ML18345A007: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML18345A007 | | number = ML18345A007 | ||
| issue date = 12/10/2018 | | issue date = 12/10/2018 | ||
| title = | | title = Conversation Record with Croft Associates with C. Allen Additional Information Request Teleconference, Conversation Held on November 28, 2018, Dkt No. 71.9338 | ||
| author name = Allen W | | author name = Allen W | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/NMSS/DSFM/SFLB | | author affiliation = NRC/NMSS/DSFM/SFLB | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = | ||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| docket = 07109338 | | docket = 07109338 | ||
| license number = | | license number = | ||
| contact person = Allen W | | contact person = Allen W | ||
| document type = Note to File incl Telcon Record, Verbal Comm | | document type = Note to File incl Telcon Record, Verbal Comm | ||
| page count = 2 | | page count = 2 | ||
| project = | |||
| stage = Meeting | |||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:NRC FORM 699 | {{#Wiki_filter:NRC FORM 699 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATE OF SIGNATURE (03-2013) | ||
SUBJECT Additional Information Request Teleconference | CONVERSATION RECORD 12/10/2018 NAME OF PERSON (S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT WITH YOU DATE OF CONTACT TYPE OF CONVERSATION DE-MAIL See below. 11 /28/2018 E-MAIL ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER 0 TELEPHONE D INCOMING (888) 447-9153 0 OUTGOING ORGANIZATION DOCKET NUMBER(S) | ||
Croft Associates 71-9338 LICENSE NUMBER(S) CONTROL NUMBER(S) | |||
SUBJECT Additional Information Request Teleconference | |||
==SUMMARY== | ==SUMMARY== | ||
NRC participants: Chris Allen, John McKirgan, Jorge Solis, Chris Bajwa, Veronica Wilson, Michel Call and Tae Ahn Croft participants: Alex Ferguson and Robert Vaughn Los Alamos National Laboratory: Eva Birnbaum and Kevin John Brookhaven National Laboratory: Dimitri Medvedev The phone call between NRC staff and Croft Associates Limited to discuss a request for additional infonnation (ML18341A029) commenced at approximately IO A.M. eastern standard time. There was no discussion of the information requests associated with the general information review, the thermal review and the operations review because Croft believed the questions were both straightforward and clearly articulated. In addressing the first materials review questions, Croft planned to add an explanation regarding the pyrophoricity of the contents. In discussing the second materials review question, Croft stated their intention to modify the shielding evaluation, the operations section and the maintenance section to address these issues. For the third materials question, Croft committed to providing additional information and analyses in the safety analysis report as well as adding additional information about the spacers to the operations section. In discussing the shielding information requests , Croft focused primarily on RAI 5.1 because adequately and accurately defining the contents had been the most difficult issue in preparing the amendment. Croft Continue on Page 2 ACTION REQUIRED (IF ANY) | |||
Chris Allen, John McKirgan, Jorge Solis , Chris Bajwa , Veronica Wilson, Michel Call and Tae Ahn Croft participants: | Continue on Page 3 NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION Chris Allen SIGNATURE | ||
Alex Ferguson and Robert Vaughn Los Alamos National Laboratory: | '}f~ L_ ~ | ||
Eva Birnbaum and Kevin John Brookhaven National Laboratory: | NRC FORM 699 (03-2013) | ||
Dimitri Medvedev The phone call between NRC staff and Croft Associates Limited to discuss a request for additional infonnation ( | Page 1 of 2 | ||
In addressing the first materials review questions, Croft planned to add an explanation regarding the pyrophoricity of the contents. | |||
In discussing the second materials review question, Croft stated their intention to modify the shielding evaluation, the operations section and the maintenance section to address these issues. For the third materials question, Croft committed to providing additional information and analyses in the safety analysis report as well as adding additional information about the spacers to the operations section. In discussing the shielding information requests , Croft focused primarily on RAI 5.1 because adequately and accurately defining the contents had been the most difficult issue in preparing the amendment. | NRC FORM 699 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (03-2 013) | ||
Croft Continue on Page 2 ACTION REQUIRED (IF ANY) Continue on Page 3 | CONVERSATION RECORD (continued) | ||
'}f~ L_ NRC FORM 699 (03-2013) | |||
Page 1 of 2 NRC FORM 699 ( | |||
==SUMMARY== | ==SUMMARY== | ||
* (Continued from page 1 | * (Continued from page 1) outlined two possible methods of specifying the contents and asked NRC staff which method was preferable. The first method involved specifying the maximum irradiation time and the minimum decay time to produce the desired amount of Actinium 225 which was the primary isotopes of interest. This method would rely on the radiation measurements taken prior to shipment to ensure that the regulatory dose rate limits were not exceeded. The second method involved calculating the maximum isotopic quantity which would not produce dose rates in excess of the regulatory limits, and prohibiting transport of the irradiated thorium disc until the isotopic quantities were below these maximum values . NRC staff stated the latter option was preferable. NRC staff emphasized that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with regulatory limits was equally shared by the package designer and the package user. | ||
