ~~
s %
] h
% t
-j 9612270116 961212 p,
PDR R
ADOCK0500g2 ,_
b1_ _ "
r l
i P
REPORT ON REACTOR OPEP.ATIONS For the Period ;
h: !
L 3 January 1,1979 to December 31, 1979 i
PURDUE UNIVERSITY REACTOR-1 PURDUC UNIVERSITY West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 March 1980 Prepared by i
Eldon R. Stansberry Reactor Supervisor 0
l I s m_s
- 1. INTRODUCTION This report describes the operation of the Purdue University b
Reactor (PUR-1) for the period from January 1 to December 31, 1979.
l The report is to meet the requirements set forth in 10CFR50.59 and in the PUR-1 Technical Specifications.
During 1979 the reactor continued to be available to all Schools ,
and Departments of Purdue University as well as industrial organizations and other educational institutions for irradiations or educational pur-poses. Laboratory classes perform reactor experiments and irradiations ;
O as well as gain experience in reactor operation. All of these uses assist the University in its mission of education to the community.
In an effort to fulfill its role to educate students and the i
general public many tours and demonstrations were provided. Although t
? the number of groups visiting the reactor declined to 33 during 1979, the total number of visitors increased to 800, indicating an increased desire for information about the field.
- 2. PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL CHANGES I Reactor operations during the year consisted of sample irradiations, instruction in reactor operation, laboratory experiments and surveillance checks.
2.1 Facility Design Changes No changes in the facility design were made during_the year.
2.2 Performance Characteristics Instrumentation problems continue to cause shutdowns and delays.
Preventive maintenance minimizes this problem, but a shortage of l
personnel to adapt state-of-the-art instrumentation to the existing system has prevented a more permanent solution to the instrumentation
. problem. In all cases the instrumentation problems have been such as to O
fail in a safe manner, causing inconvenience, but no safety problems.
I-l
lr Fuel performance continued satisfactory as indicated by an'inspec-4' tion completed June 29, 1979. Neither visual inspection nor measurements taken with a micrometer indicated any significant change in the fuel l plates.
2.3 Changes in Operating Procedures Concerning Safety of Facility Operations No change in operating procedures concerning the safety of facility operations was made during the year.
e-2.4 Results of Surveillance Tests and Inspections 2.4.1 Reactivity Limits. The reactivity worths of the control rods remained as follows:
Shim-safety #1 - 5.2% f 9
Shim-safety #2 - 2.6% f iJ Regulating Rod .28% f With an excess of .47% f the shutdown margin was calculated to be 7.6% f.
The annual inspection of the control rods was completed on June 21, 1979 with no noticeable change observed.
No new experiment was placed in the PUR-1 that required a determin-ation of its reactivity worth.
2.4.2 Reactor Safety System. A channel test was performed on each safety system channel during the prestartup check. This was done for each reactor run that follows a shutdown of 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> or more.
i A channel check of each reactor safety channel was performed at
[
least once every four hours when the reactor was critical.
I t.
An electronic calibration was completed on all the safety channels t I
b on March 23, 1979. The results are in close agreement with previous checks.
Verification that the radiation monitoring equipment is operational
! was completed during the prestartup procedure that preceeded each reactor !
l run.
Shim-safety rod drop times were measured on June 21,1979 follow. -!
ing the annual inspection of the rods. All drop times fell between F
574 and 585 milliseconds which is below the 600 millisecond maximum.
!. These drop times are consistant with past drop times. 1 l 2.4.3 Primary Coolant System. In an attempt to minimize any l variables the pH of the primary coolant was measured each Monday before 6 {
a the skimmer was put into operation. Values between 5.6 and 5.9 were l f measured during 1979.
Conductivity of the pool water was recorded each tionday and never exceeded 1.14 micromho-cm during the year. This value corresponds to a resistivity greater than 877,000 ohm /cm.
l The level of the primary coolant was recorded as part of the pre-startup check list which preceeded each reactor run. It was maintained
~
at or above the 13 foot level during operation the entire year.
