ML20248H556

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Risk Tool (NRC Discussion Material for 9-9-2020 Tabletop Meeting with NEI)
ML20248H556
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/09/2020
From:
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
TLiu NMSS/DFM/MCAB 404.997.4730
References
Download: ML20248H556 (3)


Text

Draft Internal Procedure for Applying Risk Tool in License Application Request (LAR)

  • The level of effort in review of LAR depends on many factors:
  • decrease/increase to risk,
  • complexity/uniqueness of the evaluation,
  • quality of the documents, and
  • the process followed to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements.
  • Use of Risk Insight: The tool supports preliminary determination of the risk significance rating for each requested change.
  • risk significance together with complexity of the change is used to assist the determination of the depth of the review (e.g. extent of confirmatory calculations).
  • In all cases, the reviewer still needs to exercise professional judgement in deciding the necessary thoroughness.

Walkthrough Procedures in November

  • In an upcoming meeting, NRC staff will explain the application of the draft Risk Tool procedures in LAR review.
  • NRC staff will develop an example of a LAR with component changes that include high and low risk items (hypothetical).

2

Evaluation Steps For Applying the Risk Tool DRAFT Evaluation Steps Reviewer Response 1.What is the change? Write a summary of the change.

2. Does the Risk Tool flow chart include a gate for If Yes, proceed to #3.

this change, and include an accurate description in the Dry Cask Risk Tool Report? (Yes or No) If No, proceed to #4.

3. Is reviewer aware of additional information that If Yes, follow-up review with other should be considered? reviewers and BC, then, proceed to #4.

If No, go to #5.

4. Should the Risk Tool be modified? If Yes, document/update the information in the Risk Tool. Go to #5.

If No, go to #5.

5. Proceed to develop estimate of component risk of LAR change (e.g., low, medium, high),

and followup with other reviewers and BCs as appropriate.

3