U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of New Reactors

Office Instruction 

Office Instruction: NRO-REG-100

Office Instruction Title: Acceptance Review Process for Early Site Permit, 

Design Certification, and Combined License 

Applications 

Revision Number: 02

Effective Date: 12/18/14 

Primary Contact: Yanely Malave, NRO/DARR 

Responsible Organization: NRO/DARR

Summary of Changes: This revision includes the following changes: 1) changed the 

standard for accepting an application from enough information to “begin” the review to 

enough information to “conduct” the review; 2) added criteria to support the new standard for 

acceptance; 3) added a flow chart and supporting discussion to clarify the acceptance review 

process; 4) expanded the applicability of this office instruction to Early Site Permit 

applications; 5) clarified text to indicate that acceptance reviews will be performed in 60 days; 

6) added text to describe pre-application interactions; and 7) incorporated lessons learned 

from the APR1400 Design Certification application acceptance review. 

Training: Email; division and branch presentations as requested. 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML14078A152 

Concurrences 

Primary Office Owner Office of New Reactors 

Responsible Manager Joseph Colaccino 03/27/2014 

Division Directors DARR Michael Mayfield 06/27/2014 

DNRL Frank Akstulewicz 10/27/2014

DSEA Scott Flanders 10/08/2014

DCIP Michael Cheok 10/17/2014

DSRA John Monninger 10/17/2014

DE John Tappert 10/03/2014

NSIR/DPR Robert Lewis 10/15/2014

NSIR/DSP Christiana Lui 10/15/2014

NRR/DE Patrick Hiland 10/07/2014

NRR/DIRS Scott Morris 10/17/2014 

Assistant General Counsel OGC Patrick Moulding 12/03/2014

Division Director PMDA Constance Schum 12/22/2014

Office Deputy Director NRO Gary Holahan 12/18/2014

 OFFICIAL RECORD
Page Left Intentionally Blank 
NRO Office Instruction 

NRO-REG-100

Acceptance Review Process for Early Site Permit, Design Certification and 

Combined License Applications 

1. PURPOSE 

The purpose of NRO-REG-100, “Acceptance Review Process for Early Site Permit, Design 

Certification and Combined License Applications,” is to provide guidance to the staff who 

conduct acceptance reviews for early site permit (ESP), design certification (DC) and combined 

license (COL) applications submitted under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

2. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

The regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 prescribe the requirements for determining the acceptability of 

an application. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.101, “Filing of Application,” paragraph (a) or 

Section 2.815, “Docketing and Acceptance Review,” an ESP, COL or a DC application will be 

assigned a docket number if the tendered application has been found to be complete and 

acceptable for docketing. Only then will the technical review be initiated by the staff. 

The staff conducts a completeness review to ensure that the applicant has submitted the 

information required by the applicable regulations in Part 52,1

 such that the staff can conduct its 

detailed technical review. While conformance with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) guidance is not required, it facilitates both the preparation of an application by the 

applicant and the timely review of the application by the NRC staff. While checklists and other 

guidance are intended to cover all current regulations pertaining to an application, the 

application may need to address any omissions or new regulations in effect after the NRC 

guidance was issued. 

In Staff Requirements Memorandum for COMDEK-07-0001/COMJSM-07-0001, “Report of the 

Combined License Review Task Force,” dated June 22, 2007 (Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System [ADAMS] Accession No. ML071090128), the Commission directed 

the staff to determine acceptability of COL applications on the basis of the technical sufficiency 

as well as its completeness within a period of 60 days. The technical sufficiency review is 

conducted to ensure that the application contains sufficient information in scope and depth for 

the staff to conduct its detailed technical review within a predictable timeframe.2

 This office 

instruction provides the guidance and criteria to be used in this expanded acceptance review for 

COLs. The staff also applies this approach for the acceptance review of ESP and DC 

applications. This expanded acceptance review commences when the application is 

 

1

 The required information varies by type of licensing process: Subpart A, “Early Site Permits,” Subpart B, 

“Standard Design Certifications,” and Subpart C, “Combined Licenses.” 

2

 The term predictable timeframe refers to the baseline review schedule of a complete application. The 

baseline review schedule for a DC application is 42 months and for a COL application is 30 months.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 2

successfully processed into ADAMS and will also be used to confirm planning assumptions (i.e., 

resources and schedule associated with the application review). 

Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.206, “Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants-LWR 

Edition3 provides guidance to the applicant regarding the expected contents of the application. 

NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plants,” (SRP), design specific review standards (DSRS), and NUREG-1555, “Standard 

Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants,” (ESRP), provide guidance 

to the technical staff on performing their safety and environmental reviews of applications to 

construct and operate nuclear power plants and applications to approve standard designs and 

sites for nuclear power plants. These guidance documents should be used in part to evaluate 

and determine technical sufficiency. 

For a COL application, 10 CFR 2.101(a)(5) allows the application to be submitted in two parts. 

One part shall be accompanied by the information required by 52.80, “Contents of applications; 

additional technical information,” paragraph (b). The other part shall include the information 

required by 52.79, “Contents of applications; technical information in final safety analysis 

report,” and 52.80(a). Whichever part is filed first shall also include the information required by 

10 CFR 52.79(a)(1), 50.33, “Contents of applications; general information, and 50.37, 

“Agreement limiting access to Classified Information.” One part may precede or follow other 

parts by no longer than 6 months. Each part of the tendered application will receive an 

acceptance review and can be docketed. 

For COL applications referencing a design that is either already certified or being reviewed for 

certification, the staff developed a design-centered-review approach (DCRA).4

 With the DCRA, 

staff decisions made on the “reference COL (RCOL)” would apply to all “subsequent COLs 

(SCOL)." Therefore, during performance of an acceptance review of an SCOL application, the 

staff is expected to verify the degree of standardization to the RCOL but focus its review on 

site-specific and application-specific issues. 

3. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Responsibilities

3.1.1 Project Management

Project Manager 

The Lead Project Manager (PM) within the Office of New Reactors (NRO), as supported by 

other PMs

 

3

 RG 1.206 provides the scope of information for a COL application, including where a DC application is 

expected to complete information related to the design; therefore, the design-related sections of RG 

1.206 are relevant for a DC application. 

4

 Additional information on DCRA is provided in SECY-06-0019, dated January 31, 2006.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 3

• Coordinates activities associated with the acceptance review (see Enclosure 1 for a flow 

chart of the acceptance review process). 

• Performs administrative activities (see Section 3.3.1) associated with the acceptance 

review, including confirming that the application has been processed into ADAMS, and 

coordinating the Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) review and 

public release. For applications that are docketed, coordinates with Web services to 

create a project Web page on the NRC public Website and update as appropriate. 

• Reviews assigned sections to evaluate the completeness of the application. 

• Performs and documents interactions with stakeholders in accordance with the 

applicable Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office Instruction COM-202, “Meetings 

With Applicants, Licensees, Vendors or Other Members of the Public” and/or COM-203, 

“Informal Interfacing and Exchange of Information with Licensees and Applicants.” 

• Plans, manages, and schedules acceptance review activities via Enterprise Project 

Management (EPM) system and interfaces with the scheduling portfolio manager and 

scheduler. 

• Compiles inputs from all technical branches and contractors, if applicable, and as 

necessary, conducts teleconferences/meetings with applicant to discuss technical 

deficiencies identified by the staff. 

• Refers technical staff to the pre-application readiness assessment report, if available. 

• Refers technical staff to risk-insights, if available. 

• Briefs management on branch-level results of acceptance review and makes a docketing 

recommendation to Division management (NRO, NRR, and Nuclear Security and 

Incident Response [NSIR]). 

• Prepares letter to the applicant (Enclosure 2) describing the results of the NRC staff 

review and the docketing decision. For applications that are docketed, this includes an 

application-specific technical review schedule. 

• Issues in the Federal Register the Notice of Receipt and a Notice of Acceptance, if the 

application is docketed. 

Projects Branch Chief

• Evaluates the overall application acceptability based upon the results of the PM’s and 

technical staff’s review for completeness and technical sufficiency. 

• Briefs senior management on the status and findings of the acceptance review. 

• Issues results of review, Federal Register Notices (FRNs), and letters to applicant. For 

docketed applications, this includes an application-specific technical review schedule. 

Environmental Project Manager 

Environmental PM in the Environmental Projects Branch within NRO

• Coordinates activities associated with the environmental acceptance review for an ESP, 

DC5

 or COL application. 

• Supports the Lead PM in performing administrative activities associated with the 

acceptance review. 

 

5

 The scope of the environmental review for a DC application is limited to the analysis of severe accident 

mitigation design alternatives.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 4

• Leads the completeness and technical sufficiency review of the Environmental Report 

(ER). 

• Compiles environmental inputs from assigned technical branches and contractors, if 

applicable. 

• Provides results of environmental report acceptance review to Lead PM. 

• Supports management briefings of acceptance review results. 

