NRC Review definition

NRC Review. The NRC staff reviewed the Multiscale Thermohydrologic Model AMR (ANL-EBS- MD-0049.Rev 00. ICN 02) received from DOE on January 31, 2002. As discussed above, the AMR was submitted in response to TEF Agreement 2.09. By letter dated May 8, 2002, the NRC staff provided its review of the AMR as it pertained to TEF Agreement 2.09. The following is the NRC staff’s review of the AMR as it pertains to CLST Agreement 6.04. As discussed in the NRC letter dated December 21, 2001, the remaining information needed for CLST Agreement 6.04 was for DOE to provide the output files or plots of temperature as a function of time for the drip shield for the no-backfill case. This information was not provided in the AMR. However, assuming that the temperature of the waste package can be considered as an upper bound for the temperature of the drip shield, a CCDF of the waste package peak temperature provided in the AMR for the mean infiltration-flux, no backfill case ( Figure 6-54) is acceptable, instead of the requested CCDF for the drip shield. The temperature in this CCDF plot varies between 130 and 180 degrees Centigrade and this information, together with that presented in plots showing the waste package temperature at various times (Figure 6-50), allows for assessment of the temperature variation that can be expected for the drip shield across the repository over the performance period. The information provided is that required to evaluate the effect of temperature on the mechanical properties of the drip shield material, provided that no substantial modification by further variations in the repository designs (e.g. addition of backfill or other changes) occur.
Sample 1
NRC Review. The intent of this agreement is to ensure that procurement of materials and fabrication specifications will have adequate quality controls to prevent alteration of the waste package materials characteristics that could affect the corrosion resistance. The composition specifications for waste package base alloys and weld filler metal include ranges for alloying element additions and maximum values for trace contaminants. Variations in the compositions of the base alloys and filler metals within the relatively wide ranges allowed in their respective specifications in combination with fabrication processes such as cold working, welding, and residual stress mitigation methods, may lead to microstructural variations that affect both the mechanical properties and the corrosion resistance of the waste packages. In the NRC/DOE Technical Exchange and Management Meeting on Key Technical Issue Agreements conducted on April 15–16, 2002, the DOE indicated that the information requested in CLST 1.17 would be provided in the License Application Products and Guidance Database that replaced the technical guidance document. The DOE letter for the transmittal of information addressing CLST 1.17, indicates that for structural integrity aspects associated with preclosure conditions the quality requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1 will be implemented. Further, the DOE quality assurance program will implement controls and
Sample 1
NRC Review. The NRC reviewed the Geochemistry Model Validation Report: Material Degradation and Release Model (ANL-EBS-GS-00001) and Geochemistry Model Validation Report: External Accumulation Model (ANL-EBS-GS-00002) and determined that the documents do not satisfy the intent of the agreements. The NRC review focused on model validation discussions. The staff's concerns are outlined below. The staff notes that some of these issues can be resolved by clarifying statements from DOE, or future revisions of these or other documents. It is not clear whether the validation approach in the Geochemistry Model Validation Report: Material Degradation and Release Model is consistent with language in DOE's November 19, 1999, response to the NRC's August 18, 1999, request for additional information (RAI) on the DOE Disposal Criticality Analysis Methodology Topical Report. In that response, XXX stated that they would use the following comparisons for degradation model validation: analytical solutions, "chaining" several EQ6 runs, and other codes. In the model validation report, DOE only used the first comparison. It is not clear if those other validation reports (which have not yet been submitted) are oriented to the needs of criticality modeling. In addition, the comparisons in this report appear to straddle the line between validation and calibration. For example, in the glass test comparison, several smectite precipitation rate models are used in the effort to match experimental Mg concentrations. Similarly, for the archeological glass comparison, two dissolution rate models are employed, one yielding a better result. In the fuel model discussion, the log K for PuO2 solubility is varied, and the model is "refined" to better fit uranium concentrations. Finally, validation discussions are not always related to how they may affect criticality modeling. The results of validation exercises should be discussed in the context of how uncertainties in the models would be reflected in criticality model conclusions. Regarding the Geochemistry Model Validation Report: External Accumulation Model, as discussed above, the validation approach is not consistent with DOE statements in its November 19, 1999, RAI response. In the RAI response, Attachment 2 (see also SER Rev 00, section 3.4.2.3), DOE described its approach as follows: “...comparison between codes (both EQ3/6 and PHREEQC), comparison with experimental data, and comparison with natural analogs.” The methods are not included in this ...
Sample 1

Examples of NRC Review in a sentence

  • NGO Document Support adds the Microfiche reference information to the index in Scribe.6.1.6 NGO Satellite FilePrint out hard copy to place in the NGO Chemistry Satellite File6.1.7 NRC Review of PCP Manual RevisionsPCP Manual revisions shall be sent to the NRC in each station’s Annual Effluent Report each year.