The first method involved specifying the maximum irradiation time and the minimum decay time to produce the desired amount of Actinium 225 which was the primary isotopes of interest. | Croft also discussed with NRC staff the criteria for listing radionuclides on both the package shipping label and within the safety analysis report. Since NRC regulations do not address package shipping label , NRC staff pointed Croft to 49 CFR l 73.443(g). NRC staff then reminded Croft that the radionuclides which had the greatest impact on shielding needed to be listed in the safety analysis report. Subsequently, Croft committed to modifying the shielding analyses as well as the operating instructions to address the shielding information requests. After discussing a response submittal date, the call concluded at approximately 11 :00 A.M. eastern standard time . | ||
This method would rely on the radiation measurements taken prior to shipment to ensure that the regulatory dose rate limits were not exceeded. | NRG FORM 699 (03-2013 ) | ||
The second method involved calculating the maximum isotopic quantity which would not produce dose rates in excess of the regulatory limits, and prohibiting transport of the irradiated thorium disc until the isotopic quantities were below these maximum values. NRC staff stated the latter option was preferable. | Page 2 of 2}} | ||
NRC staff emphasized that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with regulatory limits was equally shared by the package designer and the package user. Croft also discussed with NRC staff the criteria for listing radionuclides on both the package shipping label and within the safety analysis report. Since NRC regulations do not address package shipping label , NRC staff pointed Croft to 49 CFR l 73.443(g). | |||
NRC staff then reminded Croft that the radionuclides which had the greatest impact on shielding needed to be listed in the safety | |||
After discussing a response submittal date, the call concluded at approximately 11 :00 A.M. eastern standard time. NRG FORM 699 (03-2013) Page 2 of 2}} |
Latest revision as of 07:28, 30 November 2019
ML18345A007 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | 07109338 |
Issue date: | 12/10/2018 |
From: | William Allen Spent Fuel Licensing Branch |
To: | |
Allen W | |
References | |
Download: ML18345A007 (2) | |
Text
NRC FORM 699 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATE OF SIGNATURE (03-2013)
CONVERSATION RECORD 12/10/2018 NAME OF PERSON (S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT WITH YOU DATE OF CONTACT TYPE OF CONVERSATION DE-MAIL See below. 11 /28/2018 E-MAIL ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER 0 TELEPHONE D INCOMING (888) 447-9153 0 OUTGOING ORGANIZATION DOCKET NUMBER(S)
Croft Associates 71-9338 LICENSE NUMBER(S) CONTROL NUMBER(S)
SUBJECT Additional Information Request Teleconference
SUMMARY
NRC participants: Chris Allen, John McKirgan, Jorge Solis, Chris Bajwa, Veronica Wilson, Michel Call and Tae Ahn Croft participants: Alex Ferguson and Robert Vaughn Los Alamos National Laboratory: Eva Birnbaum and Kevin John Brookhaven National Laboratory: Dimitri Medvedev The phone call between NRC staff and Croft Associates Limited to discuss a request for additional infonnation (ML18341A029) commenced at approximately IO A.M. eastern standard time. There was no discussion of the information requests associated with the general information review, the thermal review and the operations review because Croft believed the questions were both straightforward and clearly articulated. In addressing the first materials review questions, Croft planned to add an explanation regarding the pyrophoricity of the contents. In discussing the second materials review question, Croft stated their intention to modify the shielding evaluation, the operations section and the maintenance section to address these issues. For the third materials question, Croft committed to providing additional information and analyses in the safety analysis report as well as adding additional information about the spacers to the operations section. In discussing the shielding information requests , Croft focused primarily on RAI 5.1 because adequately and accurately defining the contents had been the most difficult issue in preparing the amendment. Croft Continue on Page 2 ACTION REQUIRED (IF ANY)
Continue on Page 3 NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION Chris Allen SIGNATURE
'}f~ L_ ~
NRC FORM 699 (03-2013)
Page 1 of 2
NRC FORM 699 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (03-2 013)
CONVERSATION RECORD (continued)
SUMMARY
- (Continued from page 1) outlined two possible methods of specifying the contents and asked NRC staff which method was preferable. The first method involved specifying the maximum irradiation time and the minimum decay time to produce the desired amount of Actinium 225 which was the primary isotopes of interest. This method would rely on the radiation measurements taken prior to shipment to ensure that the regulatory dose rate limits were not exceeded. The second method involved calculating the maximum isotopic quantity which would not produce dose rates in excess of the regulatory limits, and prohibiting transport of the irradiated thorium disc until the isotopic quantities were below these maximum values . NRC staff stated the latter option was preferable. NRC staff emphasized that the responsibility for ensuring compliance with regulatory limits was equally shared by the package designer and the package user.
Croft also discussed with NRC staff the criteria for listing radionuclides on both the package shipping label and within the safety analysis report. Since NRC regulations do not address package shipping label , NRC staff pointed Croft to 49 CFR l 73.443(g). NRC staff then reminded Croft that the radionuclides which had the greatest impact on shielding needed to be listed in the safety analysis report. Subsequently, Croft committed to modifying the shielding analyses as well as the operating instructions to address the shielding information requests. After discussing a response submittal date, the call concluded at approximately 11 :00 A.M. eastern standard time .
NRG FORM 699 (03-2013 )
Page 2 of 2