ML18200A120: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML18200A120 | | number = ML18200A120 | ||
| issue date = 06/19/2018 | | issue date = 06/19/2018 | ||
| title = Enclosure 2: Meeting Slides | | title = Enclosure 2: Meeting Slides (Summary of June 19, 2018, Public Meeting with Holtec International to Discuss Holtec'S Response to Nrc'S RAI for the Review of License Application for the Proposed HI-STORE Cisf at Lea County, Nm) | ||
| author name = | | author name = | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NMSS/DSFM/SFLB | | author affiliation = NRC/NMSS/DSFM/SFLB | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| docket = 07201051 | | docket = 07201051 | ||
| license number = | | license number = | ||
| contact person = Cuadrado J | | contact person = Cuadrado J | ||
| package number = ML18200A123 | | package number = ML18200A123 | ||
| document type = Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts, Slides and Viewgraphs | | document type = Meeting Briefing Package/Handouts, Slides and Viewgraphs | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:Holtec HI-STORE CIS Review - | ||
Discussion of 5/24/18 RAI responses on Aircraft Hazards Division of Spent Fuel Management, NMSS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting with Holtec International June 19, 2018 | |||
-NRC issues request for additional information (RAI), Part 1 | |||
-RAI 2 | Summary | ||
-STORE CISF site | * March 28, 2018 - NRC issues request for additional information (RAI), Part 1 | ||
*May 24, 2018 | - RAI 2 Requests additional details on aircraft hazards assessment for HI-STORE CISF site | ||
-Holtec submits responses to RAIs | * May 24, 2018 - Holtec submits responses to RAIs | ||
*NRC staff has identified issues in Holtec's response to the aircraft hazards analysis | * NRC staff has identified issues in Holtec's response to the aircraft hazards analysis | ||
-Proximity criteria for flight paths (NUREG | - Proximity criteria for flight paths (NUREG-0800) | ||
-0800)-Effective area for the facility | - Effective area for the facility | ||
-Crash rate for military aircraft | - Crash rate for military aircraft | ||
-Units of measurement (statute vs. nautical) | - Units of measurement (statute vs. nautical) | ||
-Descriptions of SAR Figures Issue 1 -Proximity Criteria | - Descriptions of SAR Figures | ||
-0800 not met | |||
-Proximity of military flight path to the facility requires detailed analysis*Additional information required for detailed analysis | Issue 1 - Proximity Criteria from NUREG-0800 | ||
-Annual number of flights, crash rates for specific aircraft types, distance to site, effective area of facility needed to estimate cumulative annual crash probability Issue 2 -Estimate of effective area of the facility | * Criterion B from Section 3.5.1.6 of NUREG-0800 not met | ||
*Section 3.5.1.6, Subsection 7 of NUREG | - Proximity of military flight path to the facility requires detailed analysis | ||
-0800 provides guidance for estimating effective area of facility | * Additional information required for detailed analysis | ||
-Must include footprint area of facility, skid area for specific aircraft, and shadow area of facility structures | - Annual number of flights, crash rates for specific aircraft types, distance to site, effective area of facility needed to estimate cumulative annual crash probability | ||
*Response does not include shadow area or skid area | |||
-Only footprint area for facility is included Issue 3 -Basis for military aircraft crash rate | Issue 2 - Estimate of effective area of the facility | ||
*Response does not provide basis provided for assumed military aircraft crash rate | * Section 3.5.1.6, Subsection 7 of NUREG-0800 provides guidance for estimating effective area of facility | ||
*Section 3.5.1.6, Subsection 2 of NUREG | - Must include footprint area of facility, skid area for specific aircraft, and shadow area of facility structures | ||
-0800 cites specific references with data on aircraft crash rates | * Response does not include shadow area or skid area | ||
-DOE, | - Only footprint area for facility is included | ||
*RAI response should use consistent distance measurement units | |||
-SAR Table 2.2.5 cites distances in nautical miles, compares with statute miles from FAA Sectional chart | Issue 3 - Basis for military aircraft crash rate | ||
*Analysis should consider distances to edge of airway Issue 5 -References to SAR Figure 2.2.7 | * Response does not provide basis provided for assumed military aircraft crash rate | ||
