United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment

Advanced Reactors Sub-Arena

Advanced reactors comprise one of four sub-arenas that the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified in considering which areas of the reactor safety arena to target for greater use of risk information. This page summarizes the following aspects of this sub-arena:

Objective

Develop a coherent risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure for design certification, licensing, and oversight of advanced reactors.

A coherent risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure would offer significant improvements in effectiveness and efficiency (compared to the structure that has evolved for current-generation LWRs). For example, such coherence would ensure that the safety reviews conducted by the NRC consider design and operational aspects in an integrated manner. The bases for developing such a regulatory structure for licensing and oversight of advanced reactors are articulated in numerous Commission documents and policy statements. However, this guidance occurs largely in the context of existing and new LWRs and, consequently, needs to be adapted for advanced reactors.

To top of page

Basis

The bases for a coherent risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure arise from the potential to realize benefits that are captured in the screening criteria that the NRC staff considers in undertaking regulatory improvement initiatives:

  • Effectiveness: One hallmark of effectiveness is the ability to model the tradeoffs that are involved in a complex safety review. Sometimes, such tradeoffs are represented as the ability to achieve desired outcomes in the licensing process. A risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure is inherently better able to do this, especially if it is applied in the early phases of developing a new regulatory structure for advanced reactors.
  • Effective Communication: The explicit modeling of decision-making promotes transparency. Sometimes, the traditional prescriptive regulatory structure lacks transparency because it tends to emphasize compliance with a prescribed quantity, rather than focusing on the safety function.
  • Research: The NRC staff has conducted significant research into the models and methodologies for the risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure and the products and expertise from this work are available for implementation. Particularly notable examples include NUREG-1860, NUREG/BR-0303, and SECY-05-0138. Specific details will need to be determined and guidance developed based on the particular technology and design aspects of the application.
  • Costs: The implementation of a coherent risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure for advanced reactors will entail a combination of short- and long-term costs. The new regulatory approaches are likely to result in short-term costs. However, when considered in the context of implementing the Commission's strategic objectives, there are sound reasons to expect a significant reduction in the total cost to society.
  • Obstacles: There are no apparent factors (e.g., state-of-the-art, adverse stakeholder perception) that would preclude implementing a risk-informed and performance-based approach to the design certification, licensing, and oversight of advanced reactors once sufficient operating experience is available to provide input to the activities.

The NRC developed its strategic planning process as a result of considerable effort (beginning in the late-1990s) to improve the agency's regulatory structure in a forward-looking way, while preserving the gains that the agency had achieved in operating reactor safety. Using the most recent version of the Strategic Plan, development of a coherent risk-informed and performance-based regulatory structure for advanced reactors will involve implementing the strategies that the Commission articulated in the goal of "Safety". Under "Safety" strategies, the Commission directed the staff to "Use sound science and state-of-the-art methods to establish, where appropriate, risk-informed and performance-based regulations." This element continues to be part of the Strategic Plan for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008–2013.

The basic infrastructure for the implementation of a risk-informed and performance-based approach exists at a high-level in Commission documents, such as the "White Paper on Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Regulation." The staff has also developed some specific guidance, including the risk-informed process for implementing the single-failure criterion (SECY-05-0138), but more may need to be developed. In many instances, the high-level documents superficially apply only to existing LWRs; however, more thorough study reveals considerable applicability to all reactor technologies. For example, the Reactor Oversight Process (SECY-99-007 and SECY-99-007A, as well as related staff requirements memorandum) provides a risk-informed and performance-based structure, although it is overlaid on top of existing LWR requirements.

To top of page

Goals

The staff's risk-informed and performance-based goals for advanced reactors relate to the following activities:

  • Ensure advanced reactor applicants use risk-informed safety insights to select among alternative features, operational strategies, and design options to reduce or eliminate the significant risk contributors of existing operating plants.
  • Ensure that the risk associated with advanced reactor designs compare favorably with the Commission's goals of less than 1E-04/year for core damage frequency and less than 1E-06/year for large release frequency

To top of page

List of Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Activities

This list shows the ongoing licensing initiatives, projects, and activities that the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has targeted for greater use of risk information in the Advanced Reactors Sub-Arena within the Reactor Safety Arena:

This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.

Use of Risk Insights to Enhance Technical Reviews of Design Certification (DC) Applications

Summary Description

In support of enhancing the reviews of design certification (DC) applications, the staff develops high-level risk insights based on the DC application information and shares that information with the technical review branches to help risk-inform their decision-making for each application. These risk insights are intended to help focus staff attention on those design features and assumptions that may significantly affect plant risk, and to allow for use of alternative review approaches on less risk-significant design aspects.

FY 2015 Status

In 2015, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company (KHNP) submitted its application for the Advanced Power Reactor (APR) 1400 new reactor design. The staff developed a risk insights document to support the staff's risk-informed review of the APR 1400 DC application. In addition, the staff developed a presentation package and conducted a series of briefings with all the technical branches involved with the APR 1400 DC review to communicate its risk insights.

