NRC Review definition

NRC Review. During the October 11-13, 2000 technical exchange, the NRC staff expressed concern that geologic information used in DOE hydrologic models was not consistent with observed fracture patterns and other geologic information. The mutually agreed upon intent of SDS Agreement 3.01 was that DOE would provide documentation to show that the observed fracture-fault patterns and lithostratigraphic information was adequately captured in the hydrologic models associated with the passive and Alcove 8 Niche 3 tests. The NRC used the term “fracture-informed” to try to express this idea.
Sample 1
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.
Sample 1
NRC Review. By letter dated October 12, 2001, XXX provided the following letter report as it pertains to this agreement, “Underground Observations of Excavation-Induced Fractures.”
Sample 1

Examples of NRC Review in a sentence

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Table 1: Cost Statistics for DC Reviews ** Includes the AP1000 design certification and amendment *Cost is reported in 2017 dollars.Figure 1: NRC Review Cost of DCs The reviews of the APR 1400 and the NuScale designs were not included in Table 1, because the former had been underway for only three months and the latter had not commenced by the time the NRC letter was issued on April 7, 2015.

  • The NRC Review (2006) identified the increasing penetration of cell phones and subsequent abandonment of landline telephones as a potential source of bias in the CHTS.

  • 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 FSME Procedure SA-900 to conduct its review.

  • NRC Review of Final Status Survey and Technical Basis Document for the Sanitary Sewer Line Beneath Lake Battelle and the Battelle Lake Dam, Letter from Kenneth G.

  • 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 FSME Procedure SA-900 to conduct its review.

  • It was agreed to recommend that Volumes 1 and 2 of the Accounting Manual - duly revised since their initial publication - be accepted.

  • NRC Review: The NRC reviewed FEPs: Disruptive Events (ANL-WIS-MD-000005, Rev 00, ICN 01) as it pertains to this agreement.


More Definitions of NRC Review

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
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
NRC Review. The NRC staff has reviewed the letter report entitled “Climate Change Effects on Disruptive Event Biosphere Dose Conversion Factors,” dated July 1, 2002, and considers that the information contained in the letter report satisfies the intent of IA Agreement 2.
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.
Sample 1
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

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.

  • 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 scientific study published only after having been critically

  • Review means a financial or operational audit, investigation, inspection or other form of review requested or required by the Funder under the terms of the Enabling Legislation 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;

  • Study means the investigation to be conducted in accordance with the Protocol.

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

  • Training Plan means the plan that outlines what training and assessment will be conducted off-the-job and what will be conducted on-the-job and how the Registered Training Organisation will assist in ensuring the integrity of both aspects of the training and assessment process.