ML14195A003

2013 Annual Operating Report for the Kansas State University Triga Mark Ii Nuclear Reactor (Facility License # R-88, Facility Docket # 50-188)

ML14195A003
Person / Time
Site:	Kansas State University
Issue date:	06/30/2014
From:	Geuther J A Kansas State University
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML14195A003 (10)

Text

Jeffrey Geuther, Ph.D.Nuclear Reactor Facility Manager3002 Rathbone HallKansas State University 66506US NRCAttn: Document Control DeskWashington, DC 20555-000130 June 2014

Subject:

2013 Annual Operating Report for the Kansas State University TRIGAMark 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 TechnicalSpecifications (TS) 6.11 .e.The report is divided into paragraphs addressing specific items listed as requirements inthe Technical Specifications.Sincerely,Jeffrey A. Geuther, Ph.D.Nuclear Reactor Facility ManagerKansas State UniversityAttachments:1. Kansas State University TRIGA Mark I1 Reactor Annual Report, CY 20132. 10CFR50.59 Screening FormsCc: Spyros Traiforos, Project Manager, NRCMichael Morlang, Inspector,NRC ATTACHMENT 1KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORTKansas State University TRIGA Mark II Reactor AnnualReport, CY 2013IntroductionThe Kansas State University Nuclear Reactor Technical Specifications (TS) require aroutine written report to be transmitted to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission within60 days after completion of the first calendar year of operating, and at intervals not toexceed twelve months thereafter, providing the following information:TS.6.11 .e. 1 -TS.6.11 .e.2 -TS.6.11 .e.3 -TS.6.1 L.e.4 -TS.6.1A.e.5 -TS.6.11 .e.6 -TS.6.1 1.e.7 -TS.6.11 .e.8 -A brief narrative summary of operating experience (includingexperiments performed), changes in facility design, performancecharacteristics, and operating procedures related to reactor safetyoccurring during the reporting period; and results of surveillance testsand inspections.A tabulation showing the energy generated by the reactor (in megawatt-hours).The number of emergency shutdowns and inadvertent scrams, includingthe reason thereof and corrective action, if any, taken.Discussion of the major maintenance operations performed during theperiod, including the effects, if any, on the safe operation of the reactor,and the reasons for any corrective maintenance required.A summary of each change to the facility or procedures, tests, andexperiments carried out under the conditions of 1O.CFR.50.59.A summary of the nature and amount of radioactive effluents released ordischarged to the environs beyond the effective control of the licensee asmeasured at or before the point of such release or discharge.A description of any environmental surveys performed outside thefacility.A summary of radiation exposures received by facility personnel andvisitors, including the dates and time of significant exposure, and a briefsummary of the results of radiation and contamination surveys performedwithin the facilty.This information is transmitted in this report, in sections separated by TS clause. Thisreport covers January 2013 -December 2013.Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORTTS.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 toreactor safety occurring during the reporting period; and results ofsurveillance tests and inspections.The outer beam port plug for the northeast beam port (piercing beam port) had beenlodged 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 boratedpolyethylene 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 theKSU TRIGA reactor. This abnormality is mostly due to a 41/2 day-long irradiation of237Np.The NRC routine annual inspection was conducted during the summer of 2013. Aninspector follow-up item was logged, requiring a revision to the facility's sampleirradiation procedure to require written communication or verification of the mass ofsamples to be irradiated. Prior to the routine inspection the facility reported that it hadbeen operated with an incorrect fuel temperature reading. This erroneous reading wascaused by the grounding of one of the thermocouple pairs. The facility technicalspecifications do not require a fuel temperature SCRAM, however, at least on fueltemperature indication is required. An uncited violation was assessed based on thisevent.TS.6.1 1.e.2 -A tabulation showing the energy generated by thereactor (in megawatt-hours).The monthly total energy generated by the KSU reactor is recorded in Table 1. The samedata is shown as a bar chart in Figure 1. The total MWh of operation increased from theprior year, from 70 MWh to 99.5 MWh.Page 2 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORTTable 1 -Energy generated by the KSU Triga Mark 11 reactor by month for CY 2013.Month MWhJanuary 7.5February 5.2March 14.9April 13.2May 9.6JuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovember5.71.830.04.12.22.2December 3.0MWh per Month051015202530JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberFigure 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 appearssmall, because operator training was often performed when the reactor was beingoperated for another purpose, such as research support. The plot demonstrates that thereactor is operated in accordance with our stated primary functions: education; researchsupport (e.g., irradiation); operator training; and demonstration (e.g., tours). The amountof hours operated in support of research was much larger than normal due to the extendedoperation in support of the 237Np irradiation project. This category increase from 30% ofhours in CY2012 to 55% of hours in CY2013.Page 3 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORTMaintenance, Testing, 11.2%6.3% Research, 54.5%]Training, 1.4%[Tours, 11.1%1Classes, 15.5%Figure 2 -KSU reactor hours, based on purpose of operation.TS.6.1 1.e.3 -The number of