ML24079A137
| ML24079A137 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000088 |
| Issue date: | 02/28/2024 |
| From: | Cebula A Kansas State University |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk |
| References | |
| Download: ML24079A137 (1) | |
Text
Alan Cebula, Ph.D.
Nuclear Reactor Facility Manager 3002 Rathbone Hall 1701B Platt St Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66506 USNRC Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 28 February 2024
Subject:
2023 Annual Operating Report for the Kansas State University TRI GA 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. The report is divided into paragraphs addressing specific items listed as requirements in the Technical Specifications 6.1 le.
Sincerely,
/~./.#-
Alan Cebula, Ph.D.
Nuclear Reactor Facility Manager Kansas State University Attachments:
- 2. 50.59 Screening and Evaluation Cc: Linh Tran, Project Manager, NRC Andrew Waugh, Inspector, NRC
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT Kansas State University TRIGA Mark II Reactor Annual Report, CY 2023 Introduction The Kansas State University Nuclear Reactor Technical Specifications (TS) require a routine written report to be transmitted to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 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. l -
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.6.11.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.6.11.e.5 -
A summary of each change to the facility or procedures, tests, and experiments carried out under the conditions of 10.CFR.50.59.
TS.6.11.e.6 -
A summary of the nature and amount ofradioactive 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.6.11.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 facility.
This information is transmitted in this report, in sections separated by TS clause. This report covers January 2023 -December 2023.
Page 1 of9
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT 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.
The KSU reactor remained in a shutdown state following the results of fuel inspections in CY202 l. The mission of the reactor continued by supporting outreach and classroom activities. While the number of tours decreased from the previous year down to 32, the total number of visitors was increased by about 25% to 430. Although a considerable increase, tour volume remains about half of the historical volumes of over 1,000 individuals per year. Laboratories associated with the reactor facility were used to support classes within the Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering Department and researchers. A reactor laboratory course utilized radioactive sources and high purity germanium spectrometers maintained by the reactor.
Based on testing results from a system previously used in research, ultrasonic cleaning was selected as a method to address the maintenance issue resulting in the shutdown. A vendor with experience cleaning fuel bundles in the nuclear power industry was chosen to design and build a commercial cleaning system. A procedure was developed, reviewed, and approved by the Reactor Safeguards Committee to utilize the new cleaning system.
Results of monitoring water ingress into the beam port facilities show limited leaking.
Experience has shown a slight increase in leakage from beam port facilities with increasing primary pool temperature above typical room temperature. With no operations above the point of adding heat, primary pool temperature was easily maintained at room temperature throughout CY2023.
Bulk shield tank and primary pool cleaning and maintenance activities continued in CY2023. Additional tools for cleaning the primary pool continue to be developed.
Different methods of refurbishing the Bulk Shield Tank were investigated.
The NRC routine annual inspection was completed from April 24-28, 2023. A report dated June 5, 2023 indicating no findings of significance was received as a result of the inspection (Inspection Report No. 05000188/2023201). Concurrent with the routine inspection, the NRC conducted a security inspection. Based on the results of the security inspection, no significant security concerns or findings of non-compliance were identified (Inspection Report No. 05000188/2023202, August 1, 2023).
Page 2 of9
ATTACHMENT I KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT TS.6.11.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 and shown as a bar chart in Figure 1. Normal operations remained suspended from the results of fuel inspection findings in CY2021, so the facility had zero energy generated for CY2023. A total of20.l hours attributed to operations occurred during 2023. All hours were at zero power and were conducted for maintenance activities such as fuel inspections. The limited operating is reflected in Table 2 and Figure 2. Not reflected in the table and figure is the use of the reactor for outreach activities. Tours were still conducted without operating the reactor and at a level comparable to CY2022.
Table 1 - Energy generated by the KSU Triga Mark II reactor by month for CY 2023.
Month MWh Burnup January 0.00 February 0.00 March April May June July August September October November December TOTAL Page 3 of9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ATTACHMENT I KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT December November October September August GI GI 0\\
a1 e July G June a May a MWh Burnup
- ~ L_J 7 __ :
_-L tJ -,- J M
~
~
~
M
~
~
~
~
M W
MONTHLYMWH Figure 1 - Energy generated by the KSU Triga Mark II reactor by month for CY 2023.