Environmental Projects Branch Chief

• Evaluates the environmental report acceptability based upon the results of the PM’s and 

technical staff’s review for completeness and technical sufficiency. 

• Supports management briefings of acceptance review results. 

Portfolio Manager 

• Prior to receipt of application, works with the Lead PM to develop and load EPM with 

pre-baseline review schedule. 

• Analyzes the suggested schedule changes recommended by the technical branches to 

the pre-baseline review schedule, in consultation with the projects branch, to determine 

the effect of suggested changes on the baseline review schedule. 

• Captures dependencies among concurrent review activities (e.g., review of a DC 

application in parallel with the review of a COL application) within the baseline review 

schedules. 

Scheduler 

• Inputs changes into the EPM pre-baseline review schedule, if application is docketed. 

• Finalizes the baseline review schedule following management review and approval. 

• Maintains schedule in EPM based on Lead PM change requests as well as project team 

status updates. 

3.1.2 Technical Branch

Technical Staff - NRO and other offices as assigned 

[Technical assistance from appropriate contractors may be used to perform portions of the 

acceptance review as long as the prescribed acceptance review schedule can be maintained.] 

• Before beginning the acceptance review, becomes familiar with the anticipated scope of 

review (e.g., applicable sections of RG 1.206, RG 4.2, the SRP, the ESRP, and 

applicable DSRS) and the EPM pre-baseline review schedule and estimated staff-hours. 

• Reviews assigned sections to evaluate the completeness and technical sufficiency of the 

application. 

• Reviews other sections of the application and other inputs (e.g., Chapter 1 and risk 

insights) to assist in specific technical reviews. 

• As necessary, participates in meetings/teleconferences with applicant to better 

characterize nature of deficiencies. 

• Obtains, as necessary, input and support from outside entities (e.g., Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Corp of Engineers, 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 5

Environmental Protection Agency, United States Geological Survey, etc.) to support the 

completeness and technical sufficiency review of applicable sections and for the 

development of the baseline review schedule. 

• Identifies changes from the EPM pre-baseline review schedule and estimates hours to 

be factored into the baseline review schedule. 

• Identifies any known dependencies among concurrent review efforts (e.g., review of a 

DC application in parallel with the review of a COL application). 

• Communicates results of acceptance review and proposed changes to the pre-baseline 

review schedule and estimated staff-hours to PMs. 

• The Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) branch will review the application and identify 

the risk-significant structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and share this with the 

technical staff early during the acceptance review. 

Technical Branch Chief

• Reviews and evaluates the significance of technical issues and the results of the staff’s 

acceptance review and confirms that any identified technical deficiencies fall into the 

scope of the acceptance review (rather than in the scope of the detailed technical 

review). 

• Communicates potential issues to the projects and upper management, when identified, 

early in the acceptance review. 

• Communicates to the Lead PM proposed changes to the pre-baseline review schedule 

and estimated staff-hours on a timely basis. 

• Forwards acceptance review results via memorandum (Enclosure 2) to both projects and 

Planning Optimization Branch. 

• Supports management briefings of acceptance review results. 

3.1.3 NRO/NSIR/NRR Management

• Receives briefing(s) on results of the acceptance review. 

• Reviews results of acceptance review (identified deficiencies and resolution strategies) 

and reaches a decision about docketing the application. 

3.2 Pre-application Interactions 

Consistent with the Commission’s Final Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced 

Reactors (FR, Vol. 73, p. 60616, October 14, 2008), an applicant’s early interaction with the 

NRC is encouraged to provide for early identification of regulatory requirements and to provide 

all interested parties, including the public, with a timely, independent assessment of the safety 

and security characteristics of the design. Such licensing interaction and guidance early in the 

design process will contribute towards minimizing complexity and adding stability and 

predictability in the licensing and regulation of reactors. 

On a voluntary basis, a prospective applicant may engage the NRC in the following areas: 

administrative, planning, application submittal preparation, technical issues, and pre-application 

readiness assessment. The purpose of these interactions on technical issues is for the staff to 

become familiar with the design, particularly in areas where prospective applicants are 

proposing new concepts or methodologies, and identify policy or technical issues early in the 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 6

process to effectively and efficiently plan the NRC’s review work and address NRC 

infrastructure needs. 

Pre-application Readiness Assessment 

The pre-application readiness assessment (see Office instruction NRO-REG-104, 

“Pre-application Readiness Assessment” ADAMS Accession No. ML14079A197) will allow the 

NRC staff to: (1) identify information gaps between the draft application and the technical 

content expected to be included in the final application submitted to the NRC, (2) identify major 

technical and/or policy issues that may adversely impact the docketing or technical review of the 

application, and (3) become familiar with the application, particularly in areas where prospective 

applicants are proposing new concepts or novel design features. The results of the readiness 

assessment will inform prospective applicants in finalizing their application and assist the NRC 

staff in planning its resources for the review once the application is formally submitted. The staff 

plans to engage prospective applicants to schedule a pre-application readiness assessment at 

least 6 months prior to the expected date of submittal. The readiness assessment is not part of 

the NRCs official acceptance review process and does not predetermine whether the 

application will be docketed. 

3.3 Acceptance Review

The acceptance review includes five areas: (1) the administrative processing, (2) the technical 

staff portion of the acceptance review (completeness and technical sufficiency review, 

confirmation of planning assumptions, identification of dependencies among concurrent reviews, 

and documentation of technical staff results), (3) the compilation of acceptance review inputs 

from the technical branches, (4) the NRC’s decision to docket an application, and (5) the 

planning and scheduling information. Examples of acceptance review schedules are shown in 

Enclosure 3. 

Early and frequent communication is essential for meeting the Agency’s objective for openness 

with all stakeholders. Throughout the acceptance review, the Lead PM should maintain 

communications with the applicant regarding identified acceptance review issues and document 

these interactions in accordance with NRR-COM-202 and/or NRR-COM-203. 

3.3.1 Administrative Processing

Administrative processing includes receiving, staging, and noticing the application. 

Electronic Submission 

The Lead PM, supported by the Office of Information Services, ensures the application follows 

the guidelines provided in Section 8, New Reactor-Related Application Submittals of “Guidance 

for Electronic Submissions to the NRC,” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and 

coordinates with the Document Processing Center for processing the application into ADAMS. 

Additional guidance can be found in the Project Manager’s Handbook at the following Web site 

address, http://epm.nrc.gov/know/pm-handbook/Pages/Home.aspx. The application will initially 

be treated as tendered. 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 7

SUNSI Review 

The Lead PM as supported by the Environmental PM performs a SUNSI review in accordance 

with the guidance provided on the internal Web site at the following Web site address, 

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/ois/divisions/irsd/sunsi/index.html. Questions on SUNSI reviews are 

directed to NRO_Inforeview@nrc.gov. As applicable, the Lead PM reviews the applicant’s 

request to withhold proprietary information from public disclosure6 in accordance with NRR 

office instruction, LIC-204, “Handling Requests to Withhold Proprietary Information from Public 

Disclosure.” The tendered application should be made publicly available after the SUNSI review 

is completed. The proprietary review should be completed as soon as practicable; however, 

this review may be completed after the conclusion of the acceptance review. Administrative 

templates are located within ADAMS folder NRO/NRO-DNRL/Templates. 

Notifications and Publication 

The NRC recognizes the public's interest in the proper regulation of nuclear activities and 

provides opportunities for citizens to be heard. Therefore, once the SUNSI review is competed 

and the application is processed into ADAMS, the lead PM should publish the Notice of Receipt 

and Availability of the application. If the application is docketed, the PM should issue a Federal 

Register Notice and create a webpage on the NRC public Web site providing application and 

licensing information. 

3.3.2 The Technical Staff Portion of the Acceptance Review 

Once the application is available in ADAMS,7

 the completeness and technical sufficiency review 

will be initiated by the technical staff in parallel with the administrative processing steps. 

To perform the technical staff portion of the acceptance review, the assigned technical staff 

should use the attached application-type specific acceptance review guides (see Enclosures 4 

through 8). 

• Enclosure 4 is the safety analysis report (SAR) guide for a COL application acceptance 

review, including for a COL referencing a DC that has not been certified, a COL 

referencing an issued ESP and a DC that has not been certified, and SCOL referencing 

a DC that has not been certified; 

• Enclosure 5 is a review guide for an ER submitted as part of a COL application 

acceptance review; 

• Enclosure 6 is a SAR guide for a DC application acceptance review; 

• Enclosure 7 is a checklist for a DC application acceptance review; 

• Enclosure 8 is a review guide for an ER submitted as part of a DC acceptance review. 

 

6

 For a design certification rulemaking, unless information may be withheld under one or more exceptions 

(e.g., the document includes proprietary information, Safeguards Information, security-related SUNSI, 

etc.), the DCD and documents supporting the rulemaking must be publicly available. 