*RAI response does not provide specific explanations of the information in SAR Figure 2.2.7 | * Section 3.5.1.6, Subsection 2 of NUREG-0800 cites specific references with data on aircraft crash rates | ||
-Any figures, tables, or charts provided in the application should be adequately described Conclusions | - DOE, Accident Analysis of Aircraft into Hazardous Facilities, DOE-STD-3014-96, October 1996 | ||
*NRC staff needs additional information to address RAIs on aircraft hazards and determine compliance with NRC's safety regulations | |||
*Timely completion of NRC review of Holtec's HI | Issue 4 - Units of measurement for airway distances | ||
-STORE CISF application requires complete and high quality responses to NRC staff's questions}} | * RAI response should use consistent distance measurement units | ||
- SAR Table 2.2.5 cites distances in nautical miles, compares with statute miles from FAA Sectional chart | |||
* Analysis should consider distances to edge of airway | |||
Issue 5 - References to SAR Figure 2.2.7 | |||
* RAI response does not provide specific explanations of the information in SAR Figure 2.2.7 | |||
- Any figures, tables, or charts provided in the application should be adequately described | |||
Conclusions | |||
* NRC staff needs additional information to address RAIs on aircraft hazards and determine compliance with NRC's safety regulations | |||
* Timely completion of NRC review of Holtec's HI-STORE CISF application requires complete and high quality responses to NRC staff's questions}} | |||
Latest revision as of 21:00, 20 October 2019
| ML18200A120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | HI-STORE |
| Issue date: | 06/19/2018 |
| From: | Spent Fuel Licensing Branch |
| To: | Division of Spent Fuel Management |
| Cuadrado J | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18200A123 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML18200A120 (8) | |
Text
Holtec HI-STORE CIS Review -
Discussion of 5/24/18 RAI responses on Aircraft Hazards Division of Spent Fuel Management, NMSS U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Meeting with Holtec International June 19, 2018
Summary
- March 28, 2018 - NRC issues request for additional information (RAI), Part 1
- RAI 2 Requests additional details on aircraft hazards assessment for HI-STORE CISF site
- May 24, 2018 - Holtec submits responses to RAIs
- NRC staff has identified issues in Holtec's response to the aircraft hazards analysis
- Proximity criteria for flight paths (NUREG-0800)
- Effective area for the facility
- Crash rate for military aircraft
- Units of measurement (statute vs. nautical)
- Descriptions of SAR Figures
Issue 1 - Proximity Criteria from NUREG-0800
- Criterion B from Section 3.5.1.6 of NUREG-0800 not met
- Proximity of military flight path to the facility requires detailed analysis
- Additional information required for detailed analysis
- Annual number of flights, crash rates for specific aircraft types, distance to site, effective area of facility needed to estimate cumulative annual crash probability
Issue 2 - Estimate of effective area of the facility
- Section 3.5.1.6, Subsection 7 of NUREG-0800 provides guidance for estimating effective area of facility
- Must include footprint area of facility, skid area for specific aircraft, and shadow area of facility structures
- Response does not include shadow area or skid area
- Only footprint area for facility is included
Issue 3 - Basis for military aircraft crash rate
- Response does not provide basis provided for assumed military aircraft crash rate
- Section 3.5.1.6, Subsection 2 of NUREG-0800 cites specific references with data on aircraft crash rates
- DOE, Accident Analysis of Aircraft into Hazardous Facilities, DOE-STD-3014-96, October 1996
Issue 4 - Units of measurement for airway distances
- RAI response should use consistent distance measurement units
- SAR Table 2.2.5 cites distances in nautical miles, compares with statute miles from FAA Sectional chart
- Analysis should consider distances to edge of airway
Issue 5 - References to SAR Figure 2.2.7
- Any figures, tables, or charts provided in the application should be adequately described
Conclusions
- NRC staff needs additional information to address RAIs on aircraft hazards and determine compliance with NRC's safety regulations
- Timely completion of NRC review of Holtec's HI-STORE CISF application requires complete and high quality responses to NRC staff's questions