ML14195A003
| ML14195A003 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kansas State University |
| Issue date: | 06/30/2014 |
| From: | Geuther J Kansas State University |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML14195A003 (10) | |
Text
Jeffrey Geuther, Ph.D.
Nuclear Reactor Facility Manager 3002 Rathbone Hall Kansas State University 66506 US NRC Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 30 June 2014
Subject:
2013 Annual Operating Report for the Kansas State University TRIGA Mark II Nuclear Reactor (Facility License # R-88, Facility Docket # 50-188)
To Whom It May Concern:
This document serves as the annual operating report for the Kansas State University (KSU) nuclear reactor. This document satisfies requirements in facility Technical Specifications (TS) 6.11 .e.
The report is divided into paragraphs addressing specific items listed as requirements in the Technical Specifications.
Sincerely, Jeffrey A. Geuther, Ph.D.
Nuclear Reactor Facility Manager Kansas State University Attachments:
- 2. 10CFR50.59 Screening Forms Cc: Spyros Traiforos, Project Manager, NRC Michael Morlang, Inspector,NRC
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT Kansas State University TRIGA Mark II Reactor Annual Report, CY 2013 Introduction The Kansas State University Nuclear Reactor Technical Specifications (TS) require a routine written report to be transmitted to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission within 60 days after completion of the first calendar year of operating, and at intervals not to exceed twelve months thereafter, providing the following information:
TS.6.11 .e. 1 - A brief narrative summary of operating experience (including experiments performed), changes in facility design, performance characteristics, and operating procedures related to reactor safety occurring during the reporting period; and results of surveillance tests and inspections.
TS.6.11 .e.2 - A tabulation showing the energy generated by the reactor (in megawatt-hours).
TS.6.11 .e.3 - The number of emergency shutdowns and inadvertent scrams, including the reason thereof and corrective action, if any, taken.
TS.6.1 L.e.4 - Discussion of the major maintenance operations performed during the period, including the effects, if any, on the safe operation of the reactor, and the reasons for any corrective maintenance required.
TS.6.1A.e.5 - A summary of each change to the facility or procedures, tests, and experiments carried out under the conditions of 1O.CFR.50.59.
TS.6.11 .e.6 - A summary of the nature and amount of radioactive effluents released or discharged to the environs beyond the effective control of the licensee as measured at or before the point of such release or discharge.
TS.6.1 1.e.7 - A description of any environmental surveys performed outside the facility.
TS.6.11 .e.8 - A summary of radiation exposures received by facility personnel and visitors, including the dates and time of significant exposure, and a brief summary of the results of radiation and contamination surveys performed within the facilty.
This information is transmitted in this report, in sections separated by TS clause. This report covers January 2013 - December 2013.
Page 1 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT TS.6.1 1.e.1 - A brief narrative summary of operating experience (including experiments performed), changes in facility design, performance characteristics, and operating procedures related to reactor safety occurring during the reporting period; and results of surveillance tests and inspections.
The outer beam port plug for the northeast beam port (piercing beam port) had been lodged in place for years. The plug was removed through a combination of drilling, sawing, and breaking with a digging bar. The beam port was shielded with a borated polyethylene plug and a lead and concrete gamma shield.
The reactor suffered from significant down time due to control rod drive troubleshooting.
The shim rod and regulating drives are especially prone to difficulties.
CY2013 included more hours logged in support of experiments than is typical for the KSU 237 TRIGA reactor. This abnormality is mostly due to a 41/2 day-long irradiation of Np.
The NRC routine annual inspection was conducted during the summer of 2013. An inspector follow-up item was logged, requiring a revision to the facility's sample irradiation procedure to require written communication or verification of the mass of samples to be irradiated. Prior to the routine inspection the facility reported that it had been operated with an incorrect fuel temperature reading. This erroneous reading was caused by the grounding of one of the thermocouple pairs. The facility technical specifications do not require a fuel temperature SCRAM, however, at least on fuel temperature indication is required. An uncited violation was assessed based on this event.
TS.6.1 1.e.2 - A tabulation showing the energy generated by the reactor (in megawatt-hours).
The monthly total energy generated by the KSU reactor is recorded in Table 1. The same data is shown as a bar chart in Figure 1. The total MWh of operation increased from the prior year, from 70 MWh to 99.5 MWh.
Page 2 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT Table 1 - Energy generated by the KSU Triga Mark 11 reactor by month for CY 2013.