7

 The timeframe associated with availability in ADAMS is approximately 5 days, if there are no processing 

problems requiring an electronic re-submission. 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 8

Completeness and Technical Sufficiency Reviews 

During the completeness and technical sufficiency reviews, technical staff should discuss 

identified deficiencies with branch chiefs and notify the Lead PM of the significant deficiencies 

as soon as they are identified. Significant deficiencies will be discussed with the applicant in 

order to understand the nature of the deficiency and the timeframe for the applicant to address 

the deficiency. 

Completeness Review 

The completeness portion of the acceptance review verifies the application contains all of the 

information required by applicable regulations set forth in 10 CFR Part 52. For an ESP, DC or 

COL application, the completeness review is conducted by the PMs and technical staff by 

comparing the information in the application against applicable checklists and guidance 

documents available for the particular type of license application. 

For a COL application, the staff will utilize RG 1.206 in performing its completeness review. 

Specifically, the staff will utilize a COL application acceptance review checklist in determining 

the completeness of the application. The staff should note that matters resolved in a certified 

design that is referenced8

 in a COL application are not within the scope of a COL application 

acceptance review (or the technical review itself). However, if the acceptance review for a COL 

application takes place while a DC application is under formal review, the technical staff should 

be cognizant of unresolved issues on the DC review that could impact the COL review. For a 

DC application, the staff will use the checklists provided in Enclosures 7 and 8 to this office 

instruction. For light-water small modular reactor (SMR) applications, a DSRS may be available 

and should be used along with the appropriate checklist when conducting acceptance reviews. 

For an ESP application, the staff should use the applicable SRP sections and the environmental 

review acceptance checklist for ESPs. 

As part of the determination of completeness, the staff should review Chapter 1 of the final 

safety analysis report (FSAR) included in the COL application or a DC application. This chapter 

is expected to provide useful information addressing general regulatory considerations including 

conformance with the SRP, ESRP, and RGs, operating experience and identification of new 

safety features. In addition, for a COL application referencing a DC or a DC and an ESP, 

Chapter 1 of the FSAR should identify departures from the DC and treatment of COL 

information or action items. The staff should also review Chapter 2 of the FSAR which is 

expected to provide information on how site parameters fall within site characteristics. Specific 

technical section(s) of the DC or other portions of the COL application will support in more detail 

the information in Chapters 1 and 2. 

 

 

8

 As provided in 10 CFR 52.63, “Finality of standard design certifications,” unless certain requirements 

are met, matters within the scope of a standard design certification are considered resolved for a COL 

application referencing that design certification. 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 9

Technical Sufficiency Review 

For the technical sufficiency portion of the acceptance review, the staff evaluates the application 

in terms of expected technical content identified in RG 1.206 and guidance in the related 

SRP/DSRS sections or ESRP section, and identifies significant technical deficiencies. Thus, 

the staff verifies that the application contains sufficient technical information in scope and depth 

to conduct the detailed technical review within a predicable timeframe. 

The minimum criteria that the staff should consider when deciding whether or not an application 

contains enough information to conduct the review, complete it within a predictable timeframe, 

and docket the application are: 

• Is the level of detail sufficient for the staff to make a regulatory determination with 

reasonable rounds of requests for additional information9

 (RAI)? 

• Does the application introduce a new methodology or safety feature? 

- Does the regulatory framework adequately address the methodology or safety 

feature? 

- Does the new methodology or safety feature create a knowledge gap? 

• Are the applicable regulations and SRP acceptance criteria properly addressed? 

- Does the applicant provide justification(s) for exception(s) or difference with the 

current SRP or DSRS? 

- Does the justification seem adequate? 

• Has all needed testing been completed by the applicant? Are there significant analyses 

or evaluations missing? Are sufficient data available to support the staff’s independent 

modeling? 

A technical deficiency is defined as missing, improper, inadequate, or incorrect technical 

information needed by the NRC staff to conduct the assigned review. A minor technical 

deficiency can be addressed within a reasonable round of RAIs and without notably impacting 

the overall review schedule of the application. A significant technical deficiency is missing 

information that results in the staff being unable to conduct its review of the application against 

the acceptance criteria in the SRP/DSRS or conduct its review within a predictable timeframe. 

The technical staff, in coordination with the PM, should discuss significant deficiencies with the 

applicant to ensure a common understanding of the issue. If supplemental information is 

necessary, the timeframe and schedule for submitting the information should be established 

prior to acceptance of the application. 

In addition to the Enclosures, the following are several tools available to assist the staff in 

performing its technical sufficiency review. 

 

9

 The term “reasonable rounds of RAIs” could be interpreted as two to four rounds of RAIs while 

precluding any adverse impact on the review schedule. As stated in the Lessons Learned Report, for 

complex issues that can exceed the 30-day response time of RAIs, the staff should ensure a common 

understanding of the technical issue early in the process to obtain a timely resolution.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 10

• Consistent with the Commission’s Final Policy Statement on the Use of PRA Methods in 

Nuclear Regulatory Activities (FR, Vol. 60, p. 42622, August 16, 1995), risk insights10

should be used during the acceptance review to help determine the scope of the 

technical sufficiency review. Staff should focus its technical sufficiency review on 

systems, structures, and components (SSCs) that have been identified as 

risk-significant. In addition, technical staff should consult with the PRA branch to 

determine whether identified technical deficiencies are risk significant (i.e., whether the 

technical deficiency is related to a risk-significant SSC). 

• A list of review areas contained within the SRP that may potentially involve more 

detailed technical review (e.g., involve computer code evaluation, detailed data analysis, 

new safety feature, or emerging operating experience) has been developed11 and is 

available in ADAMS (ADAMS Accession No. ML072430683). The time it will take to 

review these areas should be factored into the technical sufficiency review and 

confirmation of planning assumptions, development of the baseline schedule, and 

adjusted staff-hours. 

• An environmental acceptance review checklist for ESP and COL applications has been 

developed and is also available in ADAMS (ADAMS Accession No. ML072250354). 

This list should be used to help determine technical sufficiency for the environmental 

review areas and is a comprehensive set of review issues based on RG 4.2 and 

NUREG-1555 applicable to ESP and COL applications. 

Confirmation of Planning Assumptions

Prior to the submission of an application, the Planning Optimization Branch in NRO prepares a 

pre-baseline review schedule for each application as captured within EPM. This pre-baseline 

schedule contains estimated staff-hours to conduct the review based on the anticipated scope 

of review (e.g., for a COL application referencing a DC, the review hours are reduced to a 

minimal review effort for areas incorporated by reference (IBR) to the DC, where as an SCOL 

application is expected to need fewer staff-hours than the RCOL). This schedule is utilized for 

all planning assumptions. The acceptance review provides the opportunity to identify potential 

changes to the schedule and review staff-hours. At the completion of the acceptance review, a 

baseline review schedule with adjusted staff-hours will be developed for the technical review of 

the application. 

During the 60-day acceptance review, technical staff should compare the results of the 

acceptance review against the EPM pre-baseline review schedule and estimated staff-hours for 

each assigned task. 

 

10 Risk-insights from an ongoing or completed DC application review should be available for a design 

center. For the acceptance review of a DC application or a COL application submitted concurrently 

referencing the DC application, the PRA branch will review the applicant’s summary of its PRA and its 

results for identification of risk significant SSCs as part of the acceptance review or under 

pre-application readiness assessment. The timeframe in which the risk insights are reviewed and 

distributed among the staff will determine the extent to which risk-insights can inform the scope of the 

acceptance review. 

11 Not all of the SRP sections are represented in the list. 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 11

The pre-baseline review schedule may not account for the review of: 

• Alternatives to SRP acceptance criteria and RGs, 

• New safety features, 

• Departures or exemptions from the DC, for a COL application referencing a DC, 

• Variances from the ESP, for a COL application referencing an ESP, or 

• Application-specific information in a standardized section, for an SCOL application as 

compared to the RCOL application. 

The technical staff should discuss with their supervisor any resource implications associated 

with a change from the EPM pre-baseline review schedule. If changes to the pre-baseline 

review schedule are needed, the technical branch chief should provide the estimate in terms of 

total staff resource hours needed for the assigned task(s) to the Lead PM. Schedule 

implications (e.g., whether the pre-baseline schedule will have to be adjusted) will be assessed 

by the Lead PM and the Portfolio Manager for the overall application once the technical 

branches have completed their acceptance reviews. 

Identification of Dependencies among Concurrent Reviews

The technical staff should identify any known dependencies among concurrent reviews. An 

example of a dependency is as follows. If the staff has identified an issue with a DC review 

area, the resolution of that issue could affect the review of the COL application. For the 

environmental review, these dependencies may include regional or generic implications, or 

other environmental assessments at the same site. These dependencies should be identified 

by the technical staff to assist the integrated management of the concurrent reviews, such that a 

slippage in the DC application review schedule will be evaluated for possible impacts to the 

COL application review schedule. These dependencies could potentially result in changes to 

planning assumptions for other COL or DC applications. 

