|
|
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | issue date = 07/28/2016 | | | issue date = 07/28/2016 |
| | title = Follow-up Questions Related to Entergy Request for 20.2002 Disposal of Contaminated Water | | | title = Follow-up Questions Related to Entergy Request for 20.2002 Disposal of Contaminated Water |
| | author name = Parrott J D | | | author name = Parrott J |
| | author affiliation = NRC/NMSS/DDUWP/RDB | | | author affiliation = NRC/NMSS/DDUWP/RDB |
| | addressee name = Silko T | | | addressee name = Silko T |
| Line 12: |
Line 12: |
| | document type = E-Mail | | | document type = E-Mail |
| | page count = 2 | | | page count = 2 |
| | project = CAC:MF8275, CAC:MF8275, CAC:MF8276, CAC:MF8277, CAC:MF8278
| |
| | stage = Other
| |
| }} | | }} |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:From: Parrott, Jack Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:12 PM To: Tom Silko (tsilko@entergy.com) <tsilko@entergy.com> Subject: some follow up questions on the 20.2002 request Tom, My technical person working on the 20.2002 disposal request had a couple of follow-up questions (see attached) from the Entergy RAI response. If you like we could have a call or you could respond by e-mail. Thanks, Jack Jack D. Parrott Senior Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-6634 From: Pinkston, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:29 PM To: Parrott, Jack <Jack.Parrott@nrc.gov> Subject: questions for VY Here are my two follow-up questions. 1. There are several radionuclides included in the revised calculation that were not included in the first evaluation and were not reported in the sample results provided to the NRC (Co-58, Fe-55, Ni-63, Tc-99, and U-238). How were the activities of these radionuclides assumed in the dose assessment derived? If they were derived from a newer part 61 analysis, could we receive a copy of the results from that? 2. The activity assumed for Co-60 was 6.9 pCi/g, which is approximately equal to the activity measured on 5/12/16. Previous measurements of Co-60 were higher. Have any samples been measured since May 12th that provide additional justification for the assumed Co-60 activity and/or are there any additional samples planned before the water is shipped? Although it seems reasonable that the Co-60 activity would decrease with time as the water is circulated through the water treatment system, it is not clear from the data provided that the system has reached steady state and that the assumed Co-60 bounds the potential activity in the water. | | {{#Wiki_filter:From: Parrott, Jack Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:12 PM To: Tom Silko (tsilko@entergy.com) <tsilko@entergy.com> |
| }} | | |
| | ==Subject:== |
| | some follow up questions on the 20.2002 request |
| | : Tom, My technical person working on the 20.2002 disposal request had a couple of follow-up questions (see attached) from the Entergy RAI response. |
| | If you like we could have a call or you could respond by e-mail. |
| | : Thanks, Jack Jack D. Parrott Senior Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-6634 |
| | |
| | From: Pinkston, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:29 PM To: Parrott, Jack <Jack.Parrott@nrc.gov> |
| | |
| | ==Subject:== |
| | questions for VY Here are my two follow-up questions. |
| | : 1. There are several radionuclides included in the revised calculation that were not included in the first evaluation and were not reported in the sample results provided to the NRC (Co-58, Fe-55, Ni-63, Tc-99, and U-238). How were the activities of these radionuclides assumed in the dose assessment derived? If they were derived from a newer part 61 analysis, could we receive a copy of the results from that? |
| | : 2. The activity assumed for Co-60 was 6.9 pCi/g, which is approximately equal to the activity measured on 5/12/16. Previous measurements of Co-60 were higher. Have any samples been measured since May 12th that provide additional justification for the assumed Co-60 activity and/or are there any additional samples planned before the water is shipped? Although it seems reasonable that the Co-60 activity would decrease with time as the water is circulated through the water treatment system, it is not clear from the data provided that the system has reached steady state and that the assumed Co-60 bounds the potential activity in the water.}} |
|
|---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML21075A1582021-03-15015 March 2021