emergency shutdowns and inadvertentscrams, including the reason thereof and corrective action, if any,taken.Inadvertent SCRAMS and Emergency ShutdownsDate Action Comments1/9/2013 Power SCRAM Console placed in pulse mode without pulseinterlock engaged.2/8/2013 Linear power SCRAM NMP-1000 locked in range2/15/2013 Spurious SCRAM No indications of any cause3/15/2013 Linear power SCRAM NMP-1000 locked in range11/5/2013 Period SCRAM Operator error (Trainee)TS.6.1 1.e.4 -Discussion of the major maintenance operationsperformed during the period, including the effects, if any, on the safeoperation of the reactor, and the reasons for any correctivemaintenance required.No major maintenance operations affected the safe operation of the reactor. Thefollowing major maintenance activities occurred:Installation of grid plates over the bulk shield tank. The grid plates provide aremovable working and walking surface and do not affect the operation of thereactor in any way.(00Replacement of console key switch with exact replacement part.Installation of additional instrumented fuel element.Page 4 of 7 ATTACHMENT IKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORTTS.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 withtape and plastic caps were added to the thermocouple conduit to preventgrounding.* Grid plates were installed over the bulk shield tank.None of the above changes were determined to have a significant impact on the safetyanalysis. Copies of the 1 OCFR-50.59 screening checklists that were performed to acceptthe changes are attached to this report.TS.6.1 1.e.6 -A summary of the nature and amount of radioactiveeffluents released or discharged to the environs beyond the effectivecontrol of the licensee as measured at or before the point of suchrelease or discharge.On two occasions the contents of the reactor bay sump were discharged to the secondarysurge tank. Per procedure, the radioisotope inventory and concentration were calculatedprior to discharge, showing both to be well below the limits in 1OCFR-20:Avg. Limit* TotalConcentration (pCi I Volume Total ActivityIsotope (pCi / mL) mL) (mL) Released (pCi)3H 1.99E-11 1.00E-02 1.73E-0414C 5.41E-12 3.OOE-04 8.72E6 4.72E-0532p 3.96E-12 9.OOE-05 3.45E-05*1OCFR-20, App.BThe only other discharges beyond the facility boundary were HVAC condensatedischarges to the sanitary sewer. Since the Kansas State University average water usageis 750,000 gallons per day, it is nearly impossible to exceed 10CFR20 limits for effluentconcentration at the KSU reactor. HVAC condensate water is never circulated through ornear the reactor core and historically radiation levels in HVAC condensate are nearbackground levels.TS.6.1 I.e.7 -A description of any environmental surveys performedoutside the facility.Monthly radiation surveys are performed within the facility to verify that radiation levelsremain safe when at full-power operation. These surveys indicate that the dose rate at theinside surface of the reactor dome does not exceed the hourly dose limit to members ofthe public of 2 mR / h, as set forth in 1 OCFR-20, which indicates that the outside dosecannot exceed this limit.Page 5 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORTTS.6.1 1.e.8 -A summary of radiation exposures received by facilitypersonnel and visitors, including the dates and time of significantexposure, and a brief summary of the results of radiation andcontamination surveys performed within the facilty.A table showing the number of workers receiving given amounts of dose is presentedbelow. Note that no worker received a shallow dose equivalent, deep dose equivalent, orlens dose equivalent in excess of 100 mrem. This shows that the facility radiationprotection program has continued to be successful in keeping occupational doses as lowas 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 0Visitor 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-indicatedpocket dosimeter readings suffer from imprecision due to parallax error, sometimesresulting in negative values or readings above the true value.Page 6 of 7 ATTACHMENT IKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA MARK II REACTOR ANNUAL REPORT2013 Visitor Dose Records1Ooooo100016861000399to138 127-S 100'-5;E 18z<=E (0,11 (1,21 u2,51 (5,101 (10,20m(2Exposure [mRl0,50] >50Figure 3 -Visitor dose records from CY 2013.All radiation surveys and contamination surveys conducted at the facility in 2013 werenominal.This concludes the 2013 Annual Report for the Kansas State University TRIGA Mark IINuclear Reactor.Page 7 of 7 SOM 5 ATTACHMENT 2 Original 7/05/06Evaluation of Change, Program Effectiveness Page 1 of 3TITLE Thermocouple insulation DATE 6/18/2013DESCRIPTION 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 fromfurther assessing need for NRC review. If the change does not affect (1) a design function ofSSC, (2) a method of performing or controlling design function, (3) evaluation for demonstratingthe 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 NASAFETYANAL YSIS & ACCIDENT RESPONSE/MITIGA TION YES NODecrease SSC design function reliability when failure would initiate an accident XDecrease SSC design function reliability when failure would mitigate accident XReduce redundancy, reliability or defense in depth XAdd or delete an automatic or manual design function of an SSC XHUMAN INTERFACE YES NOConvert an automatic feature to manual or vice versa XAdversely affect ability to perform required actions XAdversely affect time response of required actions XINTERFACE OUTSIDE THE PROPOSED CHANGE YES NODegrade seismic or environmental qualification XAffect method of evaluation used to establish design basis or safety analysis XIntroduce 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 XCOMMENTS:PERFORMED BY: J A GeutherDATE: 6/18/2013If any of the above answers are YES, then proceed to the EVALUATION section.

