ML16054A709: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML16054A709 | | number = ML16054A709 | ||
| issue date = 02/11/2016 | | issue date = 02/11/2016 | ||
| title = | | title = E-mail Regarding Industry Response to NRC Comments on TSTF Draft Letter Regarding TSTF-425, Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control - RITSTF Initiative 5b. | ||
| author name = Mann B | | author name = Mann B | ||
| author affiliation = Excel Services Corp | | author affiliation = Excel Services Corp | ||
| addressee name = Honcharik M | | addressee name = Honcharik M | ||
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DPR/PLPB | | addressee affiliation = NRC/NRR/DPR/PLPB | ||
| docket = PROJ0753 | | docket = PROJ0753 | ||
| license number = | | license number = | ||
| contact person = Honcharik M | | contact person = Honcharik M | ||
| case reference number = TSTF-425 | | case reference number = TSTF-425 | ||
| package number = ML16054A498 | | package number = ML16054A498 | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| page count = 2 | | page count = 2 | ||
| project = | | project = | ||
| stage = Other | | stage = Draft Other | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:From: Brian Mann <Brian.Mann@excelservices.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 3:00 PM To: Honcharik, Michelle Cc: TSTF | {{#Wiki_filter:From: Brian Mann <Brian.Mann@excelservices.com> | ||
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 3:00 PM To: Honcharik, Michelle Cc: TSTF | |||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
[External_Sender] Industry response to NRC comments on TSTF draft letter regarding TSTF-425, "Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control - | |||
RITSTF Initiative 5b" | |||
Their only comments were on "Proposed | : Michelle, We asked industry PRA experts to review the comments provided in your e-mail dated January 8. | ||
Their only comments were on "Proposed Resolution, New Item (3rd Numbering)". The staff proposed adding: | |||
Licensees should submit PRA quality | Licensees should submit PRA quality information for their internal events PRA against RG 1.200, Revision 2, submit all peer review F&Os associated with the Internal Events PRA, and address the impact of those F&Os on the application. | ||
The discussion stated: | |||
The discussion stated: | Clarification Needed. Some licensees only consider an F&O to be open or closed with respect to whether they consider the F&O to be resolved in their model. The NRC currently considers an F&O to be closed if a subsequent peer review of the SR and the F&O considers it to be resolved in the model. | ||
(Therefore, the licensee would no longer have to submit the F&O and disposition as part of the application.) All open F&Os for Internal Events should be provided. F&Os associated with those external events that are evaluated quantitatively should also be provided. | |||
Clarification Needed. Some licensees only consider an F&O to be open or closed with respect to whether they consider the F&O to be resolved in their model. The NRC currently considers an F&O to be closed if a subsequent peer review of the SR and the F&O | |||
Industry comments: | Industry comments: | ||
* The proposed addition should state open F&Os , consistent with the discussion. | * The proposed addition should state open F&Os, consistent with the discussion. | ||
* The proposed addition should be clarified to state that only "Finding" level F&Os need be submitted. | * The proposed addition should be clarified to state that only "Finding" level F&Os need be submitted. "Suggestion" level F&Os should not be submitted. | ||
* The proposed addition should be clarified to not require submittal of self-assessment findings for plants that had Internal events peer reviews under RG 1.200 Rev 1. | * The proposed addition should be clarified to not require submittal of self-assessment findings for plants that had Internal events peer reviews under RG 1.200 Rev 1. | ||
Therefore, we would propose to add: | |||
Therefore, we would propose to add: | Licensees should submit PRA quality information for their internal events PRA against RG 1.200, Revision 2, submit all Finding-level peer review F&Os | ||
Licensees should submit PRA quality | |||
Brian D. Mann Vice President of Industry Programs EXCEL Services Corporation Direct | associated with the Internal Events PRA that have not been closed by a subsequent peer review, and address the impact of those F&Os on the application. Internal self-assessment findings need not be submitted. | ||
We look forward to discussing this on the 18th. | |||
Brian Brian D. Mann Vice President of Industry Programs EXCEL Services Corporation Direct (240) 880-0490 Main (301) 984-4400 Mobile (804) 339-7034 E-mail: brian.mann@excelservices.com Web: www.excelservices.com Web: www.nukapedia.com}} | |||
Latest revision as of 18:46, 4 December 2019
| ML16054A709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Technical Specifications Task Force |
| Issue date: | 02/11/2016 |
| From: | Mann B Excel Services Corp |
| To: | Michelle Honcharik Licensing Processes Branch (DPR) |
| Honcharik M | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16054A498 | List: |
| References | |
| TSTF-425 | |
| Download: ML16054A709 (2) | |
Text
From: Brian Mann <Brian.Mann@excelservices.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 3:00 PM To: Honcharik, Michelle Cc: TSTF
Subject:
[External_Sender] Industry response to NRC comments on TSTF draft letter regarding TSTF-425, "Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control -
RITSTF Initiative 5b"
- Michelle, We asked industry PRA experts to review the comments provided in your e-mail dated January 8.
Their only comments were on "Proposed Resolution, New Item (3rd Numbering)". The staff proposed adding:
Licensees should submit PRA quality information for their internal events PRA against RG 1.200, Revision 2, submit all peer review F&Os associated with the Internal Events PRA, and address the impact of those F&Os on the application.
The discussion stated:
Clarification Needed. Some licensees only consider an F&O to be open or closed with respect to whether they consider the F&O to be resolved in their model. The NRC currently considers an F&O to be closed if a subsequent peer review of the SR and the F&O considers it to be resolved in the model.
(Therefore, the licensee would no longer have to submit the F&O and disposition as part of the application.) All open F&Os for Internal Events should be provided. F&Os associated with those external events that are evaluated quantitatively should also be provided.
Industry comments:
- The proposed addition should state open F&Os, consistent with the discussion.
- The proposed addition should be clarified to state that only "Finding" level F&Os need be submitted. "Suggestion" level F&Os should not be submitted.
- The proposed addition should be clarified to not require submittal of self-assessment findings for plants that had Internal events peer reviews under RG 1.200 Rev 1.
Therefore, we would propose to add:
Licensees should submit PRA quality information for their internal events PRA against RG 1.200, Revision 2, submit all Finding-level peer review F&Os
associated with the Internal Events PRA that have not been closed by a subsequent peer review, and address the impact of those F&Os on the application. Internal self-assessment findings need not be submitted.
We look forward to discussing this on the 18th.
Brian Brian D. Mann Vice President of Industry Programs EXCEL Services Corporation Direct (240) 880-0490 Main (301) 984-4400 Mobile (804) 339-7034 E-mail: brian.mann@excelservices.com Web: www.excelservices.com Web: www.nukapedia.com