ML23038A035

NRC-699, Telephone Call Summary, 11:00AM - Conference Call to Discuss Questions Regarding the Application for Revalidation of the Japanese Certificate of Competent Authority No. J/2043/B(U)F, Model No. Jrf 90Y-950K (Docket No. 71-3036)

ML23038A035
Person / Time
Site:	07103036
Issue date:	02/01/2023
From:	Garcia-Santos N Storage and Transportation Licensing Branch
To:	Boyle R, Neely R, Rony A Edlow, US Dept of Transportation (DOT)
Garcia-Santos N
Shared Package
ML23038A029	List: ML23038A034 ML23038A035
References
L-2023-DOT-0000, 001794
Download: ML23038A035 (3)

Text

NRC FORM 699 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (12-2020)

CONVERSATION RECORD NAME OF PERSON(S)/TITLE CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT WITH YOU DATE OF CONTACT TYPE OF CONVERSATION Richard W. Boyle, Russell Neely, Adrian Rony, Kiran Karanth 02/01/2023 E-MAIL E-MAIL ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER TELEPHONE INCOMING rick.boyle@dot.gov (202) 366-2993 OUTGOING ORGANIZATION DOCKET NUMBER(S)

U.S. Department of Transportation and Edlow 07103036 LICENSE NAME AND NUMBER(S) MAIL CONTROL NUMBER(S)

SUBJECT 2/1/23, 11:00AM - Conference Call to Discuss Questions Regarding the Application for Revalidation of the Japanese Certificate of Competent Authority No. J/2043/B(U)F, Model No. JRF_90Y-950K (Docket No.

71-3036)

SUMMARY

AND ACTION REQUIRED (IF ANY)

ATTENDEES:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

Norma Garcia Santos, Project Manager Richard W. Boyle, Chief Pierre Saverot, Project Manager Edlow Russell Neely Adrian Rony Kiran Karanth DISCUSSION:

On February 1, 2023, NRC, DOT, and Edlow participated on a phone call focused on discussing questions related to the revalidation request from DOT to NRC for the Certificate of Competent Authority No. J/2043/

B(U)F, Model No. JRF-90Y-950K. Edlow requested the revalidation to DOT. The NRC staff Questions were focused on deficiencies in the application, the scope of request, and the content of the application. The following is a synopsis of the questions and discussion.

NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION Norma Garcia Santos and reviewed by Richard W. Boyle SIGNATURE AND DATE Norma Garcia Santos Digitally signed by Norma Garcia Santos Date: 2023.02.07 08:45:18 -05'00' Add 1 Continuation Page Delete 1 Continuation Page NRC Form 699 (12-2020) Page 1 of 3

NRC FORM 699 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (12-2020)

CONVERSATION RECORD (continued)

LICENSE NAME AND NUMBER(S) MAIL CONTROL NUMBER(S)

SUMMARY

AND ACTION REQUIRED (IF ANY) (Continued)

1. Clarify if the applicant is seeking a revalidation per the 2018 Edition of the International Atomic Energy Agency SSR-6 regulation.

Edlow will verify if this is the case and will inform DOT by next week.

2. Provide the date in which the applicant needs the revalidation recommendation for the Model No.

JRF-90Y-950K.

This information will be helpful for planning and managing staff's workload.

Edlow noted that the revalidation of the Model No. JRF-90Y-950K is needed by June 15th for a shipment from Japan to the U.S. Therefore, DOT would need the revalidation recommendation from NRC around mid-May to be able to complete the documentation needed for the shipment.

3. Based on a previous revalidation of the Model No. JRF-90Y-950K, the staff noted that there are differences between the Certificate of Competent Authority Nos. for the Model No. JRF-90Y-950K. Clarify if the difference in identification No. corresponds to a different content, amendment, etc.

For example, in document No. 4, section II-F, of the application submitted in January 2023, the applicant provided the evaluation related to the aging mechanism for the Japanese Certificate of Competent Authority No. J/2043/B(U)F) considering a transport package life of 60 years from its fabrication (Ref.

SAR Page II-F-1). The revalidation recommendation issued in April 2022 for the same model No, but a different Certificate of Competent Authority No. J/2039/B(U)F) considering a transport package life to be 40 years from its fabrication (Ref. SAR Page II-F-1). Based on this example, it seems that the package for the current application has different hardware from the one the staff previously revalidated.

Edlow will follow up on this question and will inform DOT by next week.

4. Provide an affidavit listing the documents and enclosures of the application for the JFR-90Y-950K package that are considered proprietary by the applicant. Also, clarify if documents Nos. 4 and No. 6 are considered proprietary by the applicant.

The affidavit only mentions one document considered as proprietary (i.e., Enclosure 1, North American Version of the Safety Analysis for JRF), which does not seem to be accurate, since the submittal to DOT includes seven documents in English (without counting DOT's cover letter) and more than one document may be considered proprietary by the applicant.

Document No. 6 is not included in the affidavit provided with the application for the JFR_90Y-950K package. It is not clear if the entire document or portions of it may be considered proprietary by the applicant. If document No. 6 is considered proprietary by the applicant, the applicant must provide an affidavit specifying all the documents considered proprietary Add 2nd Continuation Page Delete 2nd Continuation Page NRC Form 699 (12-2020) Page 2 of 3

NRC FORM 699 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (12-2020)

CONVERSATION RECORD (continued)

LICENSE NAME AND NUMBER(S) MAIL CONTROL NUMBER(S)

SUMMARY

AND ACTION REQUIRED (IF ANY) (Continued)

Also, NRC usually, when possible, asks for a public version of an application and related documents to keep the public informed about the licensing actions submitted for review. For this reason, if portions of a document are considered proprietary by the applicant, the staff usually asks applicants to submit a redacted version of the non-public document, when possible.

Edlow is currently working on this item.

5. Provide a full English translation of the documents submitted as part of the application. The following are some examples of text that needs to be translated:

a) Revision Comparison Table for the Type JRF-90Y-950K SAR, Figures in section D.

b) Revision Comparison Table for the Type JRF-90Y-950K SAR, a portion of the table of contents.

Edlow will follow up on this item.

6. Clarify the following:

a) Since the application provides a comparison of the 2017 and 2022 versions of the SAR with the 2022, does this application include any of the changes in the revalidation recommendation issued in April 2022 for this package?

b) Does the text highlighted in gray and the text in blue boxes in some documents correspond to the changes to the SAR from the 2017 version?

There are instances in which there is a phrase Modifications reflecting the changes to the contents on the right-hand side of the page, but there is no text highlighted or marked as a change. It will be more efficient for the review to consistently mark/identify the proposed changes in the documents submitted in the application, including the SAR.

Edlow will follow up on this item.

NRC Form 699 (12-2020) Page 3 of 3