Documenting Technical Staff Results 

Once the technical staff completes the acceptance review, each Technical Branch Chief 

documents the acceptance review findings by memorandum to the appropriate Projects Branch 

Chief. Enclosure 2, contains a template memorandum that should be used by the Technical 

Branch Chiefs to transmit their acceptance review results. 

3.3.3 Compiling the Results of Completeness and Technical Sufficiency Reviews 

The Lead PM will compile the results of the acceptance reviews, which are documented in the 

technical branch memoranda, and clearly identify the significant deficiencies that management 

needs to consider for the decision to docket the application. In addition, the Lead PM, in 

consultation with the portfolio manager will revise the pre-baseline review schedule using 

conclusions from the technical branch’s acceptance review. 

For areas in which significant deficiencies were identified, the technical areas and nature of 

deficiencies should be shared with the applicant. The Lead PM should arrange 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 12

teleconference(s)12 with the applicant, as necessary, to discuss these deficiencies. The 

objective of these interactions is to allow the staff and applicant to have a mutual understanding 

of the deficiencies and the timing/ability for the applicant to address the deficiencies. In certain 

cases, the deficiencies may be addressed in other areas of the application. The PM should 

document interactions as an official agency record by creating a summary of the call and adding 

it to ADAMS. The results of these discussions will be used by NRC management to support its 

decision to docket the application. 

3.3.4 Docketing Decision 

The PM, with support from the technical staff, presents to senior management the results of the 

technical staffs’ review supplemented with the information obtained through communications 

with the applicant. The results and supplemental information will be used to determine whether 

to docket the application and conduct the technical review. 

The following factors should be considered in reaching this decision: 

• The number of deficiencies; 

• The safety significance of the deficiencies; 

• The timing associated with the applicant’s ability to develop/prepare the supplemental 

information; 

• The certainty regarding the timeframe in which the staff can review the specific portion of 

the application. 

These factors should be considered for each application. Ultimately, the goal of the acceptance 

review is to determine with a high level of certainty that the application review can be completed 

within a predictable timeframe. 

The possible outcomes of the completeness and technical sufficiency portions of the 

acceptance review are as follows: 

A. Application Acceptable for Docketing 

The staff has determined that the application contains sufficient information to conduct its 

detailed technical review within a predictable timeframe for the following reasons: 

• The number of deficiencies is small and none is significant (e.g., level or depth of 

deficiency); 

• None of the significant deficiencies are safety significant; 

• If there are any deficiencies identified, these can be resolved in the detailed technical 

review; 

• The staff has a high level of certainty that the review of the application can be conducted 

within a predictable time frame. 

 

12 For planning and documentation purposes, teleconferences should be treated as public meetings.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 13

If management agrees with the staff’s determination, the application is accepted for docketing. 

The Lead PM communicates the status and results of the acceptance review internally and 

externally in accordance with the guidance provided in this office instruction. 

Following this determination, the Portfolio Manager will develop the baseline review schedule 

and adjusted staff-hours. 

Note that the docketing of the application does not guarantee a fixed review schedule. The 

detailed technical review may uncover significant deficiencies that were not identified in the 

acceptance review. In addition, changes to the application made by the applicant for various 

reasons (e.g., design change to resolve a staff issue) may impact the review of that portion of 

the application as well as have cascading impacts on the review(s) of other sections of the 

application. Both of these factors may require schedule changes. These changes are not 

necessarily deficiencies associated with the acceptance review, but rather a scheduling risk 

associated with the complex aspects of a nuclear plant licensing. 

B. Application Not Acceptable for Docketing 

The staff has determined that the application does not contain sufficient information to conduct 

its detailed technical review within a predictable timeframe if any of the following reasons is true: 

• There are multiple deficiencies in the application of which several are significant; 

• A subset of the significant deficiencies are safety significant; 

• At least one significant deficiency that was identified as safety significant does not have 

a clear resolution path prior to the start of the detailed technical review; 

• The staff does not have certainty that a review can be conducted within a predictable 

time frame. 

If management agrees with the staff’s determination, the application is not accepted for 

docketing. The staff should communicate the deficiencies to the applicant in accordance with 

NRR-COM-202 and/or NRR-COM-203. The staff can either issue a letter of non-acceptance or 

the applicant can choose to withdraw its application. The applicant can choose to resubmit its 

application once the deficiencies are corrected. Subsequent to this submission, the NRC will 

consider and may conduct a limited acceptance review of the new or modified submitted 

information (This limited acceptance review should be completed in less than 60 days). 

Once a determination is made that an application cannot be docketed, the Lead PM and the 

Projects Branch Chief should promptly communicate this to the technical staff. This will ensure 

that no resources will be expended on the technical review of the application. In addition, the 

lead PM, needs to (1) develop a Communication Plan, (2) inform the Office of the Executive 

Director of Operations (EDO) via an EDO daily note and conduct an EDO briefing, and (3) 

inform the Commission via a Commissioner’s Assistant note and conduct a Commissioner’s 

Technical Assistant briefing. 

 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 14

C. Application Only Acceptable for Docketing Contingent on Specific Supplemental 

Information 

The staff has determined that the application contains sufficient information to conduct its 

technical review but does not contain sufficient information to develop a schedule. Specifically: 

• The number of deficiencies is moderate and none are safety significant; 

• The deficiencies can be resolved during the detailed technical review; 

• The staff has a high certainty that the review of the application can be conducted within 

a predictable time frame but does not have enough information to complete the 

development of the baseline schedule. 

 

If the staff determines that the applicant could address the missing information within 6 months, 

and management agrees, the staff may issue a letter with a request for supplemental 

information (RSI). During this period of time, the application will be considered to be tendered 

but not docketed and no resources should be expended on the technical review of the 

application. The application will be docketed and a baseline review schedule will be transmitted 

to the applicant only once the staff has reviewed the RSI responses and concluded that the 

application is sufficiently complete to conduct the detailed technical review and complete it 

within a predictable timeframe. 

If the applicant is non-responsive in addressing the RSIs or the staff determines that the 

responses to the RSI are inadequate, the staff will recommend non-acceptance of the 

application to management. Management will communicate this to the applicant who may 

choose to withdraw its application prior to the letter of non-acceptance being issued. When the 

applicant resubmits its application with the deficiencies corrected, the NRC will conduct a limited 

acceptance review of the new or modified information (This limited acceptance review should be 

completed in less than 60 days). 

The Lead PM communicates the status and results of the acceptance review internally and 

externally in accordance with the guidance provided in this office instruction. 

3.3.5 Adjustments to Baseline Review Schedule and Estimated Staff-hours

The Portfolio Manager develops the baseline review schedule and adjusts the staff-hours based 

on the identified changes from the EPM pre-baseline review schedule and estimated hours. 

The Portfolio Manager should also capture review dependencies within the baseline review 

schedule. The review schedule could be one of the following: 

A. Baseline Schedule - The application is sufficiently complete to conduct a detailed 

technical review (ESP, DC, or COL application) and complete it within a predictable 

timeframe. For a COL referencing a DC, there are no significant departures from the 

DC, and there are no apparent unique technical issues. This does not preclude staff’s 

use of RAIs (i.e., multiple rounds of RAIs are not anticipated) during the evaluation. A 

baseline schedule (e.g., for a COL referencing a DC, the pre-baseline schedule is 

typically 30 months from docketing the application) will be transmitted to the applicant 

with the acceptance letter. 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 15

B. Adjusted Baseline Schedule - The application is sufficiently complete to conduct a 

detailed technical review (ESP, DC, or COL application) and complete it within a 

predictable timeframe. For a COL referencing a DC, there may be departures from the 

DC, new safety features, alternatives to the SRP and/or RG 1.206 guidance, new 

methodologies in the application; additional supporting documentation, or other design 

characteristics that will require additional review time beyond the baseline schedule to 

reach a safety finding. The applicant has provided sufficient technical detail for the staff 

to estimate this additional time. The staff will submit the schedule changes to the branch 

chief after completing Table 1 of the applicable Enclosure. The branch chief should 

provide the estimate in terms of total staff resource hours needed for the assigned 

task(s) to the Lead PM. The Portfolio Manager and the Lead PM will assess the 

submitted changes and their implications. An adjusted schedule that accounts for the 

complexity or uniqueness of the review will be transmitted to the applicant with the 

acceptance letter. 

3.4 Response to Applicant

During the 60-day acceptance review, the Lead PM, supported by the appropriate staff and 

branch chiefs, should communicate the status of the staff’s review with the applicant in 

accordance with NRR-COM-202 and/or NRR-COM-203. 

Once management has made a determination on the acceptability of the application, the Lead 

PM will prepare the official letter (see Enclosure 2) communicating to the applicant the result of 

the acceptance review. 

3.5 Performance Measures

Completion of the acceptance review is consistent with the EPM schedule. 