. 2.4.4 Containment. The weekly posting of the negative pressure in the reactor room indicated 0.08 to 0.135 inches of water.
l The operation of the inlet and outlet dampers of the exhaust I
system and the air conditioner are checked at the same time since they i are controlled from the same toggle switch. Both systems were checked in April and October, and demonstrated correct operation.
l m_____
4
. Three representative fuel plates were inspected on June 29, 1979. l l
D No evidence of deterioration of the fuel cladding was revealed by the visual inspection or the micrometer measurements that were taken. Fuel l plate number 4-3-73, incorporated as the ninth fuel plate in fuel assembly :
F-4, showed no visible change in the surface defect that has been in-spected annually since its discovery in 1967. ,
2.4.5 Experiments. . The singly encapsulated samples were of such i
small quantity and both the reactor flux and irradiation time so small c
that the complete release of all gaseous, particulate, or volatile com-l -
ponents of the sample are below 10% of the equivalent annual doses stated in 10CFR20.
No samples requiring double encapsulation were irradiated, a
2.5 Changes, Tests, and Experiments Requiring Commission l 4 Authorization !
No changes, tests, or experiments which required authorization l
(.
from the Commissior, pursuant to 10CFR50.59(a) were performed. ;
i
- 2.6 Changes in Facility Staff I
i
! There were no changes in the facility staff during the year. ;
l !
- 3. POWER GENERATION io Operation of the PUR 1 daring 1979 consisted of 53 runs which I generated 641,374 watt-minutes of energy covering an integrated running time of 140.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
- 4. UNSCHEDULED SHUTDOWNS ,
- l. During the year a total of 21 unscheduled shutdowns occurred. They were distributed as follows: 1 4
. 17 composite safety amplift er trouble
.i 4 instrument noise
?
l l
1
_l
, -- - -- -- . ~. , -. - - - -
P
~
'f f
~ 4.1' Composite Safety Amplifier Trouble
& It is still felt that operation of the composite safety amplifiers
- J so close to the trip points accounts for most of the unscheduled shutdowns.
It-takes very little drift in the magnet amplifiers to reach these trip- ;
points. A relay that would drop out if tapped was replaced, but no.
great improvement was noted after this maintenance.
1 A continuing program of preventive maintenance is an effort to
. reduce the unscheduled shutdowns due to instrument noise, but a pennanent P- 1 solution will depend upon replacement of the vacuum tube components.
, 4.2 Instrument Noise Maintenance of existing instruments is still the immediate solution ,
to noise induced thutdowns. Replacement of obsolete vacuum tube instru-
- j. mentation with solid state instrumentation should provide a more permanent solution to the instrument noise problem, l 1
- 5. MAINTENANCE
! The motor on the exhaust fan was replaced with a motor that had been I rebuil t. It failed in a little over 2 months and was replaced by a new
[ motor, i
l-
' A ' worn gear was replacea on the period chart recorder.
i-The replacement of components such as relays, vacuum tubes or resistors accounted for the major portion of the maintenance.
- 6. CHANGES, TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS No changes, tests or experiments were carried out without prior
)
Commission approval, pursuant to the requirements of 10CFRPart50.59(b).
- 7. RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASES i
No measurable amounts of radioactive effluents were released or discharged to the environs beyond the effective control of the Licensee
.. . - . . .. ._ .-- ... . _ = . .
l
~
t 1
i i
as measured at or prior to the point of such release or discharge. '
> 8. OCCUPATIONAL PERSONNEL RADI ATION EXPOSURES, i
No personnel received r'adiation exposures greater than 500 mrem - l l (50 mrem for persons under 18 years of age) during the reporting period.
t l i l
I l l l )
i i l l l I !
L :
h I 0
1 I
I l
r0 1
i !
)
I I I
i b
b i
6 n