E-mail from T. Silko to J. Parrott, NMSS, Vermont Yankee on the State of Vermont Comments on the Review of the Draft Final SER and EA for 20.2002 Alternate Disposal Request
ML21006A0242020-12-22022 December 2020
E-mail from J. Parrott to J. Tierney and N. Creed Vermont Yankee Request to NRC for Alternate Disposal of Wastewater
ML20358A0702020-12-22022 December 2020
E-mail Acceptance Review for Request for Indirect License Transfer (License DPR-28, Docket No. 50-271)
ML20175A2122020-06-23023 June 2020
Acceptance Review of Request for Alternate Disposal of Wastes Under 10 CFR 20.2002 (License DPR-28, Docket No. 50-271)
ML19289A1292019-10-11011 October 2019
Email from Daniel Doyle to Mark Leyse Status of PRM-50-93 and PRM-50-95
ML19288A0292019-10-11011 October 2019
NRC Acceptance Review - Northstar Request for Exemption from 10 CFR 20, App G, Section Iii.E (License DPR-28, Docket No. 50-271)
ML19198A2512019-06-20020 June 2019
Alternate Disposal Request - Rail Shipments (License DPR-28, Docket No. 50-271)
ML19059A1782019-02-28028 February 2019
Acceptance Review Results for Relief Request No. EN-19-RR-1 to Use ASME Code Case N-831-1 for Entergy Fleet
ML18289A3622018-10-11011 October 2018
Email from Daniel Doyle to Mark Leyse Status of PRM-50-93 and PRM-50-95
ML18127A5582018-04-25025 April 2018
Email to State of Vermont on Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station - Forthcoming Issuance of a License Amendment Regarding the Requirement for the VYNPS to Have a Cyber Security Plan
ML18045A0862018-01-25025 January 2018
Email Request for Review of the Draft Safety Evaluation for Implementation of a Revised Emergency Plan at Vermont Yankee to Reflect an ISFSI-only Configuration
ML17353A0092017-12-18018 December 2017
E-Mail from William Irwin, Vermont Department of Health to Y. Chen/Dsfm Response: Draft Environmental Assessment: Exemption Request for Vermont Yankee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
ML17289A4222017-10-16016 October 2017
E-Mail from Y. J. Chen to W. Irwin Draft Environmental Assessment Exemption Request for Vermont Yankee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
ML17257A0022017-09-14014 September 2017
Email to VY Shpo W Ltr Re VYNPS Exemption Load Campaign - Sept 2017
ML17229B4842017-08-16016 August 2017
Request for Supplemental Documentation to Support Review of the Physical Security Plan
ML17219A0472017-08-0303 August 2017
8/03/2017, E-Mail from Y. J. Chen/Nmss to T. B. Silko/Vermont Yankee Regarding Need for Additional Information Entergy'S Exemption Request for Vermont Yankee ISFSI, Dated May 16, 2017 (ML17142A358)
ML17144A0452017-05-23023 May 2017
5/23/2017, E-Mail to I. William/Vermont Dept. of Health from Y. Chen/Nrc Response: Draft Environment Assessment: Exemption Request for Vermont Yankee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (W/Attachment Ltr to Address Comments on EA)
ML17080A4752017-03-16016 March 2017
3/16/2017, E-Mail from I. William/Vermont Department of Health to Yen-Ju Chen/Dsfm/Sflb, Providing Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment for Entergy/Vermont Yankee'S Exemption from Requirement of 10 CFR 72.7 for CoC No. 72-1014, Amendm
ML17055A6262017-02-24024 February 2017
Cover Email from VY Shpo W Concurrence on No Effects Determination
ML17040A3372017-02-0909 February 2017
Email and Letter to Vermont Shpo ISFSI Exemption No Effects Determination
ML17038A4682017-02-0707 February 2017
2/07/2017, E-mail from Yen-Ju Chen/NRC-DSFM to W. Irwin/Vermont Dept. of Health Draft Environment Assessment for Entergy/Vermont Yankee'S Exemption from Requirement of 10 CFR 72.7 for Certificate of Compliance No. 72-1014, Amendment 10
ML17012A2472017-01-11011 January 2017
E-mail - State of Vermont Comments Regarding Vermont Yankee'S 10 CFR 20.2002 Request
ML16349A2492016-12-13013 December 2016
E-Mail to T. B. Silko/Entergy from Yen-Ju Chen/Dsfm Regarding Need for Supplemental Information for Entergy'S Exemption Request for Vermont Yankee ISFSI, Dated November 9, 2016 (ML16319A102)
ML17013A2502016-12-12012 December 2016
Email Requesting Review of Draft EA and SER for Vermont Yankee Request to NRC for Alternate Disposal of Waste
ML16231A0282016-08-11011 August 2016
Response to NRC Questions Related to Request for 20.2002 Disposal of Contaminated Water
ML16231A2192016-07-28028 July 2016
Follow-up Questions Related to Entergy Request for 20.2002 Disposal of Contaminated Water
