NRC 2015-0061, Transmittal of 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the TN-RAM Package: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:September 23, 2015 10 CFR 71.95 Mr. Mark Lombard, Director Division of Spent Fuel Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Document Control Desk Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dockets 50-266, 50-301 and 72-005 Renewed License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the TN-RAM Package NRC 2015-0061
{{#Wiki_filter:September 23, 2015                                                         NRC 2015-0061 10 CFR 71.95 Mr. Mark Lombard, Director Division of Spent Fuel Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Document Control Desk Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dockets 50-266, 50-301 and 72-005 Renewed License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the TN-RAM Package


==Reference:==
==Reference:==
(1) Letter from D. Shrum (EnergySolutions LLC) toM. Lombard (U.S. NRC),
                    "1 0 CFR 71.95 Report on the 8-1208 Cask," dated June 24, 2015 (ML15202A058)
Via Reference 1 EnergySolutions submitted a report to the NRC providing information required by 10 CFR 71.95(a)(3) with respect to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 9168,for the Model 8-1208 Cask.
The EnergySolutions report noted a neoprene gasket could constrict on the head of the vent port plug cap screw when it is compressed by the bottom end of the test manifold stinger, which could reduce the sensitivity of the pre-shipment leak test. Consequently, the vent port pre-shipment leak test performed using the neoprene gasket may not have provided the required test sensitivity of 1x10"3 ref-cm 3/sec relative to CoC No. 9168 for cask Model 8-1208. The gasket may have been used on as many as 100 shipments. The submittal contained the details surrounding the situation and the corrective actions.
NextEra was notified by EnergySolutions of the non-conformance of CoC No. 9168. In accordance with 10 CFR 71.95(a), NextEra is reporting use of 8-1208 cask.
NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, 6610 Nuclear Road, Two Rivers, WI 54241


(1) Letter from D. Shrum (EnergySolutions LLC) toM. Lombard (U.S. NRC), "1 0 CFR 71.95 Report on the 8-1208 Cask," dated June 24, 2015 (ML15202A058)
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Page 2 NextEra Energy used the cask on September 27, 2013 to ship resin. As concluded in the EnergySolutions report, there is no safety significance associated with the CoC No. 9168.
Via Reference 1 EnergySolutions submitted a report to the NRC providing information required by 10 CFR 71.95(a)(3) with respect to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 9168,for the Model 8-1208 Cask. The EnergySolutions report noted a neoprene gasket could constrict on the head of the vent port plug cap screw when it is compressed by the bottom end of the test manifold stinger, which could reduce the sensitivity of the pre-shipment leak test. Consequently, the vent port shipment leak test performed using the neoprene gasket may not have provided the required test sensitivity of 1x10" 3 ref-cm 3/sec relative to CoC No. 9168 for cask Model 8-1208. The gasket may have been used on as many as 100 shipments.
If you have any questions related to this submittal, please contact Gene LeClair at 920/7 55-6953.
The submittal contained the details surrounding the situation and the corrective actions. NextEra was notified by EnergySolutions of the non-conformance of CoC No. 9168. In accordance with 10 CFR 71.95(a), NextEra is reporting use of 8-1208 cask. NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, 6610 Nuclear Road, Two Rivers, WI 54241 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Page 2 NextEra Energy used the cask on September 27, 2013 to ship resin. As concluded in the EnergySolutions report, there is no safety significance associated with the CoC No. 9168. If you have any questions related to this submittal, please contact Gene LeClair at 920/7 55-6953. Very truly yours, NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC Eric McCartney Site Vice President Enclosure cc: Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Resident Inspector, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, USNRC ENCLOSURE NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 ENERGYSOLUTIONS TO REGISTERED USERS 10 CFR 71.95 REPORT ON THE 8-120B CASK 1 page follows June 24, 2015 ES-CD-0-2015-002.
Very truly yours, NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC Eric McCartney Site Vice President Enclosure cc:     Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Resident Inspector, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, USNRC
Valued Custpmer:
 
ENERGYSOLUTIONS O.ri Monday June 1, 2015 1 an 8-1'208 cask user identified a concern thatthe neoprene gasket could potentially affect the integrity of the vent port seal pre-shipment leak test. In response, Energy Solutions performed  
ENCLOSURE NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 ENERGYSOLUTIONS TO REGISTERED USERS 10 CFR 71.95 REPORT ON THE 8-120B CASK 1 page follows
!'! series c:>f tests that confirmed that the neoprene gasket can constrict on the head of the vent port plug cap screw when it is compressed by the .manifold, resulting in a reduction of the test sensitivity.
 
