ML14154A123

Purdue University Submission of 2013 Annual Report for PUR-1

ML14154A123
Person / Time
Site:	Purdue University
Issue date:	05/22/2014
From:	Jamieson L H Purdue University Research Reactor
To:	Hardesty D A Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML14154A123 (7)

Text

PURDUEUNIVERSITYCOLLEGE OF ENGINEERINGLeah H. JamiesonThe John A. Edwardson Dean of EngineeringRansburg Distinguished Professorof Electrical & Computer EngineeringMay 22, 2014Mr. Duane A. HardestyAttn: Document Control DeskU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOne White Flint North11555 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852-2738RE: Submission of 2013 Annual Report for PUR-1, Docket Number 50-182

Dear Mr. Hardesty,

Enclosed please find one copy of the 2013 Annual Report for the Purdue University ResearchReactor, PUR-1, Docket Number 50-182.Should you have any questions, please contact Robert Bean (beana-purdue.edu).Sincerely,The John A. Ed ardson Dean of EngineeringRansburg Distinguished Professor ofElectrical and Computer Engineeringcc: James F. Schweitzer, Chair CORO, Radiation Safety Officer, Purdue UniversityRobert Bean, Director Radiation Laboratories, Purdue UniversityFileOffice of the Dean4/QNeil Armstrong Hall of Engineering 1 701 W. Stadium Avenue m West Lafayette, IN 47907-2045(765) 494-5346 .Fax: (765) 494-9321 a [hj@purdue.edu w https://engineering.purdue.edu SCHOOLOFNUCLEARENGINEERINGPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, Indiana 47907 REPORT ON REACTOR OPERATIONSFor the PeriodJanuary 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013PURDUE UNIVERSITY REACTOR-1 (PUR-1)Facility Docket No. 50-182PURDUE UNIVERSITYWest Lafayette, Indiana 47907May 2014Prepared byRobert S. Bean, Facility Directorand Nader Satvat, Reactor Supervisor

1. INTRODUCTIONThis report is submitted to meet the requirements set forth in the technicalspecifications of the Purdue University Reactor (PUR-1) and 10 CFR 50.59 for theperiod January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013.2. PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL CHANGES2.1 Facility Desiqn Chan-gesThere were no design changes to the facility in 2013.2.2 Performance CharacteristicsThe overall operation of the PUR-1 facility continued satisfactorily during thereporting period. However, due to unplanned maintenance and failure ofchannel 1, PUR-1 only achieved criticality twice.During the visual inspection of the fuel on July 19th 2013 no changes wereidentified. This inspection included any defects that might compromise theintegrity of the cladding including any evidence of corrosion. Monthlysurveillances of process water showed no fission product contamination,verifying fuel integrity. Satisfactory performance of the fuel continuedthroughout the year.2.3 Changes in Operating Procedures Concerning Safety of Facility OperationsThere were no changes to the operating procedures of the facility during2013.2.4 Results of Surveillance Tests and Inspections2.4.1 Reactivity LimitsThe reactivity worths of the control rods were not determined due tofailure of channel 1 and other outages due to series of unplannedmaintenance. The latest measured values are the ones for 2011 andare as follows:Shim-safety #1: 3.96%Shim-safety #2: 2.19%Reg-ulating Rod: 0.229%These values are consistent with previous reported values. The worthcurves of the control rods were checked after the loading and the excess reactivity was determined to be 0.42%, and the shutdownmargin was determined to be 1.77% based on these values.2.4.2 Reactor Safety SystemsEach pre-startup check included a channel test for each safety system,provided the shutdown exceeded 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> or if the system was repairedor de-energized.Each reactor safety system had a channel check performed at timeintervals of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> or less during operation.On December 14, 2012, the electronic calibration of all safety channelswas completed. This was not performed during 2013 due to extendedmaintenance down-time.Power calibration using gold foils was not performed in 2013 due toextended maintenance down-time.During the pre-startup, which precedes each run, the radiation areamonitors and the continuous air monitor were checked for normaloperation.Area monitors and the CAM were calibrated on Jan 30, 2013 and July24, 2013.The rod drop times were measured on February 15, 2013. The roddrop times fell between 554.47 and 608.51 milliseconds. These valuesare consistent with past measurements and are well within thespecification limit of one second.The control rods were visually inspected on January 25, 2013. Noevidence of deterioration or damage was observed.2.4.3 Primary Coolant SystemThe weekly measurements of the pH of the primary coolantconsistently gave readings between 4.2 and 5.2 during 2013. In onlytwo incidents, the value was as low as 4.2 which is outside thespecification limits of 5.5 +/- 1.0. The issue appears to be the currentpH meter so a new pH meter was purchased. We are in the process ofchecking the new meter for consistent performance.During the weekly checks and the pre-startup check, which precedeseach run, the conductivity of the primary coolant was measured and the values never exceeded 2.29 micromhos-cm. This represents aresistivity of more than 436,681.2 ohm/cm, which exceeds the lowerlimit of 330,000 ohm/cm as given in the specifications.The specification of 13 feet of water was always either met orexceeded, according to the pre-startup checklist that was completedprior to each reactor run.Monthly samples of the primary coolant were collected and analyzedby personnel from Radiological and Environmental Management forgross alpha and beta activity. No activity which would indicate failure ofthe fuel plates was identified in the samples.2.4.4 ContainmentReadings between 0.04 and 0.17 inches of water were recordedweekly for the negative pressure in the reactor room. The reading of0.04 inches of water is below the minimum required for operation.Upon investigation, we determined that the pressure gauge should bereplaced, and we purchased a new pressure gauge.The confinement negative pressure was greater than 0.05 inches ofwater before any operation, according to the pre-start checklists.A visual inspection of fuel plates was performed on July 19, 2013. Thesurface condition of the fuel plates indicated no change from the lastinspection, and the cladding of the other inspected plates identified nochanges.2.4.5 ExperimentsThe mass of the singly encapsulated samples and the flux of thereactor are such that the complete release of all gaseous, particulate,and volatile components of the samples would not result in doses inexcess of 10% of the equivalent annual doses as stated in 10 CFR 20.No samples of unknown composition were irradiated in 2013,2.5 Changes, Tests and Experiments Requiring Commission AuthorizationDuring 2013 no changes, or experiments, which required authorization fromthe Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 (a), were performed.

2.6 Changes in Facility StaffAs of Aug 12, 2013 Professor Robert S. Bean is the new facility director.3. POWER GENERATIONOperation of the PUR-1 during 2013 consisted of 11 runs, which only had twocriticalities and the rest of the runs were scrapped. The total run time was 4.3hours and total energy generated was 300 Joules.4. UNSCHEDULED SHUTDOWNSThere were no unscheduled shutdowns during 2013.5. MAINTENANCEThe HEPA filter for the room exhaust air was replaced September 24, 2013. Theconfinement pressure monitor was replaced on September 18, 2013.6. CHANGES, TESTS AND EXPERIMENTSNo changes, tests or experiments were carried out without prior Commissionapproval pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 (b).7. RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASESNo measurable amount of radioactive effluent was released to the environsbeyond our effective control, as measured at or prior to the point of such release.8. OCCUPATIONAL PERSONNEL RADIATION EXPOSURENo radiation exposures greater than 25% of the appropriate limits of 10 CFR 20were received during the reporting period.