Table 2 - Operating hours grouped by purpose at the KSU TRIGA Mark II reactor for CY 2023.
Operating Time [hr]
Purpose Research 0
Tours 0
Classes 0
Maintenance 20.1 Training 0
Testing 0
TOTAL 20.1 Reactor Operations by Purpose
\\
I
-- ~* *-
~ Research Tours Classes
- s Maintenance
= Training Testing Figure 2 - KSU TRIG A Mark II operations distribution as a percentage of total hours, CY2023, based on purpose of operation.
Page 4 of9
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT TS.6.11.e.3 - The number of emergency shutdowns and inadvertent SCRAMs, including the reason thereof and corrective action, if any, taken.
As shown in Table 3, there were no inadvertent SCRAMs in CY2023 and no emergency shutdowns occurred during the time period reported. The number of inadvertent SCRAMs has remained low (CY 2022: 1, CY 2021: 2, CY 2020: 2, CY 2019: 6, CY 2018: 20).
Table 3 - Inadvertent SCRAMs.
I Date None I A,:tion I Comments TS.6.11.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.
Various system maintenance was performed throughout CY2023 for part failure due to normal wear and tear. No effects on the safe operation of the reactor were observed. The following is a summary of all major maintenance activities during CY2023:
Control rod limit switch maintenance o Shim Rod limit switch (rod down actuator) adjusted to restore drive function o Pulse rod down microswitch adjusted to restore Air Light function Cooling tower fan belts replaced Continuous Air Monitor vacuum pump vanes broke during power outage. Vanes replaced using repair kit.
Crane inspection Rotary Specimen Rack moved from Bulk Shield Tank (BST) to dry storage location within reactor bay to allow BST refurbishment work Sump level sensor wires resoldered and protected with heat shrink covering Ultrasonic fuel cleaning system tested with model fuel rod. Testing included working through logistics of system setup including pump-filter skid and generator power adjustment.
TS.6.11.e.5 - A summary of each change to the facility or procedures, tests, and experiments carried out under the conditions of 10.CFR.50.59.
All maintenance activities involved replacing malfunctioning components with same make and model equipment. No changes in facility or experiments occurred during CY2023. A new procedure was approved by the Reactor Safeguards Committee to allow ultrasonic cleaning of stainless-steel clad fuel elements.
Page 5 of9
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT 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.
Per procedure, the concentration of liquid effluent was calculated prior to discharge, along with an estimate of the total activity. After discharge, the total activity released was determined based on actual volume discharged. Values are verified to be below the limits in 1 0CFR20 before discharge. Table 4 summarizes the average concentration and total activity released.
Table 4 - Summary of radioactive effluent (water)
Avg.
Total Total Activity Isotope Concentration Volume (Ci/ mL)
(mL)
Released (Ci)
Alpha-3.2E-11 3.46E6 1.1 lE-10 emitters Beta-l.69E-5 1.00E7 1.69E-4 emitters Cs-137 6.4E-15 6.58E6 4.21E-8 TS.6.11.e. 7 - A description of any environmental surveys performed outside the facility.
Radiation surveys are performed within and around the facility to verify that radiation levels remain safe when at full-power operation. These surveys indicate that the dose rate (gamma and neutron) at the reactor dome does not exceed the hourly dose limit to members of the public of 2 mrem/hr, as set forth in 10CFR20, which indicates that the outside dose cannot exceed this limit.
Since no high-power operations took place during CY2023, all radiation surveys of the operations boundary were at zero power. Gamma and neutron dose rates for all environmental surveys at the operations boundary revealed dose rates at background readings. Two thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLD) are placed at the operations boundary for environmental/area monitoring monthly. Table 5 summarizes the monthly TLD measurements for CY2023. All monthly dose measurements at the confinement boundary were reported as zero mrem.
Page 6 of9
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT Almost half (5 of 12) control room door area monitor measurements were reported above minimum. Reactor staff TLDs are stored at the same location as the area monitor. As shown in Figure 3, reported doses for reactor staff tend to be elevated in months when the area monitor at the control room door reports above the minimum level. Overall, reported values for the control room door area monitor remain very low.
Table 5 - Environmental and Area Monitor Monthly Doses 1/1/2023 - 12/31/2023.
