|
|---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML24319A2792024-11-14014 November 2024
Email for SUNSI Review and Proprietary Determination of CoC 1004 Amd 19 Application
ML21259A2122021-09-13013 September 2021
SUNSI and Proprietary Review Determination Email Regarding: Tn Request Regarding ASME Code Alternative for CoC 1004
ML20260H0462020-09-14014 September 2020
E-mail: Approval of Withholding Information from Public Disclosuresponse to Request for Additional Information - Application for Amendment 17 to Standardized NUHOMS (CoC No. 1004)
ML19235A0362019-08-20020 August 2019
8/20/19 - Email to Dshaw (Tn) from Ngarcia Santos (NRC)-Graded Approach Clarification Questions-FQTs, Model No. Nuhoms, A16 (72-1004)
ML19148A1142019-05-23023 May 2019
Concurrence: IR 72-1004/2019-201, March 26-29, 2019 and April 12, 2019, at Tn Americas Division LLC, Columbia, MD, NRC Form 591S, Safety Inspection Report and Compliance Inspection, Inspector'S Notes and Cover Sheet
ML16054A2322016-02-0909 February 2016
E-44108 Attachment 3 E-mail from Kevin Donovan (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) to Don Shaw (Areva) for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Limerick Generating Station, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, and Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Statio
ML16013A0642016-01-13013 January 2016
NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Entergy CNRO-2015-00023 - Revision to Entergy Quality Assurance Program Manual (Fleet Submittal CAC Nos. MF7086-MF7097)
ML16054A2422015-12-30030 December 2015
E-44108 Attachment 12 E-mail from Richard Mcintosh (Talen Energy) to Don Shaw (Areva) for Susquehanna Steam Electric Station
ML16054A2402015-12-10010 December 2015
E-44108 Attachment 10 E-mail from Steven Edwards (Due Energy) to Don Shaw (Areva) for Brunswick Nuclear Plant, Oconee Nuclear Station, and Robinson Nuclear Plant
ML16054A2382015-10-14014 October 2015
E-44108 Attachment 8 E-mail from Stewart J. Yuen (Kewaunee Power Station) to Don Shaw (Areva) for Kewaunee Power Station
ML16054A2302015-10-0909 October 2015
E-44108 Attachment 1 E-mail from Bryan Woyak (NextEra Energy Point Beach) to Don Shaw (Areva) for Point Beach Nuclear Plant
ML16054A2312015-10-0808 October 2015
E-44108 Attachment 2 E-mail from J. Michael Davis (NextEra Energy Duane Arnold) to Don Shaw (Areva) for Duane Arnold Energy Center
ML16054A2332015-10-0202 October 2015
E-44108 Attachment 4 E-mail from David B. Blakeney (Millstone Power Station) to Don Shaw (Areva) for Millstone Power Station
ML16054A2342015-10-0101 October 2015
E-44108 Attachment 5 E-mail from Peter A. Gardner (Xcel Energy/Northern States Power Company) to Don Shaw (Areva) for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
ML16054A2372015-09-29029 September 2015
E-44108 Attachment 7 E-mail from Jim Shaw (Cooper Nuclear Station) to Don Shaw (Areva) for Cooper Nuclear Station
ML16054A2392015-09-14014 September 2015
E-44108 Attachment 9 E-mail from Greg Halnon (Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company) to Don Shaw (Areva) for Beaver Valley Power Station and Davis-Besse Power Station
ML13197A3732013-07-16016 July 2013
E-mail to E. Benner from W. Allen SONGS 72.48 Evaluation Report
ML13107B4412013-04-11011 April 2013
Email Dated 4/11/13 from S. Wilson (SCDHEC) to J. Davis (NRC) Draft Oconee EA for Your Review
ML13107B4352013-04-10010 April 2013
Email Dated 4/10/13 from J. Davis to Wilsonmd@Scdhec, Draft Oconee EA for Your Review
2024-11-14
[Table view] |
Text
From: Garcia Santos, Norma To: SHAW Donis (ORANO)
Cc: Tate, Travis; McKirgan, John
Subject:
Graded Approach---Clarification Questions--FQTs Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 8:21:00 AM Importance: High Good morning Don, The staff reviewed the draft submittal for the graded approach. In general, forms 77-99, which enveloped all evaluations about the FQTs, seem to be acceptable. However, there are a few questions that need further clarification from the applicant:
- 1. The unidentified cells in Figure 1-4b of the TS. Are those cells not be loaded or something else?
- 2. The method to deal with outlier fuel assemblies that is not covered by the new approach. The response to the RAI SH-1 states that the approach for qualifying the outliers has been approved in amd. 15 and will not be repeated in the response to the RAI. However, the information in the applicable TS for amd. 15 does not seem to be included in the TS for amd. 16. The staff needs to understand where this information resides. Because each amd. of a 10 CFR Part 72 CoC is a standalone document, the method for qualifying the outliers must be repeated in the TS if it is part of the graded approach. The staff is unable to find the method in the TS for amd. 15.
(To include the treatment of outliers, the applicant needs to use the approach identical to the approach identical to one used in amd. 15 that has been approved or the approach the applicant and the staff agreed upon for EOS amd. 1, which includes Table 7A, Table 7B, and Table 7C of the proposed TS.)
Please let me know if you have any questions. I would like to resolve the issues as soon as possible.
- Thanks, Norma Garcia Santos Division of Spent Fuel Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone No.: 301-415-6999 Email: Norma.Garcia-Santos@nrc.gov