ML21271A231
| ML21271A231 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/28/2021 |
| From: | Daniel Merzke NRC/NRR/DRO/IRAB |
| To: | |
| Daniel Merzke NRR/DRO/IRAB, 4251457 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML21271A201 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML21271A231 (11) | |
Text
Graded Approach in Review and Assessment Dan Merzke U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Review and Assessment
- Step 1- Determine the scope and depth of the review based on applicable requirements; resources to conduct the review and assessment
- Standard Review Plans - communicate applicable requirements to be addressed in nuclear facility construction and operating license applications.
2
Review and Assessment
- Standard Review Plans
- NUREG-0800 - review of the safety analysis report (SAR) for nuclear power plants.
- NUREG-1520 - fuel cycle facilities
- NUREG-1537 - non-power reactors (research reactors)
- NUREG-1567 - Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities 3
Review and Assessment
- Step 2 - Determine which factors are applicable to the decision
- type of facility
- experience and knowledge
- alternative approaches, and novel design features
- urgency for need of licensing action 4
Review and Assessment
- Step 2 - Ranking factors
- Type of regulated facility (design complexity and relative risk)
- Experience and knowledge - reviewer experience with similar technologies results in more efficient and timely reviews
- Alternative approaches and novel designs - require additional resource effort to review due to lack of experience
- Urgency - generally involve licensees who require an immediate change to their technical specifications to avoid unnecessarily shutting down the plant 5
Review and Assessment
- Step 3 - Integrate the applicable factors into determining the optimal resource effort required commensurate with the scope and depth necessary for the review and assessment.
- Review and assessment of NPPs requires the greatest resource effort due to the regulatory requirements, the complexity of design, and the relative risk to the public.
6
Review and Assessment
- Small Modular Reactors Example
- NUREG-0800 revised to account for differences in new reactor designs, such as small modular reactors, specifically NuScale.
- Risk-informed and integrated review framework utilizing a graded approach for R&A. Four review levels (labeled as A1 (safety-related, risk-significant), A2 (safety-related, non-risk-significant), B1 (non-safety-related, risk-significant), and B2 (non-safety-related, non-risk-significant) correlate to the safety classification and risk significance of the SSC under review.
7
Review and Assessment 8
Review and Assessment
- Timeliness goals - goals for completion times for different types of license applications
- Design certification safety reviews for large light-water reactors - 42 months
- SMRs - 39 months
- License extension - 22 months (w/o hearing); 30 months (w/hearing)
- License amendments - 12 months 9
Review and Assessment
- Factors affecting efficiency of reviews:
- staff resource management
- work prioritization
- support for hearings
- review phase discipline
- critical skills availability
- budgetary limitations
- computational tool availability for unique reactor designs
- overall staff workload and capacity, and
- resolution of policy issues that may require rulemaking.
10
References
- NUREG-0800, SRP for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition
- https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/
- NUREG-1520, Standard Review Plan for Fuel Cycle Facilities License Applications
- https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1520/
- NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors
- https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1537/
11