  • In the case of a transient vessel or where no address was furnished by the owner, the Port need not give such notice prior to securing the vessel.

  • Any person found to be in violation of any of the foregoing by the Commission may be permanently excluded from the Gaming Facility, have his or her license suspended or revoked, or be subject to such lesser sanction as may be imposed by the Commission.

  • Step 5: NRC Review of Draft and Final CRRs Upon receipt of the draft CRR, NRC staff should follow the review process stated in Section V.F. of STP FSME Procedure SA-900 to conduct its review.

  • Sincerely, Formatted: Indent: Left: 3.25", First line: 0"STP FSME DirectorOffice of Federal and State Materials and Environmental ManagementState and Tribal Programs Enclosure: As stated Documentation of NRC Review on the Termination Findings of the ABC=s XYZ Uranium Milling License Submitted by the XXXX State Department of Health Licensee: A...

  • Step 5: NRC Review of Draft and Final CRRs Upon receipt of the draft CRR, NRC staff should follow the review process stated in Section V.F. of the STP FSME Procedure SA-900 to conduct its review.

  • It would be interesting to examine the reaction of the financial markets to the announcements of consolidations of other well-known global defense contractors in the same or other continents (U.S., Asia, Australia).

  • The MRFSS program is being redesigned in light of the outcome of the NRC Review of the MRFSS methodology (NRC 2000).

  • NRC Review: NRC considers that current NRC and FEMA requirements and guidance are adequate.

  • NRC Review of Nuclear Energy Institute, “Thermo-Lag 330-1 Combustibility Evaluation Methodology Plant Screening Guide,” May 31, 1995.


More Definitions of NRC Review

NRC Review. In compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 63, DOE in a potential license application for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, would be required to include a preclosure safety analysis identifying the structures, systems, and components important to safety and their design bases. In addition, 10 CFR Part 63 allows categorization of structures, systems, and components to an extent consistent with their importance to safety for the purpose of graded application of quality assurance programs. Prior to Preclosure Agreement
Sample 1
NRC Review. In the Total System Performance Assessment for Site Recommendation, general corrosion was modeled by assigning corrosion rates to each waste package patch, selected from a pool of values sampled from a defined distribution. The waste package outer barrier within a patch was modeled as two “pseudo-barriers,” with an independent corrosion rate sampled for each. In agreement TSPAI.3.02, NRC staff requested DOE to provide a technical basis for this approach (resampling), because resampling could underestimate the number of early patch failures and, consequently, doses calculated to occur within the first 10,000 years. By letter dated May 9, 2002, DOE provided: (1) an analyses of a modified version of the waste package degradation (WAPDEG) model treating “patches” of the outer waste package with single corrosion rates, (2) a technical basis for resampling the general corrosion rates, and (3) a plot showing the effects of resampling. DOE indicated, in the May 9, 2002, letter and its enclosure, that it will not resample corrosion rates (i.e., DOE intends to model the shell regions of the waste package with a single corrosion rate). Based on the DOE decision not to use resampling, the NRC staff does not have any outstanding questions or comments regarding the technical basis of
Sample 1

Related to NRC Review

  • Periodic Review means a review conducted by Ofwat for the purpose of determining one or more Price Controls in accordance with Part III of Condition B, but so that references in Part IV of Condition B to a Periodic Review shall exclude any review carried out under paragraph 11 of that Condition and shall include the determination by the Competition and Markets Authority of the relevant questions or, as the case may be, the disputed determination referred to it under paragraph 16 of Condition B;

  • Peer review means evaluation of professional services rendered by a professional practitioner.