Month MWh January 7.5 February 5.2 March 14.9 April 13.2 May 9.6 June 5.7 July 1.8 August 30.0 September 4.1 October 2.2 November 2.2 December 3.0 MWh per Month 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 January February March April May June July August September October November December Figure 1 - Energy generated by the KSU Triga Mark !1 reactor by month for CY 2013.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of hours of reactor operation for various purposes, i.e.,
research support, training, education, etc. The percentage of hours for training appears small, because operator training was often performed when the reactor was being operated for another purpose, such as research support. The plot demonstrates that the reactor is operated in accordance with our stated primary functions: education; research support (e.g., irradiation); operator training; and demonstration (e.g., tours). The amount of hours operated in support of research was much larger than normal due to the extended operation in support of the 237Np irradiation project. This category increase from 30% of hours in CY2012 to 55% of hours in CY2013.
Page 3 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT Maintenance, Testing, 11.2%
6.3% Research, 54.5%]
Training, 1.4%
[Tours, 11.1%1 Classes, 15.5%
Figure 2 - KSU reactor hours, based on purpose of operation.
TS.6.1 1.e.3 - The number of emergency shutdowns and inadvertent scrams, including the reason thereof and corrective action, if any, (
taken.
Inadvertent SCRAMS and Emergency Shutdowns Date Action Comments 1/9/2013 Power SCRAM Console placed in pulse mode without pulse interlock engaged.
2/8/2013 Linear power SCRAM NMP-1000 locked in range 2/15/2013 Spurious SCRAM No indications of any cause 3/15/2013 Linear power SCRAM NMP-1000 locked in range 11/5/2013 Period SCRAM Operator error (Trainee)
TS.6.1 1.e.4 - Discussion of the major maintenance operations performed during the period, including the effects, if any, on the safe operation of the reactor, and the reasons for any corrective maintenance required.
No major maintenance operations affected the safe operation of the reactor. The following major maintenance activities occurred:
Installation of grid plates over the bulk shield tank. The grid plates provide a removable working and walking surface and do not affect the operation of the reactor in any way.
0 Replacement of console key switch with exact replacement part.
0 Installation of additional instrumented fuel element.
Page 4 of 7
ATTACHMENT I KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT TS.6.1 1.e.5 - A summary of each change to the facility or procedures, tests, and experiments carried out under the conditions of 10CFR-50,59.
The following changes were carried out under I OCFR-50.59.
- The thermocouple wires from the instrumented fuel elements were insulated with tape and plastic caps were added to the thermocouple conduit to prevent grounding.
- Grid plates were installed over the bulk shield tank.
None of the above changes were determined to have a significant impact on the safety analysis. Copies of the 10CFR-50.59 screening checklists that were performed to accept the changes are attached to this report.
TS.6.1 1.e.6 - A summary of the nature and amount of radioactive effluents released or discharged to the environs beyond the effective control of the licensee as measured at or before the point of such release or discharge.
On two occasions the contents of the reactor bay sump were discharged to the secondary surge tank. Per procedure, the radioisotope inventory and concentration were calculated prior to discharge, showing both to be well below the limits in 10CFR-20:
Avg. Limit* Total Concentration (pCi I Volume Total Activity Isotope (pCi / mL) mL) (mL) Released (pCi) 3H 1.99E-11 1.00E-02 1.73E-04 14C 5.41E-12 3.OOE-04 8.72E6 4.72E-05 32p 3.96E-12 9.OOE-05 3.45E-05
- 10CFR-20, App.B The only other discharges beyond the facility boundary were HVAC condensate discharges to the sanitary sewer. Since the Kansas State University average water usage is 750,000 gallons per day, it is nearly impossible to exceed 10CFR20 limits for effluent concentration at the KSU reactor. HVAC condensate water is never circulated through or near the reactor core and historically radiation levels in HVAC condensate are near background levels.
TS.6.1 I.e.7 - A description of any environmental surveys performed outside the facility.
Monthly radiation surveys are performed within the facility to verify that radiation levels remain safe when at full-power operation. These surveys indicate that the dose rate at the inside surface of the reactor dome does not exceed the hourly dose limit to members of the public of 2 mR / h, as set forth in 10CFR-20, which indicates that the outside dose cannot exceed this limit.
Page 5 of 7
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT TS.6.1 1.e.8 - A summary of radiation exposures received by facility personnel and visitors, including the dates and time of significant exposure, and a brief summary of the results of radiation and contamination surveys performed within the facilty.
A table showing the number of workers receiving given amounts of dose is presented below. Note that no worker received a shallow dose equivalent, deep dose equivalent, or lens dose equivalent in excess of 100 mrem. This shows that the facility radiation protection program has continued to be successful in keeping occupational doses as low as reasonably achievable.
