ML14094A246: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
It has come to our attention that a statement in MIT's letter dated February 21, 2014, Reference 1, could be interpreted in a way that was not intended. | It has come to our attention that a statement in MIT's letter dated February 21, 2014, Reference 1, could be interpreted in a way that was not intended. | ||
By way of background, NRC's letter to MIT dated January 24, 2014, Reference 2, notified MIT that based on an NRC investigation, an apparent violation of NRC regulations had been identified. | By way of background, NRC's letter to MIT dated January 24, 2014, Reference 2, notified MIT that based on an NRC investigation, an apparent violation of NRC regulations had been identified. | ||
NRC requested MIT to submit a written response, participate in a predecisional enforcement conference, utilize Alternative Dispute Resolution, or accept the violation as characterized in the letter. MIT prepared and submitted a written response, Reference | NRC requested MIT to submit a written response, participate in a predecisional enforcement conference, utilize Alternative Dispute Resolution, or accept the violation as characterized in the letter. MIT prepared and submitted a written response, Reference | ||
: 1. In that response, MIT described, among other things, the corrective steps that have been taken and the results those actions have achieved. | : 1. In that response, MIT described, among other things, the corrective steps that have been taken and the results those actions have achieved. | ||
With regard to the latter, MIT noted that "since the occurrence of the event that forms the basis for the NRC's issuance of the referenced apparent violation, one additional shipment has taken place in full compliance with the SAR [Battelle Energy Alliance Research Reactor (BRR) Safety Analysis Report]." In order to avoid an unintended interpretation, MIT wishes to provide clarification of this sentence. | With regard to the latter, MIT noted that "since the occurrence of the event that forms the basis for the NRC's issuance of the referenced apparent violation, one additional shipment has taken place in full compliance with the SAR [Battelle Energy Alliance Research Reactor (BRR) Safety Analysis Report]." In order to avoid an unintended interpretation, MIT wishes to provide clarification of this sentence. | ||
In particular, that MIT made three shipments using the BRR package since the occurrence of the event that formed the basis for the NRC's issuance of the referenced apparent I7 Document Control Desk March 27, 2014 Page 2 of 2 violation with the last of these shipments taking place after the completion of those particular corrective actions listed in Reference 1 designed to ensure that all components MIT replaced for use in the BRR package were those conforming to the BRR package SAR. However, the parts and components MIT replaced for use in all three shipments (April 23, 2012, October 24, 2012, and April 3, 2013) did conform to the BRR package SAR. The avoidance of a recurrence of the event that formed the basis for the apparent violation identified in Reference 2, namely installing and using a component that was not specified by the BRR package SAR, suggests that MIT's actions taken to date have been effective. | In particular, that MIT made three shipments using the BRR package since the occurrence of the event that formed the basis for the NRC's issuance of the referenced apparent I7 Document Control Desk March 27, 2014 Page 2 of 2 violation with the last of these shipments taking place after the completion of those particular corrective actions listed in Reference 1 designed to ensure that all components MIT replaced for use in the BRR package were those conforming to the BRR package SAR. However, the parts and components MIT replaced for use in all three shipments (April 23, 2012, October 24, 2012, and April 3, 2013) did conform to the BRR package SAR. The avoidance of a recurrence of the event that formed the basis for the apparent violation identified in Reference 2, namely installing and using a component that was not specified by the BRR package SAR, suggests that MIT's actions taken to date have been effective. | ||
Sincerely, David E. Moncton DEM}} | Sincerely, David E. Moncton DEM}} | ||
Revision as of 09:01, 28 April 2019
| ML14094A246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | MIT Nuclear Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 03/27/2014 |
| From: | Moncton D E MIT Nuclear Reactor Laboratory |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| References | |
| 1-2013-004, EA-13-170 | |
| Download: ML14094A246 (2) | |
Text
MIT NUCLEAR REACTOR LABORATORY AN MIT INTERDEPARTMENTAL CENTER David E. Moncton Mail Stop: NW12-208a Phone: 617 253-8333 Director 138 Albany Street Fax: 617 253-7300 Cambridge, MA 02139 Email: dem@mit.edu March 27, 2014 ATTN: Document Control Desk Director, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Response to Apparent Violation in NRC Investigation No. 1-2013-004; EA-13-170
References:
- 1. Letter from Dr. David Moncton, Director, MIT Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, to Director, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Feb. 21, 2014.2. Letter from Mark Lombard, Director Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Dr. David E. Moncton, Director, MIT Nuclear Reactor Laboratory, Jan. 24, 2014.
Dear Sir or Madam:
It has come to our attention that a statement in MIT's letter dated February 21, 2014, Reference 1, could be interpreted in a way that was not intended.
By way of background, NRC's letter to MIT dated January 24, 2014, Reference 2, notified MIT that based on an NRC investigation, an apparent violation of NRC regulations had been identified.
NRC requested MIT to submit a written response, participate in a predecisional enforcement conference, utilize Alternative Dispute Resolution, or accept the violation as characterized in the letter. MIT prepared and submitted a written response, Reference
- 1. In that response, MIT described, among other things, the corrective steps that have been taken and the results those actions have achieved.
With regard to the latter, MIT noted that "since the occurrence of the event that forms the basis for the NRC's issuance of the referenced apparent violation, one additional shipment has taken place in full compliance with the SAR [Battelle Energy Alliance Research Reactor (BRR) Safety Analysis Report]." In order to avoid an unintended interpretation, MIT wishes to provide clarification of this sentence.
In particular, that MIT made three shipments using the BRR package since the occurrence of the event that formed the basis for the NRC's issuance of the referenced apparent I7 Document Control Desk March 27, 2014 Page 2 of 2 violation with the last of these shipments taking place after the completion of those particular corrective actions listed in Reference 1 designed to ensure that all components MIT replaced for use in the BRR package were those conforming to the BRR package SAR. However, the parts and components MIT replaced for use in all three shipments (April 23, 2012, October 24, 2012, and April 3, 2013) did conform to the BRR package SAR. The avoidance of a recurrence of the event that formed the basis for the apparent violation identified in Reference 2, namely installing and using a component that was not specified by the BRR package SAR, suggests that MIT's actions taken to date have been effective.
Sincerely, David E. Moncton DEM