ML16069A0952016-03-0303 March 2016
Request for 20.2002 Disposal, Request for Additional Information
ML16053A5152016-02-17017 February 2016
Comment (037) of Emma Stamas on ANPR-26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 - Regulatory Improvements for Decommissioning Power Reactors
ML15329A1802015-11-24024 November 2015
E-mail from J. Whited Draft RAIs Re Duke License Amendment Request to Adopt TSTF-523 (CAC Nos. MF6413 Through MF6422)
ML15295A2132015-10-21021 October 2015
NRR E-mail Capture - VY RAI for Off-site Insurance Exemption (10 CFR 140.11) - MF3980
ML15289A6002015-09-24024 September 2015
La 3 - Vermont Yankee Draft Responses or Edits 9 24 15.docx
ML15289A6012015-09-23023 September 2015
La 3 - Nrr_Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning Status.Docx
ML15288A3532015-09-21021 September 2015
La 3 - VY Dtf LAR - Status
ML15257A6172015-09-14014 September 2015
La 3 - Testing the New Profile for Vermont Yankee La 3 - Public
ML15195A3592015-07-14014 July 2015
NRR E-mail Capture - Acceptance Review for Vermont Yankee Amendment -Revise Cyber Security Plan Implementation
ML15289A0022015-06-17017 June 2015
La 3 - Question from Ma
ML15289A5982015-06-0909 June 2015
La 3 - FW: Docket No. 50-271 (Vermont Yankee); June 5 2015 Letter from Vermont, Vynpc, and Gmp to NRC Attached
ML15289A0072015-06-0505 June 2015
La 3 - Information Regarding Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Trust Fund Exemption
ML15289A2432015-06-0404 June 2015
La 3 - FW: Docket No. 50-271 (Vermont Yankee); June 4 2015 Vermont Letter to NRC Attached
ML15289A0062015-06-0404 June 2015
La 3 - FW: Information Regarding Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Trust Fund Exemption
ML15288A3592015-06-0101 June 2015
La 3 - Vermont Yankee LA3 - Availability for Oral Argument
ML15288A3602015-06-0101 June 2015
La 3 - Vermont Yankee LA3 - Availability for Oral Argument
ML15288A3622015-06-0101 June 2015
La 3 - Vermont Yankee LA3 - Availability for Oral Argument
ML15288A4822015-05-22022 May 2015
La 3 - Vermont Reply to NRC & Entergy Answers Re VY LA-3
ML15289A0042015-05-19019 May 2015
La 3 - New Proposal Dates for Phone Call with VT
ML15289A0052015-05-11011 May 2015
La 3 - ML Numbers for Disbursement Letters for Vermont Yankee
ML15289A5992015-05-0808 May 2015
La 3 - Call with State of VT
ML15289A0032015-05-0707 May 2015
La 3 - Other than for Comanche Peak,
ML15289A1252015-05-0606 May 2015
La 3 - FRN Review - VY Dtf Exemption
ML15128A0232015-04-27027 April 2015
NRR E-mail Capture - Petitioners Response to Request for Comments on the Proposed Director'S Decision on the 2.206 Petition Regarding Financial Qualifications of Entergy
2021-03-15
[Table view] |
Text
From: Parrott, Jack Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 2:12 PM To: Tom Silko (tsilko@entergy.com) <tsilko@entergy.com>
Subject:
some follow up questions on the 20.2002 request
- Tom, My technical person working on the 20.2002 disposal request had a couple of follow-up questions (see attached) from the Entergy RAI response.
If you like we could have a call or you could respond by e-mail.
- Thanks, Jack Jack D. Parrott Senior Project Manager US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-6634
From: Pinkston, Karen Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:29 PM To: Parrott, Jack <Jack.Parrott@nrc.gov>
Subject:
questions for VY Here are my two follow-up questions.
- 1. There are several radionuclides included in the revised calculation that were not included in the first evaluation and were not reported in the sample results provided to the NRC (Co-58, Fe-55, Ni-63, Tc-99, and U-238). How were the activities of these radionuclides assumed in the dose assessment derived? If they were derived from a newer part 61 analysis, could we receive a copy of the results from that?
- 2. The activity assumed for Co-60 was 6.9 pCi/g, which is approximately equal to the activity measured on 5/12/16. Previous measurements of Co-60 were higher. Have any samples been measured since May 12th that provide additional justification for the assumed Co-60 activity and/or are there any additional samples planned before the water is shipped? Although it seems reasonable that the Co-60 activity would decrease with time as the water is circulated through the water treatment system, it is not clear from the data provided that the system has reached steady state and that the assumed Co-60 bounds the potential activity in the water.
