|
|---|
Category:E-Mail
MONTHYEARML24165A0842024-06-13013 June 2024
NEI White Papers Supporting NRC Workshop Discussions Regarding Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Potential Changes to Regulatory Guide 1.183
ML24114A0252024-04-0808 April 2024
Comment (4) of Charlotte Shields on DG-5080 Uas Question
ML24095A3522024-04-0404 April 2024
Email Transmittal 4-4-2024 NEI Responses to the NRC Staff Comments on NEI 99-01, Revision 7
ML23270B8992023-09-27027 September 2023
Email NEI Request for an Extension of Comment Period on Proposed Revision to Standard Review Plan Section 15.0, Introduction - Transient and Accident Analyses, Docket Id NRC 2023 0079
ML23229A1202023-08-17017 August 2023
NRR E-mail Capture - Information Email Capture of Advanced Reactor Content of Application Project and Technology Inclusive Content of Application Project Guidance Document Comments
ML23214A2532023-08-0101 August 2023
(Nei), Request for Review and Endorsement of NEI 99-04, Rev. 1, Guideline for Managing NRC Commitment Changes
ML23171A0212023-06-16016 June 2023
NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) Request for an Extension of Comment Period on Draft Interim Staff Guidance Review of Risk-Informed, Technology Inclusive Advanced Reactor Applications - Roadmap, Docket Id NRC-2022-0074
ML23153A1262023-06-0101 June 2023
NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) Re Industry Discussion Topics for Arcapticap Discussion in June 7th 2023 Meeting
ML23110A6772023-04-18018 April 2023
Email-Fee Exemption Request for Review and Endorsement of NEI 23-03
ML23110A6782023-04-18018 April 2023
Request for Review and Endorsement of NEI 23-03, Supplemental Guidance for Application of 10 CFR 50.59 to Digital Modifications at Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities
ML23138A1542023-03-24024 March 2023
Transmittal of NEI 22-05, Revision a, Technology Inclusive Risk Informed Change Evaluation (Tirice) Guidance for the Evaluation of Changes to Facilities Utilizing NEI 18-04 and NEI 21-07
ML22349A6582022-12-14014 December 2022
NEI Responses to NRC Comments on Draft NEI 99-01, Revision 7, Developments of EALs for Non-Passive Reactors
ML22349A1012022-12-12012 December 2022
LTR-22-0343 Ellen Ginsberg, Sr. Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Nuclear Energy Institute, Expresses Concerns Related to Issuance of Regulatory Issue Summary 2022-02; Operational Leakage
ML22019A2912022-01-12012 January 2022
(External-Sender) Submittal of Proposed Revisions to Aging Management Programs XI.M33, Selective Leaching and XI.E3
ML21270A1322021-09-24024 September 2021
Transmittal Email (External Sender - NEI) NEI 17-06 - NEI Response to NRC Comments
ML21263A0102021-09-17017 September 2021
Proposed Rule: Advanced Reactor Security - Email from NEI (D. Young) ML for Previous Comments on Topics Discussed and 2 Comments from Public Meeting on 9/17/2021
ML21236A2032021-08-24024 August 2021
NRC Comments on NPUF Guidance 2021 Draft Without NPUF Rule.Docx
ML21236A0882021-08-23023 August 2021
Email-Request for Review and Endorsement of NEI 21-06 Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation at Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities.Msg
ML21257A2352021-08-19019 August 2021
Rulemaking: Proposed Rule: Advanced Reactor Physical Security, Email Exchange Between Nrc and NEI Draft Pages from NEI-20-05 Rev. E
ML21223A1992021-08-0909 August 2021
Email to NRC - Rroar Discussion Items
ML21208A1752021-07-26026 July 2021
Email from Bill Gross NEI, Associated with the White Paper Development of Adversary Timelines (Withheld Under 2.390)
ML21161A0272021-05-31031 May 2021
NEI Industry Feedback on RG 1.183 5-31-2021
ML21153A1352021-05-26026 May 2021
Comments on NRC Proposal for TSTF-505 and PRA Methods - 05/26/2021
ML21175A0502021-05-20020 May 2021
Rulemaking: Proposed Rule: Advanced Reactor Physical Security, Email from D. Young, NEI to D. Andrukat, NRC Discussion of NEI 20-05 Target Set Term
ML21137A0572021-05-14014 May 2021