4. REFERENCES

A. Title 10, Part 52, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52), “Licenses, 

Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

B. Staff Requirement Memorandum - COMDEK-07-0001/COMJSM-07-0001 - Report of the 

Combined License Review Task Force, dated June 22, 2007. 

C. Regulatory Guide 1.206, “Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants 

(LWR Edition).” 

D. NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for 

Nuclear Power Plants.” 

E. NUREG-1555, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 

Plants.” 

F. NRR-COM-202, “Meetings with Applicants, Licensees, Interveners, Vendors or Other 

Members of the Public.” (ML051880011) 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 16

G. NRR-COM-203, “Informal Interfacing and Exchange of Information with Licensees and 

Applicants.” (ML082940232) 

H. Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC. (ML13031A056) 

I. NRR-LIC-204, “Handling Requests to Withhold Proprietary Information from Public 

Disclosure.” (ML062200530) 

J. List of SAR Review Areas Potentially Involving More Detailed Review (ML072430683) 

K. Environmental Review Acceptance Checklist for Early Site Permit and Combined 

License Applications (ML072250354) 

Enclosures: 

1. Acceptance Review Process Flow Chart 

2. Template of Branch Memo and Letter to Applicant 

 Documenting Acceptance Review Results 

3. Examples of Acceptance Review Schedule 

4. Safety Analysis Report Acceptance Review 

 Guide - For a Combined License (COL) 

 Application Referencing a Certified Design 

5. Environmental Report Acceptance Review 

 Guide - For a Combined License (COL) Application 

6. Safety Analysis Report Acceptance Review 

 Guide - For a Design Certification Application 

7. Design Certification Application Acceptance 

 Review Checklist 

8. Environmental Report Acceptance Review 

 Guide - For a Design Certification Application 

 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 Page 17

NRO-REG-100 - Change History

Date Description of Changes Method Used 

to Announce 

& Distribute 

Training 

09/26/07 Initial issuance. The purpose of this OI is to 

provide guidance to NRO staff for performing 

combined operating license application 

acceptance reviews. 

Posting on 

NRO Webpage 

Email; division 

and branch 

presentations as 

requested 

01/07/08 Draft Revision 1. Changes: a new docketing 

option without issuance of a schedule based on 

lessons learned from South Texas Project 

acceptance review; a new sub-section 3.2.1 

Administrative Processing in the body; 

clarification regarding inclusion of Table 1 within 

the acceptance review transmittal memo. 

Additional guidance is included to address 

design certification, combined license application 

referencing a design certification being reviewed 

in parallel, and subsequent combined license 

application – specific review guides provided as 

attachments. 

Posting on 

NRO Webpage 

Email; division 

and branch 

presentations as 

requested 

12/18/14 Draft Revision 2. Changes: 1) changed the 

standard for accepting an application from 

enough information to “begin” the review to 

enough information to “conduct” the review; 2) 

added criteria to support the new standard for 

acceptance; 3) added a flow chart and 

supporting discussion to clarify the acceptance 

review process; 4) expanded the applicability of 

this office instruction to Early Site Permit 

applications; 5) clarified text to indicate that 

acceptance reviews will be performed in 60 days; 

6) added text to describe pre-application 

interactions; and 7) incorporated lessons learned 

from the APR1400 Design Certification 

application acceptance review. 

Posting on 

NRO Webpage 

and publically 

available 

Email; division 

and branch 

presentations as 

requested 
ENCLOSURE 1 

Acceptance Review Process Flow Chart 

NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 1-2

B

PM and technical staff 

discuss identified 

deficiencies.

Is there agreement on the 

deficiencies?

Resolve 

Differences

Do some deficiencies need to 

be addressed to begin review? No Yes

Notify licensee of 

acceptance and 

review schedule

Yes

Contact applicant and 

discuss significant 

No deficiencies

No

Prepare and issue 

letter requesting 

supplemental 

information.

Track applicant’s 

response to letter 

and provide to 

technical staff

Management decided to 

Accept the Application? Brief Management 

Document 

decision rationale 

internally

Is supplemental information 

needed before docketing?

No

Yes

Yes

C

A

Issue acceptance letter 

with review schedule and 

notice acceptance.

End the acceptance review. 

Internally 

document 

information 

deficiency

Did applicant responded to 

RSIs within the agreed timeframe?

Was supplemental 

information responsive to 

NRC staff concerns?

Yes

No

No

Evaluate 

supplemental 

against original 

criteria A

Blue Fill Indicates a PM 

activity

Yellow Fill Indicates a 

technical staff activity

Green Fill indicates a 

combined PM/technical 

staff activity

Yes
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 1-3
ENCLOSURE 2 

Template of Branch Memo and Letter to Applicant Documenting 

Acceptance Review Results 
EXAMPLE 1: BRANCH MEMO 

[DATE] 

MEMORANDUM TO: [Branch Chief Name], Chief 

 [Name of PM Branch] 

 [Name of Division] 

Office of New Reactors [Include if originating organization is 

outside NRO] 

FROM: [Branch Chief Name], Chief 

 [Name of Technical Branch] 

 [Name of Division] 

 [Name of Office, if outside NRO] 

SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE REVIEW RESULTS FOR THE [NAME OF 

APPLICATION] [Application type: COMBINED LICENSE/DESIGN 

CERTIFICATION] APPLICATION 

[Name of branch (branch acronym)] has completed its acceptance review of the [plant/design 

XXXX] [application type: Early Site Permit (ESP), Combined License (COL), application or 

Design Certification (DC) application] submitted by [Applicant XXX (applicant acronym)]. This 

review covered the following [DC or FSAR] Section[s] for which [branch acronym] has 

[primary/secondary] review responsibilities and, in addition, applicable interface documentation 

referenced in the [Design Control Document (DCD) or FSAR]: 

• [DC or FSAR] Section X; Section Y; Section Z; and etc. 

• Referenced documentation 

o [reactor design XXX] Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 1 / 2, Revision 

#, Section[s] X, Y, and etc. 

o Technical / Topical Reports [identify XXX (e.g., design vendor, NEI)] 

Completeness and Sufficiency 

Based on our review, we have concluded that the application contains the information required 

by applicable regulations and that the submitted information is technically sufficient for [branch 

acronym] to conduct the [plant XXXX ESP application, plant XXXX COL application, or design 

XXXX DC application] detailed technical review. 

[Alternate paragraph to be used when a FSAR section(s) is not technically sufficient] 

Based on our review, we have concluded that the application contains the information required 

by applicable regulations. However, there are significant deficiencies in the submitted 

information that preclude the conduct of an effective and efficient technical review and, therefore, 

preclude the development of a specific review schedule at this time. [Branch acronym] cannot 

commence the [plant [Name of Application] ESP application, plant [Name of Application] COL 

application, or [Name of Application] DC application] detailed technical review without the 

information identified in Enclosure 1.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 2-2

Header Information: First initial of Branch Chief’s name. Last name Page # (centered) 

The significant technical deficiencies are as follows. 

Schedule 

The staff reviewed the pre-baseline schedule provided during the acceptance review. I confirm 

that there are no changes to the pre-baseline review schedule. 

[Alternate paragraph to be used when a FSAR section(s) requires changes to the

schedule]

The staff reviewed the pre-baseline schedule provided during the acceptance review and 

recommends the following changes to the EPM schedule: 

• Assigned Reviewer 

• Hours to complete the review 

• Others 

Review Dependencies. 

[Branch acronym]’s detailed technical review of the [[Name of Application] ESP application, 

[Name of Application] COL application, or [Name of Application] DC application] is dependent on 

[Name of Agency] completing its respective review task and providing input to [Branch acronym]. 

[Alternate paragraph: [Branch acronym]’s detailed technical review of the [Name of Application] 

ESP application, [Name of Application] COL application, or [Name of Application] DC application] 

is independent of other ongoing application reviews by the staff.] 

 (Optional) Description of Significant Technical Deficiencies Request for 

Supplemental Information (RSIs), if applicable (Staff may use Table 1 of the 

applicable Safety Analysis Report or Environmental Report Review Guide – 

Enclosure 4, 5, 6, or 8 to this office instruction) 

Enclosures: (if applicable - this format is used when document contains two or more enclosures) 

1. Title 

2. Title 

DISTRIBUTION: 

NRO/Division [Lead PM] [Supporting PM] [Portfolio Manager] [Other Technical 

Branches that have primary/secondary review] 

ADAMS Accession No.: 

OFFICE 

NAME 

DATE 

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 2-3

EXAMPLE 2: ACCEPTANCE REVIEW RESULTS OF AN APPLICATION 

[DATE] 

[ADDRESSEE] 

SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE REVIEW RESULT FOR THE [NAME OF APPLICATION] [TYPE 

OF APPLICATION] APPLICATION – [NAME OF APPLICANT] 

Dear [Addressee]: 

By letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated [Date], [Name of Applicant] 

submitted an application for a [type of application] of the [Name of Application], pursuant to Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals 

for Nuclear Power Plants.” The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the results of the NRC 

staff’s acceptance review of this application. 

[FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION USE THESE PARAGRAPHS] 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.101, 10 CFR 52.46, and 10 CFR 52.47, the NRC staff performed 

an acceptance review to determine if the [Type of Application] application for the [Name of 

Application] contains sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to 

conduct its detailed technical review and complete it within a predictable timeframe. 

The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that your [Type of Application] 

application is sufficiently complete to accept for docketing. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.815, the docket 

number established for this application is [XXXXX]. The NRC staff intends to publish a schedule 

for the detailed technical review of your application within XX days. A portion of the basis for 

completion of the review on this schedule is [Name of Applicant] response to Request for 

Additional Information (RAI) within 30 days of your receipt. 

The enclosed notice of acceptance for docketing has been forwarded to the Office of the Federal 

Register. 

[FOR APPLICATION CONTINGENT TO SPECIFIC SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION USE 

THESE PARAGRAPHS] 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.101, 10 CFR 52.46, and 10 CFR 52.47, the NRC staff performed 

an acceptance review to determine if the [Type of Application] application for the [Name of 

Application] contains sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to 

conduct its detailed technical review and complete it within a predictable timeframe. 

The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that the information delineated in 

the enclosure to this letter is necessary to enable the NRC staff to conduct its detailed technical 

review. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.101, the application will be considered tendered but will 

not be docketed until the requested information is submitted and the acceptance review process 

can be re-initiated to determine if the application is acceptable for review. The NRC staff 

requests that [Name of Applicant] address the Requests for Supplemental Information (RSIs) 

identified in the enclosure by [Date]. If the information requested by the NRC staff’s is not 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 2-4

received by the above date, the application will not be docketed for review pursuant to 

10 CFR 2.101. If the application is subsequently accepted for review, you will be advised of any 

further information needed to support the NRC staff’s detailed technical review by separate 

correspondence. 

[FOR NON-ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPLICATION USE THESE PARAGRAPHS] 

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.815, 10 CFR 52.46, and 10 CFR 52.47, the NRC staff performed 

an acceptance review to determine if the [Type of Application] application for the [Name of 

Application] contains sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to 

conduct its detailed technical review and complete it within a predictable timeframe. 

The NRC staff has decided not to accept the [Name of Application] [Type of Application] 

application for docketing at this time. [Describe interactions with the applicant where deficiencies 

were communicated and provide the reasons why the application is not being docketed.] 

The NRC staff plans to continue pre-application interactions with your staff to support your efforts 

at resolving the staff’s concerns and in developing the necessary information to support a 

complete application. Once the deficiencies have been addressed, the application may be 

resubmitted to the NRC. 

[IF THE APPLICANT WITHDRAWS THE APPLICATION, USE THIS PARAGRAPH] 

By letter dated [DATE], you requested to withdraw the application from NRC review. The NRC 

staff acknowledges your request to withdraw the application. NRC staff activities on the review 

have ceased and the associated Technical Assignment Control number has been closed. 

The NRC staff notes that its review to date has identified that your application did not provide the 

following technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to complete its detailed 

review. Therefore, if you decide to re-submit the request, it must include the information 

described in the letter dated [DATE] (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

[ADAMS] Accession No. MLXXXXXXXX). In this letter, the NRC staff identified that the following 

information was needed to conduct its technical review: [List the information needed] 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 2-5

If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-XXXX or email.

Sincerely, 

[Name], Project Manager 

[Branch] 

[Division] 

Office of New Reactors 

Docket No(s). 

Enclosure: 

 

cc w/encl: 

DISTRIBUTION: via Listserv 

ADAMS Accession No.: 

OFFICE PM:Division/Branch TR:Division/Branch TBC:Division/Branch PBC:Division/Branch 

NAME 

DATE 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
ENCLOSURE 3 

Examples of Acceptance Review Schedule 
A. Application Acceptable for Review 

Task Name Duration* Start Finish 

Administrative/ADAMS Processing 5 days 6/2/2014 6/6/2014 

Receiving, Staging and Noticing Receipt of Application 

(including opening a TAC number) 5 days 6/2/2014 6/6/2014 

SUNSI Review 5 days 6/2/2014 6/6/2014 

Application Review by Technical Staff and PMs in NRO 

and NSIR, including support from outside entities. 25 days 6/9/2014 7/11/2014 

Compilation of results 25 days 6/26/2014 7/30/2014 

Prepare presentation and brief management on 

deficiencies to inform decisionmaking 5 day 7/31/2014 8/6/2014 

Acceptance Review Complete, notify the applicant of the 

results via conference call 1 day 8/7/2014 8/7/2014 

 Letter to Applicant 1 day 8/8/2014 8/8/2014 

 FRN Published 4 days 811/2014 8/14/2014 

*Duration is in working days 

B. Application Not-Acceptable for Review 

Task Name Duration* Start Finish 

Administrative/ADAMS Processing 5 days 6/2/2014 6/6/2014 

Receiving, Staging and Noticing Receipt of Application 

(including opening a TAC number) 5 days 6/2/2014 6/6/2014 

SUNSI Review 5 days 6/2/2014 6/6/2014 

Application Review by Technical Staff and PMs in NRO 

and NSIR, including support from outside entities. 25 days 6/9/2014 7/11/2014 

Compilation of results 25 days 6/26/2014 7/30/2014 

Prepare presentation and brief management on 

deficiencies to inform decisionmaking 5 day 7/31/2014 8/6/2014 

Acceptance Review Complete, notify the results to the 

applicant via conference call 1 day 8/7/2014 8/7/2014 

 Letter to Applicant 1 day 8/8/2014 8/8/2014 

 Close TAC Number 1 day 8/11/2014 8/11/2014 

*Duration is in working days 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 3-2

C. Application Only Acceptable for Docketing Contingent on Specific Supplemental 

Information

Task Name Duration* Start Finish 

Administrative/ADAMS Processing 5 days 6/2/2014 6/6/2014 

Receiving, Staging and Noticing Receipt of Application 

(including opening a TAC number) 5 days 6/2/2014 6/6/2014 

SUNSI Review 5 days 6/2/2014 6/6/2014 

Application review by Technical Staff and PMs in NRO 

and NSIR, including support from outside entities 25 days 6/9/2014 7/11/2014 

Compilation of results 25 days 6/26/2014 7/30/2014 

Conference call with applicant to discuss significant 

deficiencies 2 days 7/31/2014 8/1/2014 

Prepare presentation and brief management on 

deficiencies to inform decisionmaking 5 day 8/4/2014 8/8/2014 

Acceptance Review Complete, notify the results to the 

applicant via conference call 1 day 8/11/2014 8/11/2014 

PM prepare and issue letter requesting supplemental 

information 2 days 8/12/2014 8/13/2014 

Applicant provide requested information (duration could 

change due to the amount of missing information) 44 days 8/14/2007 10/14/2014 

NRC staff review supplemental information 24 days 10/15/2014 11/17/2014 

Prepare presentation and brief management on the review 

of supplemental information for final decisionmaking 5 day 11/18/2014 11/24/2014 

Acceptance Review Complete, notify the results to the 

applicant via conference call 1 day 11/25/2014 11/25/2014 

 Letter to applicant 1 day 11/26/2014 11/26/2014 

 FRN Published 5 days 11/27/2014 12/3/2014 

*Duration is in working days 
ENCLOSURE 4 

Safety Analysis Report Acceptance Review Guide 

For a Combined License (COL) Application Referencing a 

Certified Design 
Background Information 

This Review Guide is intended to be used by the technical branches to perform their acceptance 

reviews of a COL application. The findings of the acceptance review will be provided to the Lead 

Project Manager (PM) and Portfolio Manager so they can evaluate completeness, technical 

sufficiency and the impacts of the technical issues identified during this review on the 

pre-baseline schedule. This review guide contains Table 1, “Safety Analysis Report Acceptance 

Review Results Table,” which is organized by review area(s)/topic(s) within assigned safety 

evaluation report (SER) sections. 

Prior to the acceptance review, the PMs and technical reviewers should be familiar with: 

• The anticipated scope of review of the COL application including the following: 

o Assigned COL application section(s) and relevant supplemental information 

(e.g., Technical or Topical Reports), departures from the Design Control 

Document (DCD), Design Acceptance Criteria (DAC) and/or Inspection, Test, 

Analysis and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC). 

o Design-specific finality matrices (compilation of COL information items, action 

items, and other COL issues) have been prepared for reference by staff reviewing 

COL applications referencing the DCD. This information is available within the 

project specific integrated workspace. 

o RG 1.206 contains the expected information for a COL application referencing a 

Design Certification (DC). 

o Corresponding section(s) of the standard review plan (SRP) or Design Specific 

Review Standard (DSRS). 

o A list of Safety Analysis Report (SAR) review areas that can potentially involve a 

more detailed review (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

[ADAMS] Accession No. ML072430683). This list does not replace the SRP, but 

rather represents a list of review areas contained within the SRP that may 

potentially involve more detailed technical review (e.g., involve computer code 

evaluation, detailed data analysis, new safety feature, or emerging operating 

experience). 

o The design-centered-review approach (DCRA),1

 such that staff decisions made on 

the “reference COL” would apply to all “subsequent COLs.” 

o Concurrent reviews (e.g., DC application review, DC amendment review. For a 

subsequent COL application, review the reference COL application, and/or related 

topical report reviews). 

o Available risk insights applicable to COL application sections under review. 