Control Reactor Month Room Confinement Door (South)
[mrem]
[mrem]
January 0
0 February 0
0 March 10 0
April 0
0 May 2
0 June 7
0 July 1
0 August 0
0 September 0
0 October 0
0 November 3
0 December 0
0 TOTAL 23 0
2023 Reported Dose Values
~ - - -- - -- -
e Reactor Staff X Area Monitor Figure 3 - Comparison of reported doses for reactor staff (whole-body) and area monitor by month (CY2023).
Page 7 of9
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT 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 facility.
Monthly whole body dose reports have been received from the dosimetry vendor for monitoring periods January to December 2023 along with quarterly extremity reports for first through fourth quarter 2023 monitoring periods. A total of 12 individuals were monitored at some point during 2023.
Table 6 shows the distribution of cumulative worker doses based on the reports available.
Overall, no staff exceeded 20 mrem total for a reported whole-body dose. The average dose equivalents were 8 mrem deep dose equivalent (DDE), 8 mrem lens dose equivalent (LDE), and 9 mrem shallow dose equivalent (SDE). The maximum for an individual was 18 mrem DDE, 19 mrem LDE, and 19 mrem SDE.
The average max extremity dose for the year was 85 mrem and the maximum was 111 mrem. The fourth quarter extremity report showed unusual values considering no significant change in staff activities and no accompanying increase in whole body monitoring for October to December. Elevated reported values for the fourth quarter were observed for other groups monitored on campus. The university's radiation safety office is investigating the irregularity. Excluding the 4th quarter report, extremity monitoring had an average of 15.6 mrem and a maximum of 54 mrem for an individual. Overall, values are well below ALARA goals and similar to previous years.
Table 6-Summary of total occupational dose received by KSU reactor workers from 1/1/2023-12/31/2023.
DDE LDE SDE Max mrem Extremity
[0, 10]
10 9
8 0
(10, 20]
2 3
4 0
(20, 30]
0 0
0 0
(30, 40]
0 0
0 0
(40, 50]
0 0
0 0
(50,100]
0 0
0 9
(100,150]
0 0
0 3
(150,200]
0 0
0 0
Page 8 of9
ATTACHMENT 1 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT Visitor dose at the KSU TRI GA reactor facility is measured using self-reading pocket ion chamber 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. Figure 4 summarizes the distribution of visitor exposures recorded. For a total of 496 visitor dose records, over 87% of the visitor dose records are at 1 mR or less. Records above 2 mR occurred sporadically within large groups of visitors where the bulk of readings were 1 mR or less indicating error in reading.
2023 Visitor SRPD Records 450 400 350 Ill
"'Cl.. 8 300 GI a:..
-~ 250 Ill >
0 200 GI j 150
- , z 100 50 4
0
<=0 (0,1]
(1,2]
(2,5]
(5,10]
(10,20]
(20,50]
>50 Exposure [mR]
Figure 4 - Visitor self-reading pocket dosimeter (SRPD) records from CY 2023.
All monthly radiation and contamination surveys conducted at the facility in 2023 were nominal, and no action levels were exceeded.
This concludes the 2023 Annual Report for the Kansas State University TRI GA Mark II Nuclear Reactor.
Page 9 of9
Date: 11/29/2023
Title:
Procedure 30 - Fuel Element Cleaning and Inspection Performer: Alan Cebula
==
Description:==
Procedure 30 provides a method for ultrasonic cleaning of stainless steel clad TRIGA fuel elements and the subsequent inspection..
SCREENING - The following guidance provides criteria to screen the proposed change from further assessing the need for NRC review.
SSC Affected SSC Desian Function Failure Mode(s) I Accident Scenario(s) I Fuel Cladding Cladding integrity Fuel element!
1 Fuel element failure I
I fission product retention cladding failure 1
Safety Analysis and Accident Response/Mitigation YES NO Decrease SSC design function reliability when failure would initiate X
accident Decrease SSC design function reliability when failure would affect X
accident mitigation Reduce redundancv, reliabilitv, or defense in depth X
Add or delete an automatic or manual desion function of an SSC X
i Human Interface YES NO Convert an automatic feature to manual or vice versa X
Adverselv affect ability to perform required actions X
Adversely affect time response of required actions X
Interface Outside of the Proposed Change YES NO Degrade seismic or environmental qualification X
Affect method of evaluation used to establish design basis or safety X
analysis.