Risk Category

Rulemaking Applications Using Risk Insights and Risk-informed licensing reviews. The purpose of this activity is to integrate risk insights more fully into DC reviews and the formal certification decision-making process. This will help prioritize staff review efforts on the more risk significant aspects of the design and support final certification of the design and a new appendix to the 10 CFR Part 52 regulations.

To top of pageReturn to list

Interim Staff Guidance on PRA Technical Adequacy for Advanced Light-Water Reactors

Summary Description

The staff is developing Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) DC/COL-ISG-028, "Assessing the Technical adequacy of the Advanced Light-Water Reactor (ALWR) Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Design Certification Application and Combined License Application," to provide guidance to the pre-operational phase applicants and the NRC on how the NRC endorsed ASME/ANS PRA Standard (RA-Sa-2009) can be used for assessing the technical adequacy of the PRA for these pre-operational phase applications. The ISG is needed because the existing PRA Standard was developed based on current operating reactors and did not consider the status of information and experience that will not exist for ALWRs at these preoperational phases.

This ISG supplements Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.200, "An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities," and SRP 19.0 to address the pre-operational phases (e.g., 10 CFR Part 52 certification and licensing) for ALWRs. It is expected to be incorporated into RG 1.200, RG 1.206, and SRP 19.0, following the issuance of the next edition of the ASME/ANS PRA Standard. The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and PRA was briefed on this ISG in 2014 prior to the issuance of the draft ISG for public comment.

FY 2015 Status

The NRC received public comments on the draft interim staff guidance (DC/COL-ISG-028) from only one entity, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The NEI comments and ACRS discussions in 2014 were evaluated and the ISG was revised accordingly.

During the August 2015 ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and PRA, various ACRS members identified issues with specific staff positions and approaches. These issues involve:

  1. Allowing a PRA-based seismic margin analysis approach at the COL stage, for which ACRS members stated that a seismic PRA should be required instead.
  2. Allowing applicants to only address Capability Category I (the lowest capability level in the ASME/ANS PRA Standard), for which ACRS members stated that Capability Category II should be required to be addressed.
  3. Designating some supporting requirements as "cannot meet" or "not applicable" (e.g., a supporting requirement that involves a walk down) while also including a clarification to perform some action, for which some ACRS members found the designations and clarifications confusing and so they suggested changing the supporting requirement designations.

The staff and senior management are currently considering the issues raised at the August 2015 ACRS Subcommittee and will determine the appropriate actions to take (e.g., revise ISG, develop SECY paper related to change in staff position, etc.) to address these issues prior to publishing the final ISG. The staff expects to publish the final ISG for use early in 2016.

Risk Category

Infrastructure Development in Support of Risk-Informed Regulations and Risk-Informed Licensing Reviews. The purpose of this activity is to provide interim staff guidance to support the consistent consideration of the existing ASME/ANS PRA Standard for designs in the preoperational phase. Specifically, the ISG supports use by the 10 CFR Part 52 design certification and combined license applicants and the NRC review of those applications.

To top of pageReturn to list

Pre-Application Review for Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Designs

Summary Description

In the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) COMGBJ-10-0004/COMGEA-10-0001, "Use of Risk Insights to Enhance the Safety Focus of Small Modular Reactor Reviews," dated August 31, 2010, the Commission provided direction to the NRC staff on the preparation for, and review of, small modular reactor (SMR) applications, with a near-term focus on integral pressurized-water reactor designs. The Commission directed the NRC staff to more fully integrate the use of risk insights into pre-application activities and the review of applications and, consistent with regulatory requirements and Commission policy statements, to align the review focus and resources to risk-significant structures, systems, and components and other aspects of the design that contribute most to safety in order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the review process. The Commission directed the NRC staff to develop a design-specific, risk-informed review plan for each SMR design to address pre-application and application review activities. An important part of this review plan is the Design Specific Review Standards (DSRSs). The staff has developed a DSRS for the mPower™ design and prepared another DSRS for the NuScale design.

FY 2015 Status

Pre-application reviews are currently in progress for the NuScale design. The DSRS for the NuScale design has been drafted to provide guidance to the NRC technical staff for review of the NuScale Design Certification Application (DCA). In the Federal Register Notice of June 30, 2015, the NRC solicited public comment on the DSRS and Safety Review Matrix for the NuScale design. The comment period ended on August 31, 2015 and the staff is currently evaluating the comments received.

Risk Category

Infrastructure development in support of risk-informed regulations and Risk-Informed licensing reviews. The purpose of this activity is to integrate risk insights more fully into design certification reviews and the formal licensing decision-making process. Specifically, the activity involves developing review guidance for specific new reactor design certification applications. This helps prioritize and focus staff review efforts towards the more risk significant aspects of the design.

To top of pageReturn to list

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, July 06, 2016