Standard Review Plans and Associated Review Standards

[Astronuc]

If one is contemplating a nuclear plant or production facility, these are just of the Review Plans and Standards one is required to meet. There is also 10 CFR 50 and the numerous Regulatory Guidelines (Reg Guides).

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/srp-review-standards.html

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has a number of standard review plans (SRPs) for staff use in reviewing proposed licensing actions. These actions may relate to constructing, operating, or decommissioning a nuclear facility or possessing, using, storing, or transporting nuclear materials or waste.

For nuclear power plants, the NRC has a comprehensive standard review plan (NUREG-0800). For other types of licensing actions, the NRC has developed review standards as adjuncts to NUREG-0800 for staff use in reviewing licensing applications for early site permits and power uprates. These review standards reference sections of either NUREG-0800 or the "Standard Review Plan for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG-1555). If either of those publications lacks information on a new topic to be reviewed, the staff adds a new section for the topic.

Digging further, one has to find relevant SECY documents.

 

[Astronuc]

A great approach to nuclear power, and any critical technology for that matter.

NASA/Navy Benchmarking Exchange (NNBE)
Volume II

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/45608main_NNBE_Progress_Report2_7-15-03.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

This could be entitled - So you want to build a reactor, or nuclear power plant.

Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition (NUREG-0800, Formerly issued as NUREG-75/087)

• Cover, Table of Contents, and Introduction
• Chapter 1, Introduction and Interfaces
• Chapter 2, Sites Characteristics and Site Parameters
• Chapter 3, Design of Structures, Components, Equipment, and Systems
• Chapter 4, Reactor
• Chapter 5, Reactor Coolant System and Connected Systems
• Chapter 6, Engineered Safety Features
• Chapter 7, Instrumentation and Controls
• Chapter 8, Electric Power
• Chapter 9, Auxiliary Systems
• Chapter 10, Steam and Power Conversion System
• Chapter 11, Radioactive Waste Management
• Chapter 12, Radiation Protection
• Chapter 13, Conduct of Operations
• Chapter 14, Initial Test Program and ITAAC-Design Certification
• Chapter 15, Transient and Accident Analysis
• Chapter 16, Technical Specifications
• Chapter 17, Quality Assurance
• Chapter 18, Human Factors Engineering
• Chapter 19, Severe Accidents
• Appendices

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/

Each type of reactor system would require an equivalent documentation detailing the design, its operational principles, and sufficient detail to demonstrate that it can function safely.

One must also comply with the Regulatory Guides -
NRC Regulatory Guides - Power Reactors (Division 1)

New builds of Gen-III+ must comply with 10 CFR 52 - PART 52—LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND APPROVALS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part052/

as well as 10 CFR 50 - PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/

 

[Hiddencamper]

AND all of these documents need to be updated and kept current for the life of the plant, which is part of why nuclear plant design changes take so long to do. About 70% of the actual design work I do at my plant is complying with reg guides, performing regulatory screenings, and updating regulatory documents.

 

[mesa]

This could be entitled - So you want to build a reactor.

Hah ha, well your a moderator, maybe you should change it :)
There is a substantial amount of information in these documents. It seems as much time would be needed on regulatory issues as initial design.

 

[Astronuc]

AND all of these documents need to be updated and kept current for the life of the plant, which is part of why nuclear plant design changes take so long to do. About 70% of the actual design work I do at my plant is complying with reg guides, performing regulatory screenings, and updating regulatory documents.

There is certainly room for improvement, but such regulation is necessary IMO.

Hah ha, well your a moderator, maybe you should change it :)
There is a substantial amount of information in these documents. It seems as much time would be needed on regulatory issues as initial design.

The process is thorough. It relies on good engineering practice.

Much of the nuclear regulation is comparable to aerospace regulations, and in fact, both nuclear and aerospace regulatory practice evolved from the military quality systems and standards (MIL-STD and MIL-specs).

The 10 CFR 52, App. B QA system came from the MIL-STDs.

By their nature, nuclear systems can be very unforgiving if under-estimated. Those involved in the design, construction and operation of nuclear plants must respect the technology with which they are entrusted. Same goes for aerospace and aeronautic, and marine systems. There is some inherent tolerance to anomalies and errors, but there is only so much. Anyone involved must do their best to ensure the integrity of the design, its construction and its operation. There is no room for sloppiness, nor even complacency.

 

[mesa]

such regulation is necessary IMO. The process is thorough. It relies on good engineering practice...
...Anyone involved must do their best to ensure the integrity of the design, its construction and its operation. There is no room for sloppiness, nor even complacency.

If only this would translate into greater public confidence, it's unfortunate the current stigma involving nuclear power.

 

[Hiddencamper]

If only this would translate into greater public confidence, it's unfortunate the current stigma involving nuclear power.

I've been trying to say this for years. Unfortunately, if you tell the public, they complain you are using too much technical jargon, and if you don't tell them, then you are hiding something.

 

[Astronuc]

If only this would translate into greater public confidence, it's unfortunate the current stigma involving nuclear power.

Well, we can look at Fukushima, where certain vulnerabilities were overlooked or deliberately ignored or dismissed, or in aerospace, at the Challenger and Columbia disasters. In these cases, management over-ruled the technical judgement of engineers. We cannot allow that to happen again.

Had the Fukushima units survived intact, without loss of control, the story would be very different.

Hence, it is critical and necessary to understand and respect the physics of any nuclear energy system. Those who are not willing to accept that responsibility should stay out of nuclear energy. Same goes for aerospace and marine systems.

 

[mesa]

Well, we can look at Fukushima, where certain vulnerabilities were overlooked or deliberately ignored or dismissed, or in aerospace, at the Challenger and Columbia disasters. In these cases, management over-ruled the technical judgement of engineers. We cannot allow that to happen again.

Had the Fukushima units survived intact, without loss of control, the story would be very different.

Hence, it is critical and necessary to understand and respect the physics of any nuclear energy system. Those who are not willing to accept that responsibility should stay out of nuclear energy. Same goes for aerospace and marine systems.

Maybe the public needs to here more nuclear engineers talking about Fukishima in this regard. The industry has a long hard road ahead to re-gain public trust, an open and honest dialog like this may be a good place to start.