Introduce unwanted or previously unreviewed system or material X
interaction (Not described in SAR} indirect effects on electrical distribution X
{Not described in SAR) indirect effects on structural intearitv X
{Not described in SAR) indirect effects on environmental conditions X
{Not described in SAR) indirect effects on other SAR desian functions X
EVALUATION - If the change does affects (1) a design function of SSC, (2) a method of performing or controlling design function, or (3) evaluation for demonstrating the design function will be accomplished, as indicated by one or more YES answers in the "Screening" section, complete the applicable tables below.
Does the change result in more than a minimal increase in the frequency YES NO of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the final SAR (as X
updated)?
Accident Potential Impact on Accident Frequency Reactivity Addition NIA LOCA NIA Fuel Handling NIA Does the change result in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood YES NO of occurrence of a malfunction of an SSC important to safety previously X
evaluated in the final SAR (as updated)?
Affected SSC Potential lmoact on Likelihood of Malfunction NIA NIA Does the change result in more than a minimal increase in the YES NO consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the final SAR (as X
updated)?
Accident Potential lmoact on Accident Consequences Reactivity Addition NIA LOCA NIA Fuel Handling NIA Does the change result in more than a minimal increase in the YES NO consequences of a malfunction of an SSC important to safety previously X
evaluated in the final SAR (as updated)?
Affected SSC Potential lm,:,act on Consequences of Malfunction NIA NIA
EVALUATION - continued Does the change create a possibility for an accident of a different type YES NO than previously evaluated in the final SAR (as updated)?
X Accident Description (Including Likelihood and ConseauencesJ N/A Does the change create a possibility for a malfunction of an SSC YES NO important to safety with a different result than any previously evaluated X
in the final SAR (as updated)?
Accident Affected SSC Result Reactivity N/A N/A Addition LOCA N/A N/A Fuel Handling N/A N/A Other N/A N/A Does the change result in exceedance or alteration of a design basis YES I NO I limit for a fission product barrier as described in the SAR (as updated)?
Ix I
Category Referencenext Value Design Basis Limit N/A N/A Analysis N/A N/A Approach to Limit N/A N/A Does the change result in departure from a method of evaluation YES NO described in the final SAR (as updated) used to establish design bases X
or in the safetv analvsis?
Categorv Referencenext Value Design Basis N/A N/A New Analysis N/A N/A Comparison N/A N/A
Comments: The ultrasonic cleaning device was designed, manufactured, and safety qualified by a commercial company with extensive experience applying ultrasonic cleaning methods to commercial power reactor fuel. Design and manufacturing of the system is based on technology developed and used for over two decades in the power industry and is adapted to clean TRIGA fuel. Safety testing extended methods used in prior fuel cleaning qualification programs to stainless steel TRIGA fuel [1]. Manufacturer testing conclusions show no concerns for material integrity for cleaning exposures up to 120 minutes [2,3].
Fuel element failure accident (Maximum Hypothetical Accident) in the Safety Analysis Report does not credit any type of device or force as a cause of the accident. Based on the safety qualification provided by the manufacturer, this device does not pose any more likelihood of increasing the occurrence of the Maximum Hypothetical Accident than normal fuel movement and inspection operations.
References:
[1] Dominion Engineering, Inc. Memo M-208-2301-00-02, Rev. 0
[2] Dominion Engineering, Inc. Letter L-208-2301-00-01, Rev. 1
[3] Dominion Engineering, Inc. Memo M-208-2301-00-01, Rev. 0 APPROVAL -
According to Technical Specifications, Section 6.2(b)4, the Reactor Safeguards Committee is responsible for determining "whether changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report (as updated), changes in the procedures as described in the final safety analysis report (as updated), and the conduct of tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report (as updated) may be accomplished in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 without obtaining prior NRC approval via license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR Sec. 50.90."
Date of RSC approval: /t/24 /2°2.3 Method of RSC approval: Vol~e.. Vo./-e... So..~,~dv-d. 1/2 P.'5 ° J C> ~
Attach appropriate records of RSC approval (e.g., email ballots or meeting.minutes) to this form.