Rulemaking: Proposed Rule: Advanced Reactor Physical Security-Email from Young to Andrukat, May 2021 Draft D of NEI 20-05 Methodological Approach and Considerations for a Tech Analy to Demonstrate Compliance with the Eligibility Criteria of
ML21138A8872021-05-0707 May 2021
5_7 Email Transmittal for Fee Waiver Request for NEI 99-01 Rev 7
ML21120A0562021-04-29029 April 2021
NRR E-mail Capture - (External_Sender) Issuance of NEI 21-01: Industry Guidance to Support Implementation of Nrc'S Risk-Informed Process for Evaluations
ML21175A0362021-04-21021 April 2021
Rulemaking: Proposed Rule: Advanced Reactor Physical Security Email from D. Young, NEI to N. Valliere, D Andrukat, S. Helton, P. Lee, NRC Summary Table Showing Key Attributes for Eligibility Criteria
ML21175A0352021-04-15015 April 2021
Rulemaking: Proposed Rule: Advanced Reactor Physical Security, Email from D. Young, NEI to D. Andrukat, NRC Follow-up Questions on NRC Response to NEI Question Concerning Proposed Eligibility Criterion 10 CFR 73.55(a)(7)(i)(A)
ML21175A0432021-03-22022 March 2021
Rulemaking: Proposed Rule: Advanced Reactor Physical Security, Email from D. Young, NEI to D. Andrukat, NRC Question on the Term Unmitigated as Used in Proposed Eligibility Criterion 10 CFR 73.55(a)(7)(i)(A)
ML21085A0262021-03-22022 March 2021
NRR E-mail Capture - NEI Draft Industry Guidance to Support Implementation of Nrc'S Risk-Informed Process for Evaluations
ML21006A3082020-12-21021 December 2020
Comments on Draft IMC-0335
ML20342A1702020-11-23023 November 2020
NEI Input on NRC Annual Fee Assessment for Non-Light Water Reactors
ML20288A4992020-09-14014 September 2020
Additional Supporting Information for the Review of FAQ 20-03
ML20259C5882020-09-11011 September 2020
NEI 14-05A R1 NEI Transmittal Response 9-11 to July NRC RAIs (e-mail)
ML21050A0902020-08-31031 August 2020
Staff Detailed Comments - NEI 20_07 Draft Revision B -February 2021
ML20351A2182020-08-31031 August 2020
NEI 20-07 Guidance for Addressing Software Ccf_Kscarola
ML20245E5612020-08-31031 August 2020
Guidance for Addressing Software Common Cause Failure in High Safety-Significant Safety Related Digital I&C Systems
ML20177A4952020-06-23023 June 2020
NEI Comments on BTP 7-19, Revision 8 Submitted June 23, 2020
ML20154K5542020-05-28028 May 2020
Email and Letter from Rmccullum: NEI Comments on Spent Fuel Reprocessing Rulemaking
ML20142A2842020-05-21021 May 2020
NEI Initial Comments on RG 1.187 Rev 2 Prior to ACRS Meeting on May 20, 2020 (Email)
ML20143A0292020-05-21021 May 2020
NEI Suggested Edits to RG 1.187 (Email)
ML20142A2892020-05-19019 May 2020
Additional NEI Comments on RG 1.187 Rev 2 Prior to ACRS Meeting on May 20, 2020 (E-Mail)
ML20135H2092020-05-13013 May 2020
5_13 Email of NEI Submittal of Response to RAI NEI 14-05A, Revision 1
ML20107D8942020-04-13013 April 2020
Email from D. Young Draft B of NEI 20-05, Methodological Approach and Considerations for a Security Assessment to Demonstrate Compliance with the Performance Criteria of 10 CFR 73.55(TBD)
ML20104A3082020-04-10010 April 2020
NEI Email, Dated April 10, 2020, Draft a of NEI 20-05
ML20107G8142020-04-0606 April 2020
Email from Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to NRC Transmitting NEI Comments on Draft Temporary Instruction 2514/194
ML20049A0182020-02-14014 February 2020
Email - SBT Definition and Submittal Issue
ML20043F4782020-02-11011 February 2020
02112020 Nuclear Energy Institute Email Draft COM-106 Review
ML20043F4772020-02-11011 February 2020
NRC Acknowledgement E-mail to Nuclear Energy Institute 02112020 E-mail Draft COM-106 Review
2024-06-13
[Table view] |
Text
NRR-DMPSPEm Resource From: FREGONESE, Victor <vxf@nei.org>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 8:36 AM To: Rahn, David Cc: Drake, Jason; Archambo, Neil G; Morton, Wendell
Subject:
[External_Sender] Re: Follow up Question on RIS Thanks. I think we should address this issue head-on, and not leave it open to interpretation downstream. So if there is a position it would be better just to state what it is, and what it is not. Thanks!