• The EPM pre-baseline review schedule and estimated staff-hours. 

The following directions should be used by PMs and technical staff in performing the acceptance 

review. Table 1 should be used to document the acceptance review effort. The information in 

this table may be used to evaluate the acceptability of the COL application for docketing. Each 

branch may choose to make entries for each review area or SRP section in Table 1. 

Alternatively, a branch may choose to enter information only for those technical areas that are 

 

1 Additional information on DCRA is provided in SECY-06-0019, dated January 31, 2006.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 4-2

found to be incomplete, not technically sufficient or those areas that will require changes to 

resource planning assumptions. 

I. Completeness Review: Verify that the COL application contains all of the information 

required by the applicable regulations for your assigned review(s), as discussed in 

Section 3.3.2 of the office instruction. If the COL applicant uses the statement that a 

review topic is incorporated by reference (IBR) to the DC, this statement constitutes a 

complete response relative to the COL application section (and therefore no technical 

sufficiency review will be required for that section). In addition, the COL applicant should 

explain how it addressed any COL information items addressing plant-specific 

information. Then begin completing Table 1 as appropriate. 

A. Document the review area(s)/topic(s) in Column 1 (List all review topics or only 

those found to be not complete or not technically sufficient). 

B. Determine whether the applicant has addressed the applicable regulations for the 

assigned review area. See RG 1.206 for the COL application acceptance review 

checklist. [yes/no in Column 2] 

10 CFR 52.79 “Contents of applications; technical information in final safety 

analysis report,” identifies prescriptive requirements for the contents of a COL 

application. These requirements are captured in the RG 1.206 checklist. 

However, 52.79 also contains cross-cutting requirements. For the following 

cross-cutting requirements, determine if any apply to your review section(s). For 

those in your review area, determine if the applicant addressed the proper items. 

The applicant’s compliance with these requirements should be provided in 

Chapter 1 of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR): 

1. Three Mile Island requirements [10 CFR 52.79(a)(17)]; 

2. Proposed technical resolutions of unresolved safety issues and mediumand high-priority generic safety issues [10 CFR 52.79(a)(20)]; 

3. Introduction of new safety features [10 CFR 52.79(a)(24)]; 

4. Operating experience insights incorporated into the plant design [10 CFR 

52.79(a)(37)]; 

5. Conformance with SRP/DSRS [10 CFR 52.79(a)(41)]. 

 Additional cross-cutting requirements specifically related to information required 

for a COL application referencing a DC include: 

1. Demonstration that the site characteristics fall within the site parameters 

specified in the design certification [10 CFR 52.79(d)(1)] (summarized in 

Chapter 2 of the FSAR); 

2. Demonstration that interface requirements have been met [10 CFR 

52.79(d)(2)]; 

3. Demonstration of all requirements and restrictions set forth in the 

referenced design certification rule, other than those imposed under 

§50.36b, must be satisfied by the date of issuance of the COL [10 CFR 

52.79(d)(3)] - (this includes addressing COL information items, COL action 

items, identified departures from the certified design, and replacement of 

DC conceptual design information with site specific design details). 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 4-3

C. For each review area/topic not addressed, summarize deficiency in Column 5, and 

promptly notify the Lead PM if RSIs are needed. 

II. Technical Sufficiency Review: Identify significant technical deficiencies in the COL 

application associated with your assigned review using the attached table and the 

following guidelines. The information contained in the various parts of the COL 

application that are discussed above in the Background Information should also be 

considered. A technical deficiency is defined as missing, improper, inadequate, or 

incorrect technical information needed by the NRC staff to conduct the assigned review. 

A significant technical deficiency is missing information that results in the staff being 

unable to conduct its review of the application against the acceptance criteria in the 

SRP/DSRS or conduct its review within a predictable timeframe. If a significant technical 

deficiency is identified, the application should not be docketed unless it is able to be 

addressed through RSIs. Minor technical deficiencies by contrast should be able to be 

addressed within reasonable rounds of RAIs and without notably impacting the overall 

schedule for the COL application. 

Additional consideration should be given to any review areas/topics contained in the 

Safety Analysis Report Acceptance Review List that could require more extensive review 

time than is reflected in the EPM pre-baseline review schedule. 

As noted in Section 3.3.2, of the office instruction risk insights may be available during 

the acceptance review. If so, these insights should be used to help determine the depth 

of the technical sufficiency review. If a review area/topic is associated with a 

risk-significant SSC, indicate a yes in Column 6, in the attached table. 

For the determined scope of technical sufficiency review: 

A. Document additional review areas/topics in Column 1, as needed. 

B. Determine whether the COL application section(s) is(are) sufficient to conduct the 

detailed technical review for the review areas/topics identified in Column 1 [yes/no 

in Column 3]. 

C. Determine whether the review areas/topics identified in Column 1 can be resolved 

through the RSI or RAI process [yes/no in Column 4]. 

D. Document the technical deficiency (ies) that could prevent you from conducting 

your detailed technical review in Column 5. Describe the basis (es) for the 

deficiencies. These review area/topics may involve a significant amount of time to 

address (e.g., development of computer codes or first-of-a-kind testing) and 

estimate how this could impact the overall review schedule for your COL 

application section. 

E. Notify the Lead PM of significant deficiencies and the need of RSIs as soon as 

they are identified. 

F. Determine whether the identified technical deficiency is related to a risk-significant 

SSC [yes/no in Column 6]. 

III. Changes to Planning Assumptions: 

 Augmenting Planned Resources (Staff-Hours): 

Re-evaluate the total review time that will be needed to conduct a review based on the significant 

technical deficiencies or new, unplanned review items documented in the Table 1. The 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 4-4

acceptance review allows the reviewer to identify potential changes from the EPM pre-baseline 

review schedule and estimated staff-hours so that Portfolio Manager can develop an 

application-specific review schedule and adjust the staff-hours. The following characteristics of a 

COL application may require additional review time: 

A. departures from the DCD; 

B. inclusion or reference to new safety features; 

C. alternative approaches to SRP acceptance criteria (including alternatives to 

regulatory guides); 

D. instances of a site characteristic falling outside of design parameters; 

E. for a subsequent COL, differences from the reference COL; or 

F. other miscellaneous review topics that have not been adequately represented 

within the pre-baseline model, (e.g., replacement of DC conceptual design 

information with site specific design details and other COL supplemental 

information, new operating experience and regulations since DCD or RCOL 

issuance).

Next, determine whether the review effort is reflected within the pre-baseline model 

(e.g., the estimated staff-hours are sufficient to perform the review of the departure?) 

[yes/no in Column 7]. For each “no” in table, identify the change to the EPM staff-hour 

planning assumptions and provide a basis (e.g., “departure not addressed in pre-baseline 

review schedule”) in Column 8. Identify the projected review time in staff-hours needed 

to address all of the applicable items above for your COL application section. This can 

be for the total review time and does not have to be on an individual review area/topic. 

Reducing or Eliminating Planned Resources (Staff-Hours): 

Some SRP sections may be completely IBR, where all design features in the DC are 

referenced with no change or further information. For this case the estimated staff-review 

hours for Phases 1 and 4 should be zero, and Phase 2 should be minimal to account for 

administrative production of the SER input. Note, the administrative production of the 

SER input for complete IBR may become a projects function with overall SER chapter 

concurrence by the technical staff. If the pre-baseline model identified staff review hours 

then the responsible branch should answer “no” for Column 7 in Table 1 and provide the 

following basis for eliminating the staff-hours required - “complete IBR.” 

Some SRP sections may be a partial IBR, where design features are adopted from the 

DC into the COL FSAR and the applicant has provided some design specific information 

such as COL action items. The responsible branch then needs to adjust the pre-baseline 

model commensurate with the scope of review and answer “no” for Column 7 in Table 1. 

For each “no” in the table, identify the change to the EPM staff-hour planning 

assumptions and provide a basis (e.g., “limited review not reflected in pre-baseline review 

schedule”) in Column 8. Identify the projected review time in staff-hours needed to 

address all of the applicable items above for your COL application section. 

As with augmenting staff-hours, reducing staff-hours can be for the total review time and 

does not have to be on an individual review area/topic basic. 