The amount of reduction*of the test sensitivity cannot be determined for any particular shipment due to several reasons. Jt is uncertain whether, or J.:iy how much, the sensitivity of the vent port pre-shipment leak tests was reduced because; 1) Use of the gasket was the gasket may, or may not have been in pface for the tests, and 2) The force with wh1ch the gasket was compressed.
ENERGYSOLUTIONS June 24, 2015 ES-CD-0-2015-002.
during testing is unt<nown, sci it is uncertain lf it caused the gasket to constrict onto the head of the vent port cap screw. The gasket may have been used on as many. as, 100 shipments by Energy Solutions or its customers with Energy Solutions the licensee from September 2013 through June 2015. It was September 2013 when newly designed lid;:; were installed.
D~ar Valued Custpmer:
The condition was determined not to have significant safety consequence because the seals receive periodic helium leak testing as required by the SAR, the vent ports are rarely opened, there is a margin of conservatism of approximately a factor of 9 on the prescribed vent port l!;!ak rate test, arid there have been no. observations of contamination around the vent port openings thatwould suggest leakage. There wilT be no further tests made using the gaskets since Energy Solutions has replaced aU of the subject gaskets with a modified version that does not have the potential to i:educe the test sensitivity.
O.ri Monday June 1, 20151 an 8-1'208 cask user identified a concern thatthe neoprene gasket could potentially affect the integrity of the vent port seal pre-shipment leak test. In response, EnergySolutions performed !'! series c:>f tests that confirmed that the neoprene gasket can constrict on the head of the vent port plug cap screw when it is compressed by the .manifold, resulting in a reduction of the test sensitivity.
Energy Solutions filed the attached report with the NRC containing the information required by 10 CFR 71.95 on June 24, 2015. lh the report, EnetgySolutions describes the cause of the discrepancy and provides information that supports that there is no safety significance.
The amount of reduction*of the test sensitivity cannot be determined for any particular shipment due to several reasons. Jt is uncertain whether, or J.:iy how much, the sensitivity of the vent port pre-shipment leak tests was reduced because; 1) Use of the gasket was optional~ the gasket may, or may not have been in pface for the tests, and 2) The force with wh1ch the gasket was compressed. during testing is unt<nown, sci it is uncertain lf it caused the gasket to constrict onto the head of the vent port cap screw.
We expect that the information required for individual users to make their' own notifications is contained in this report Reference to this report in individual user reports would be appropriate if you so choose. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused within fn your organization.
The gasket may have been used on as many. as, 100 shipments by EnergySolutions or its customers with EnergySolutions a~ the licensee from September 2013 through June 2015. It was September 2013 when newly designed lid;:; were installed. The condition was determined not to have significant safety consequence because the seals receive periodic helium leak testing as required by the SAR, the vent ports are rarely opened, there is a margin of conservatism of approximately a factor of 9 on the prescribed vent port l!;!ak rate test, arid there have been no. observations of contamination around the vent port openings thatwould suggest leakage. There wilT be no further tests made using the gaskets since Energy Solutions has replaced aU of the subject gaskets with a modified version that does not have the potential to i:educe the test sensitivity.
Our corrective.
EnergySolutions filed the attached report with the NRC containing the information required by 10 CFR 71.95 on June 24, 2015. lh the report, EnetgySolutions describes the cause of the discrepancy and provides information that supports that there is no safety significance. We expect that the information required for individual users to make their' own notifications is contained in this report Reference to this report in individual user reports would be appropriate ifyou so choose.
actions as a result of this issue are intended to prevent recurrence of similar issues and to ensure the highest quality of products and services that we provide. For additionaJ details, please contact Aleksandr Gelfond at axgelfond@energysolutions.com or 803-591-9074, Sincerely, MarkS. Lewis General Man;:1ger, Cask Logistics Logistics, Processing an*i Disposal EnergySolutfons, LLC Att;3chment:
We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused within fn your organization.
Letter and Report to NRC on 8-120B Cask cc: ban Shum Aleksandr Gelfond 740 Osborn Road. Barnwell, South Carolina 29812 803.259.1781.
Our corrective. actions as a result of this issue are intended to prevent recurrence of similar issues and to ensure the highest quality of products and services that we provide.
Fax803.259.1477}}
For additionaJ details, please contact Aleksandr Gelfond at axgelfond@energysolutions.com         or 803-591-
: 9074, Sincerely, MarkS. Lewis General Man;:1ger, Cask Logistics Logistics, Processing ani Disposal EnergySolutfons, LLC Att;3chment: Letter and Report to NRC on 8-120B Cask cc:     ban Shum Aleksandr Gelfond 740 Osborn Road. Barnwell, South Carolina 29812 803.259.1781. Fax803.259.1477}}

Latest revision as of 07:22, 31 October 2019

Transmittal of 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the TN-RAM Package
ML15266A456
Person / Time
Site: Point Beach, 07109168  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/23/2015
From: Mccartney E
Point Beach
To:
Document Control Desk
References
NRC 2015-0061
Download: ML15266A456 (4)
v • d • e


Text

September 23, 2015 NRC 2015-0061 10 CFR 71.95 Mr. Mark Lombard, Director Division of Spent Fuel Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001 ATTN: Document Control Desk Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dockets 50-266, 50-301 and 72-005 Renewed License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 10 CFR 71.95 Report on the TN-RAM Package

Reference:

(1) Letter from D. Shrum (EnergySolutions LLC) toM. Lombard (U.S. NRC),

"1 0 CFR 71.95 Report on the 8-1208 Cask," dated June 24, 2015 (ML15202A058)

Via Reference 1 EnergySolutions submitted a report to the NRC providing information required by 10 CFR 71.95(a)(3) with respect to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 9168,for the Model 8-1208 Cask.