Table 2 - Summary of total occupational dose received by KSU reactor workers from 1/1/2013 -
12/31/2013.
mrem DDE LDE SDE (0,10] 0 1 0 (10,20] 3 2 1 (20, 30] 1 1 3 (30,401 3 2 0 (40, 50] 1 2 3
>50 1 1 2
>100 0 0 0 Visitor dose at the KSU TRIGA reactor facility is measured using Civil Defense self-indicating pocket dosimeters, with an indication range from 0-200 mR. Self-indicated pocket dosimeter readings suffer from imprecision due to parallax error, sometimes resulting in negative values or readings above the true value.
Page 6 of 7
ATTACHMENT I KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT 2013 Visitor Dose Records 1Ooooo 1000 1686 1000 399 to 138 127
-S 100'-
5; E 18 z
<=E (0,11 (1,21 u2,51(5,101 (10,20m(20,50] >50 Exposure [mRl Figure 3 - Visitor dose records from CY 2013.
All radiation surveys and contamination surveys conducted at the facility in 2013 were nominal.
This concludes the 2013 Annual Report for the Kansas State University TRIGA Mark II Nuclear Reactor.
Page 7 of 7
SOM 5 ATTACHMENT 2 Original 7/05/06 Evaluation of Change, Program Effectiveness Page 1 of 3 TITLE Thermocouple insulation DATE 6/18/2013 DESCRIPTION Take steps to avoid grounding of fuel element thermocouples.
Add plastic caps to thermocouple conduit and apply spray-on or tape coating to wires.
SCREENING: The following guidance provides criteria to screen the proposed change from further assessing need for NRC review. If the change does not affect (1) a design function of SSC, (2) a method of performing or controlling design function, (3) evaluation for demonstrating the design function will be accomplished, then it is not necessary to continue the evaluation.
SSC Affected SSC Design function Failure Mode(s) Accident scenario(s)
NA NA NA NA SAFETYANAL YSIS & ACCIDENT RESPONSE/MITIGA TION YES NO Decrease SSC design function reliability when failure would initiate an accident X Decrease SSC design function reliability when failure would mitigate accident X Reduce redundancy, reliability or defense in depth X Add or delete an automatic or manual design function of an SSC X HUMAN INTERFACE YES NO Convert an automatic feature to manual or vice versa X Adversely affect ability to perform required actions X Adversely affect time response of required actions X INTERFACE OUTSIDE THE PROPOSEDCHANGE YES NO Degrade seismic or environmental qualification X Affect method of evaluation used to establish design basis or safety analysis X Introduce an unwanted or previously unreveiwed system or material interaction X (Not described in SAR) indirect effects on electrical distribution X (Not described in SAR) indirect effects structural integrity X (Not described in SAR) indirect effects on environmental conditions X (Not described in SAR) indirect effects on other SAR design functions X COMMENTS:
PERFORMED BY: J A Geuther DATE: 6/18/2013 If any of the above answers are YES, then proceed to the EVALUATION section.
SOM 5 ATTACHMENT 2 Original 7/05/06 Evaluation of Change, Program Effectiveness Page 1 of 3 TITLE BST Grid plates DATE 06/10/2013 DESCRIPTION Install steel grid plates over bulk shield tank SCREENING: The following guidance provides criteria to screen the proposed change from further assessing need for NRC review. If the change does not affect (1) a design function of SSC, (2) a method of performing or controlling design function, (3) evaluation for demonstrating the design function will be accomplished, then it is not necessary to continue the evaluation.
SSC Affected SSC Design function Failure Mode(s) Accident scenario(s)
NA NA NA NA SAFETY ANAL YSIS & ACCIDENT RESPONSE/MITIGA TION YES NO Decrease SSC design function reliability when failure would initiate an accident X Decrease SSC design function reliability when failure would mitigate accident X Reduce redundancy, reliability or defense in depth X Add or delete an automatic or manual design function of an SSC X HUMAN INTERFACE YES NO Convert an automatic feature to manual or vice versa X Adversely affect ability to perform required actions X Adversely affect time response of required actions X INTERFACE OUTSIDE THE PROPOSEDCHANGE YES NO Degrade seismic or environmental qualification X Affect method of evaluation used to establish design basis or safety analysis X Introduce an unwanted or previously unreveiwed system or material interaction X (Not described in SAR) indirect effects on electrical distribution X (Not described in SAR) indirect effects structural integrity X (Not described in SAR) indirect effects on environmental conditions X (Not described in SAR) indirect effects on other SAR design functions X COMMENTS: This change should not have any effect on reactor safety, etc., as long as the water level in the shield tank can be checked. The deck plates will have holes to allow water level checks.
PERFORMED BY: J A Geuther DATE: 6/10/2013 If any of the above answers are YES, then proceed to the EVALUATION section.