  • Benchmark Review means a review of the Services carried out in accordance with paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 of Schedule 7 (Value for Money) of this Framework Agreement to determine whether those Services represent Good Value;

  • Utilization review means the prospective (prior to), concurrent (during) or retrospective (after) review of any service to determine whether such service was properly authorized, constitutes a medically necessary service for purposes of benefit payment, and is a covered healthcare service under this plan. WE, US, and OUR means Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island. WE, US, or OUR will have the same meaning whether italicized or not. YOU and YOUR means the subscriber or member enrolled for coverage under this agreement. YOU and YOUR will have the same meaning whether italicized or not.

  • Drug utilization review means an evaluation of a prescription drug order and patient records for

  • Records Review means any assessment the Province conducts pursuant to section A.7.4 (Records Review).

  • Utilization review plan or "plan" means a written procedure for performing review.

  • Architectural Review Committee or “ARC” shall mean the architectural review committee established by the Organization to review plans submitted to the Organization for architectural review.

  • Supervisory Review means ongoing clinical case reviews in accordance with procedures developed by ADMINISTRATOR, to determine the appropriateness of Diagnosis and treatment and to monitor compliance to the minimum ADMINISTRATOR and Medi-Cal charting standards. Supervisory review is conducted by the program/clinic director or designee.

  • Program Plan means the tobacco settlement program plan dated February 14, 2001, including exhibits to the program plan, submitted by the authority to the legislative council and the executive council, to provide the state with a secure and stable source of funding for the purposes designated by section 12E.3A and other provisions of this chapter.

  • independent review committee means the independent review committee of the investment fund established under National Instrument 81-107 Independent Review Committee for Investment Funds;

  • Clinical review criteria means the written screening procedures, decision abstracts, clinical protocols, and practice guidelines used by a health carrier to determine the necessity and appropriateness of health care services.

  • Expedited review means an examination, in accordance with

  • Performance Review means a summative evaluation of a teacher other than a beginning teacher and used to determine whether the teacher’s practice meets school district expectations and the Iowa teaching standards, and to determine whether the teacher’s practice meets school district expectations for career advancement in accordance with Iowa Code section 284.7.

  • Peer review committee means one or more persons acting in a peer review capacity who also serve as an officer, director, trustee, agent, or member of any of the following:

  • QAP shall have the meaning set forth in Clause 11.2;

  • Root Cause Analysis Report means a report addressing a problem or non-conformance, in order to get to the ‘root cause’ of the problem, which thereby assists in correcting or eliminating the cause, and prevent the problem from recurring.

  • Application Review Start Date means the later date of either the date on which the District issues its written notice that the Applicant has submitted a completed Application or the date on which the Comptroller issues its written notice that the Applicant has submitted a completed Application and as further identified in Section 2.3.A of this Agreement.

  • Peer-reviewed medical literature means a published scientific study in a journal or other publication in which original manuscripts have been published only after having been critically reviewed for scientific accuracy, validity and reliability by unbiased independent experts, and that has been determined by the international committee of medical journal editors to have met the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Peer-reviewed medical literature does not include publications or supplements to publications that are sponsored to a significant extent by a pharmaceutical manufacturing company or health carrier.

  • Review means a financial or operational audit, investigation, inspection or other form of review requested or required by the LHIN under the terms of LHSIA or this Agreement, but does not include the annual audit of the HSP’s financial statements;

  • Retrospective review means a review of medical necessity conducted after services have been provided to a patient, but does not include the review of a claim that is limited to an evaluation of reimbursement levels, veracity of documentation, accuracy of coding, or adjudication for payment.

  • Evaluation Team means the team appointed by the City; “Information Meeting” has the meaning set out in section 2.2;

  • Utilization review organization means an entity that conducts utilization review, other than a health carrier performing a review for its own health benefit plans.

  • Clinical evaluation means a systematic and planned process to continuously generate, collect, analyse and assess the clinical data pertaining to a device in order to verify the safety and performance, including clinical benefits, of the device when used as intended by the manufacturer;

  • Independent review organization means an entity that is accredited to conduct independent external reviews of adverse benefit determinations.

  • Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) Coordinator, as used in this clause, means the individual at the department or agency level who is registered in eSRS and is responsible for acknowledging or rejecting SSRs in eSRS for the department or agency.