The EnergySolutions report noted a neoprene gasket could constrict on the head of the vent port plug cap screw when it is compressed by the bottom end of the test manifold stinger, which could reduce the sensitivity of the pre-shipment leak test. Consequently, the vent port pre-shipment leak test performed using the neoprene gasket may not have provided the required test sensitivity of 1x10"3 ref-cm 3/sec relative to CoC No. 9168 for cask Model 8-1208. The gasket may have been used on as many as 100 shipments. The submittal contained the details surrounding the situation and the corrective actions.

NextEra was notified by EnergySolutions of the non-conformance of CoC No. 9168. In accordance with 10 CFR 71.95(a), NextEra is reporting use of 8-1208 cask.

NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, 6610 Nuclear Road, Two Rivers, WI 54241

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Page 2 NextEra Energy used the cask on September 27, 2013 to ship resin. As concluded in the EnergySolutions report, there is no safety significance associated with the CoC No. 9168.

If you have any questions related to this submittal, please contact Gene LeClair at 920/7 55-6953.

Very truly yours, NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC Eric McCartney Site Vice President Enclosure cc: Administrator, Region Ill, USNRC Resident Inspector, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, USNRC

ENCLOSURE NEXTERA ENERGY POINT BEACH, LLC POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 ENERGYSOLUTIONS TO REGISTERED USERS 10 CFR 71.95 REPORT ON THE 8-120B CASK 1 page follows

ENERGYSOLUTIONS June 24, 2015 ES-CD-0-2015-002.

D~ar Valued Custpmer:

O.ri Monday June 1, 20151 an 8-1'208 cask user identified a concern thatthe neoprene gasket could potentially affect the integrity of the vent port seal pre-shipment leak test. In response, EnergySolutions performed !'! series c:>f tests that confirmed that the neoprene gasket can constrict on the head of the vent port plug cap screw when it is compressed by the .manifold, resulting in a reduction of the test sensitivity.

The amount of reduction*of the test sensitivity cannot be determined for any particular shipment due to several reasons. Jt is uncertain whether, or J.:iy how much, the sensitivity of the vent port pre-shipment leak tests was reduced because; 1) Use of the gasket was optional~ the gasket may, or may not have been in pface for the tests, and 2) The force with wh1ch the gasket was compressed. during testing is unt<nown, sci it is uncertain lf it caused the gasket to constrict onto the head of the vent port cap screw.

The gasket may have been used on as many. as, 100 shipments by EnergySolutions or its customers with EnergySolutions a~ the licensee from September 2013 through June 2015. It was September 2013 when newly designed lid;:; were installed. The condition was determined not to have significant safety consequence because the seals receive periodic helium leak testing as required by the SAR, the vent ports are rarely opened, there is a margin of conservatism of approximately a factor of 9 on the prescribed vent port l!;!ak rate test, arid there have been no. observations of contamination around the vent port openings thatwould suggest leakage. There wilT be no further tests made using the gaskets since Energy Solutions has replaced aU of the subject gaskets with a modified version that does not have the potential to i:educe the test sensitivity.

EnergySolutions filed the attached report with the NRC containing the information required by 10 CFR 71.95 on June 24, 2015. lh the report, EnetgySolutions describes the cause of the discrepancy and provides information that supports that there is no safety significance. We expect that the information required for individual users to make their' own notifications is contained in this report Reference to this report in individual user reports would be appropriate ifyou so choose.

We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this issue may have caused within fn your organization.

Our corrective. actions as a result of this issue are intended to prevent recurrence of similar issues and to ensure the highest quality of products and services that we provide.

For additionaJ details, please contact Aleksandr Gelfond at axgelfond@energysolutions.com or 803-591-

9074, Sincerely, MarkS. Lewis General Man;:1ger, Cask Logistics Logistics, Processing ani Disposal EnergySolutfons, LLC Att;3chment: Letter and Report to NRC on 8-120B Cask cc: ban Shum Aleksandr Gelfond 740 Osborn Road. Barnwell, South Carolina 29812 803.259.1781. Fax803.259.1477
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=NRC_2015-0061,_Transmittal_of_10_CFR_71.95_Report_on_the_TN-RAM_Package&oldid=2028683"