On Apr 24, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Rahn, David <David.Rahn@nrc.gov> wrote:
Hi Vic:
Wendell and I will be discussing this point today, and will get back to you on it as soon as we have reached a conclusion. We received a similar comment from others, regarding whether statements like this in the RIS are going beyond existing policy, and may not be allowed to be clarified in the form of a RIS. The issue isnt so much related to the process of determining whether existing plant level analyses can be shown to be bounding, but rather it is related to how it was determined that the frequency of a potential new CCF was found to be negligible.
We may end up deleting the entire highlighted sentence altogether.
Dave From: FREGONESE, Victor [1]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 8:38 AM To: Morton, Wendell <Wendell.Morton@nrc.gov>; Rahn, David <David.Rahn@nrc.gov>
Cc: Drake, Jason <Jason.Drake@nrc.gov>; 'Archambo, Neil G' <Neil.Archambo@duke-energy.com>
Subject:
[External_Sender] Follow up Question on RIS Wendell and Dave, One point that Dave B of the NRC clarified after the meeting was the intent of his statements about the use of best estimate methods in the previous meeting.
This was very helpful in explaining his thoughts on this topic.
I noted a section of the draft RIS that discusses this point.
I know we are sending comments next week, but I am having a team meeting on Monday to do a de-brief on the 4/20 meeting and the RIS, and want to be clear about this point, as it is an important one to understand.
I dont need a technical answer to this, as we are exchanging via e-mail, but a yes/no answer will be sufficient for my meeting, as there is some question in my mind as to whether this could be done under 50.59.
Question: Is in envisioned that the following section (from page 7) remain as written, considering the recent comments from NRC staff on beyond design basis? Yes or No?
Similarly, the NRC staff expectation regarding the documentation of qualitative assessments is to be able to describe the licensees basis (rationale) for concluding that a particular proposed modification will not:
A bounded plant-level end result is not considered a different type of accident or a malfunction with a different result. When evaluating the impact of potential new CCFs that are of sufficient frequency 1
that need to be accounted for within the plant design basis, design basis analysis methods and acceptance criteria should be used. When evaluating the impact of potential new CCFs that are of negligible frequency, beyond design basis analysis methods (best estimate) and acceptance criteria may be used in evaluating whether the plant level effect is bounding Vic Fregonese Senior Project Manager Nuclear Generation Division Nuclear Energy Institute 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 www.nei.org M: 704-953-4544 E: vxf@nei.org This electronic message transmission contains information from the Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. The information is intended solely for the use of the addressee and its use by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by electronic mail and permanently delete the original message. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Sent through www.intermedia.com This electronic message transmission contains information from the Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. The information is intended solely for the use of the addressee and its use by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by electronic mail and permanently delete the original message. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Sent through www.intermedia.com 2
Hearing Identifier: NRR_DMPS Email Number: 199 Mail Envelope Properties (0DC3AF8F-5AB0-4A58-9F90-2C52190D0247)
Subject:
[External_Sender] Re: Follow up Question on RIS Sent Date: 4/24/2017 8:36:11 AM Received Date: 4/24/2017 8:36:16 AM From: FREGONESE, Victor Created By: vxf@nei.org Recipients:
"Drake, Jason" <Jason.Drake@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Archambo, Neil G" <Neil.Archambo@duke-energy.com>
Tracking Status: None "Morton, Wendell" <Wendell.Morton@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Rahn, David" <David.Rahn@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: nei.org Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 5932 4/24/2017 8:36:16 AM Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: