ML060740455
| ML060740455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 10/26/2005 |
| From: | Ashley D NRC/NRR/DRIP/RLEP |
| To: | Hufnagel J, Polaski F Exelon Corp |
| References | |
| %dam200606 | |
| Download: ML060740455 (2) | |
Text
I D. Ashley - Additional information from the AMP/AMR team leader Page-1 l From:
D. Ashley To:
Fred.Polaski©exeloncorp.com; John Hufnagel Date:
Wed, Oct 26, 2005 12:37 PM
Subject:
Additional information from the AMP/AMR team leader John, Fred-I just received this information from Greg Cranston with instruction to provide to you for action.
-Donnie Ashley Regarding technical bases documentation and further evaluations, the industry wanted to use GALL as a check list for what they needed to address in the AMR. The NRC staff made it clear that an AMR conducted using only the guidance in GALL is not sufficient for a technically complete AMR. The applicant's AMR should start with the systems, structures and components identified in the scoping and screening review as serving an LR intended function. The applicant should document the details of its AMR outside of the LRA. This documentation provides the technical basis for the applicant's dispositions of consistency/nonconsistency with GALL and its disposition of the further evaluations identified in GALL, as documented in the LRA. There needs to be evidence that the applicant did more than use GALL as a check list in their evaluation.
For example, the Brunswick applicant documented its detailed AMR on a system basis. The applicant made available to the audit team, an extensive set of formal calculations that backed up the AMR results in the LRA. Only a handful are listed in the audit report. There were no basis documents that specifically addressed "further evaluations". The LRA only documents the results of the AMR; it is not the AMR.
So the previous request is reworded as follows: "Please ensure that the technical basis documents supporting the AMR results presented in LRA Sections 3.1.2.2 through 3.6.2.2 and in LRA Tables 3.1.2 through 3.6.2 are available for review by the project team during the on-site AMR audit, preferably in both hard-copy and electronic formats."
I c.\\temD\\GkV)00001.TMP Page 1 aii I c:tmoGIOO O1 M
1
=
P Mail Envelope Properties (435FB0B9.577: 9: 10848)
Subject:
Creation Date:
From:
Created By:
Additional information from the AMP/AMR team leader Wed, Oct 26, 2005 12:37 PM D. Ashley DJA1 @nrc.gov Recipients exeloncorp.com Fred.Polaski (Fred.Polaski@exeloncorp.com john.hufnagel (John Hufnagel)
Action Transferred Date & Time 10/26 12:37 PM nrc.gov owf4-po.OWFNDO GVC BC (Gregory Cranston)
Delivered Opened 10/26 12:37 PM 10/26 2:27 PM Route exeloncorp.com nrc.gov Post Office Delivered owf4_po.OWFNDO 10/26 12:37 PM Files MESSAGE Options Auto Delete:
Expiration Date:
Notify Recipients:
Priority:
Reply Requested:
Return Notification:
Concealed
Subject:
Security:
To Be Delivered:
Status Tracking:
Size 2406 Date & Time Wednesday, October 26, 2005 12:37 PM No None No Standard No None No Standard Immediate Delivered & Opened