SOM 5 ATTACHMENT 2 Original 7/05/06Evaluation of Change, Program Effectiveness Page 1 of 3TITLE BST Grid plates DATE 06/10/2013DESCRIPTION Install steel grid plates over bulk shield tankSCREENING: The following guidance provides criteria to screen the proposed change fromfurther assessing need for NRC review. If the change does not affect (1) a design function ofSSC, (2) a method of performing or controlling design function, (3) evaluation for demonstratingthe 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 NASAFETY ANAL YSIS & ACCIDENT RESPONSE/MITIGA TION YES NODecrease SSC design function reliability when failure would initiate an accident XDecrease SSC design function reliability when failure would mitigate accident XReduce redundancy, reliability or defense in depth XAdd or delete an automatic or manual design function of an SSC XHUMAN INTERFACE YES NOConvert an automatic feature to manual or vice versa XAdversely affect ability to perform required actions XAdversely affect time response of required actions XINTERFACE OUTSIDE THE PROPOSED CHANGE YES NODegrade seismic or environmental qualification XAffect method of evaluation used to establish design basis or safety analysis XIntroduce 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 XCOMMENTS: This change should not have any effect on reactor safety, etc., as long as thewater level in the shield tank can be checked. The deck plates will have holes to allow waterlevel checks.PERFORMED BY: J A GeutherDATE: 6/10/2013If any of the above answers are YES, then proceed to the EVALUATION section.