After completing Table 1, review the pre-populated EPM pre-baseline review schedule 

provided by Planning and Scheduling and notify the branch chief and Lead PM if 

schedule changes are needed. 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 4-5

IV. Identification of Dependencies between Concurrent Reviews: Identify any known 

dependencies between concurrent reviews. These dependencies could be between a 

DC review and a concurrent COL review (e.g., EPR DCD review concurrent with the EPR 

RCOL review), or there could be dependencies between reference COLs and subsequent 

COLs. These dependencies could potentially result in changes to planning assumptions. 

For example, the staff-hours associated with the review of a topical or technical report 

may be captured separate from the baseline review schedule. Those hours should not 

be double counted in related reviews. However, this does not change the duration of the 

task. 

A. Identify and document review dependencies in Table 1(Columns 10 and 11). 

Special Cases 

For a Combined License (COL) Application referencing a Design Certification (DC) that 

has not been certified (e.g., reviewed concurrently) 

Generally, 10 CFR 52.55(c) states, “An applicant for a construction permit or combined license 

may, at its own risk, reference in its application a design for which a design certification has been 

docketed but not granted.” Following this requirement, there would likely be a minimum 60-day 

lag between the submittal of a DC application and a COL application referencing the DC since 

the target timeframe of the expanded DC acceptance review is 60 days1

. 

In addition to the above: 

1. The staff performing the COL acceptance review should treat a section or portion of a 

section IBR to the Design Control Document as “complete and technically sufficient,” as 

long as, the scope of information to be addressed within the COL application is complete 

(anticipated contents are identified in Section C.III.1, “Information Needed for a Combined 

License Application Referencing a Certified Design”). Missing, incomplete, or technically 

insufficient information should be addressed consistent with guidance within this office 

instruction, that is, should be documented as incomplete in Table 1. 

The staff can assume that the COL review and the DC review will proceed in parallel, and 

that issues within the DC review will be resolved within the DC review and COL issues 

will be resolved within the COL review. The information IBR must become certified 

before the COL can be issued. Furthermore, an open item will be added to the COL 

safety evaluation report (SER) with open items related to the need for the COL applicant 

to supplement the COL application as necessary to address resolution of issues in the 

DC. 

 

1

 If the COL application precedes docketing of the DC application, then the schedule for the respective 

acceptance reviews will be determined on a case-by-case basis (e.g., Bellefonte COL application 

referencing proposed Revision 16 to the AP1000 Design Control Document). The acceptance reviews 

may be done in series, in parallel or as a combined review. Things to consider in the conduct of these 

reviews: efficiency, effectiveness, and complexity of the technical issues. While the acceptance review 

schedule(s) will be developed on a case-by-case basis, it is important to note that the Commission 

direction in COMDEK-07-0001/COMJSM-07-0001 prescribed the expanded acceptance review to be 60 

days. 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 4-6

2. Section 3.3.5, Review schedules are dependent on/driven by the progress and 

completion of the DC review – not the target schedule of 30-months for a COL 

referencing a certified DC – Any delays in the DC schedule will automatically impact the 

COL schedule. 

3. With respect to the “concurrent reviews,” the identification of certain challenging DC 

review areas that may impact the COL review schedule may necessitate that the NRC 

recommend deferral of the COL review on that topic until after the issue is resolved within 

the DC. The dependencies/deferral of certain review areas are reserved for those areas 

in which the resolution of the DC issue will cause significant rework during the COL after 

the issue is resolved. 

For a Combined License (COL) Application referencing a Design Certification (DC) that 

has not been certified (e.g., reviewed concurrently) and which also references an Early 

Site Permit (ESP) 

The only difference from the previous case is the additional requirements of 52.79 related to 

referencing an ESP as summarized below. 

1. The Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) should include or incorporate by reference the 

approved ESP. Further, the FSAR should establish the design of the facility falls within 

the site characteristics and design parameters specified in the ESP. 

2. If the final safety analysis report does not demonstrate that design of the facility falls 

within the site characteristics and design parameters, the application shall include a 

request for a variance that complies with the requirements of §§ 52.39 and 52.93. This 

might require additional staff-hours beyond the baseline estimates. 

3. The FSAR must demonstrate that all terms and conditions that have been included in the 

ESP, other than those imposed under § 50.36b, will be satisfied by the date of issuance 

of the combined license. If any of these terms or conditions are found to be left out of the 

FSAR, then the staff should document this as missing information in Table 1. 

4. Evaluate for completeness and technical adequacy any updates or revisions to the 

approved emergency plans in the ESP. If complete and integrated emergency plans 

were approved as part of the referenced ESP, new certifications meeting the 

requirements of 10 CFR 52.79(a)(22) are not required and this could result in a reduction 

of expected staff-hours. 

For a Subsequent Combined License (SCOL) Application referencing a Design 

Certification 

The primary difference between the acceptance review for an SCOL application and a reference 

combined license (RCOL) application is that in addition to the site-specific portions of the review, 

the staff verifies the degree of standardization of the SCOL application to that of the RCOL. The 

site-specific portions of the application are treated the same as that of a RCOL. 

As it relates to the design-center-review approach (DCRA), standard information relates to 

information incorporated by reference (IBR) to a design certification or information that is not IBR 

but identical to the RCOL. For SCOL application acceptance reviews, staff verifies standard 

information is identical to that in the RCOL. In addition, the reviewer should be familiar with 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 4-7

sections of the application which may interface with their assigned section of the application for 

review (as may be defined in related SRP section) to ensure any review issues within those 

sections would not impact the standardization determination. If the section is standard, Table 1 

could be excluded and the EPM pre-baseline review schedule provided by Planning Optimization 

Branch should be completed to reflect the assigned FSAR sections will not need technical staff 

resources in review Phases 1 and 2. Note, the SER inputs for completely standard sections in a 

SCOL SER will be developed by project staff and concurred in by the technical staff during the 

advanced final SER. 

If the FSAR section contains site-specific information or through the acceptance review it is 

determined that the application is not completely standard to the RCOL, then the staff should 

follow the guidance for a COL application referencing a Design DC that has not been certified to 

capture the non-standard review areas that will require staff review effort. The staff should also 

update the staff effort if it differs from the adjusted baseline estimates on Table 1 and the EPM 

pre-baseline review schedule provided by the Planning Optimization Branch. 

Similar to the parallel review of an RCOL and DC, an SCOL review can proceed in parallel with 

the RCOL review and issues within the RCOL review will be resolved within the RCOL review 

and SCOL issues will be resolved within the SCOL review. The information identified as 

standard is to be approved in the RCOL before the SCOL is issued. Furthermore, an open item 

will be added to the SCOL SER describing the need for the SCOL applicant to supplement its 

COL application as necessary to address resolution of issues in the RCOL. For both complete 

and partially standard sections, review Phase 4 will be when the applicant addresses this open 

Item, and the staff will re-verify the standard designation. This becomes a mini-acceptance 

review. The review effort for new site-specific information will be assessed for schedule and 

resource impacts when the application is revised. 

NOTE: A 4-phase review schedule will be developed for the review of a SCOL application. The 

4-phase review schedule removes the SER with open items. The total duration remains at about 

30 months. After the conversion, assigned staff will have the opportunity to make adjustments to 

the baseline schedule.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 4-8 

Table 1: Safety Analysis Report Acceptance Review Results for [Applicant Name] [Design Center Name] [Application Type]2

SAR Section: _________ Technical Branch :_______(Primary/Secondary) Technical Reviewer: ___________ Branch Chief:______________ SRP Section: ___________ Date:__________ 

Are there any technical deficiencies, changes in planning assumptions, or dependencies on concurrent reviews? Yes/No, Identify specific review area/topic in table 

below. 

1. Review Area/Topic* 

Completeness and Technical Sufficiency Which 

Form Basis for Acceptability for Docketing 

Changes to Planning Assumptions to 

be Considered in Development of 

Baseline Review Schedule 

Review Dependencies Among Concurrent Reviews 

ddress the items required 2. Does COL section a

by regulation (refer to RG 1.206)? (Yes/No) 

cally sufficient for this 3. Is COL section techni

review area/ topic? (yes/no)** 

4. Can the technical deficiency be resolved 

through the RSI or RAI process within a 

predictable timeframe? (yes/no)*** 5. If no, for either completeness or technical sufficiency, identify deficiency (ies). This information will be needed for technical review. 

cal deficiency related to a 6. Is the identified techni

risk-significant SSC)? (yes/no)  

7. Are the pre-baseline review schedule and 

estimated staff-hours appropriate? (yes/no) 8. For each no, identify the change (+ or -) and basis for change. 

9. Identify the total review time in staff-hours** *** 

10. Can the review of the area/topic be completed 

 a concurrent review? without the completion of

(yes/no) 

11. For each no, identify which application (DCD or COLA) and section. 

RSI RAI 

*Review Area/Topic: Item identified in RG 1.206 or the regulations; for a COL application referencing a DC, this includes COL information items and departures from 

the design certification. 

**Technical Sufficiency: The application is compared against the SRP acceptance criteria. Note: New safety features, alternate regulatory compliance approaches, 

and/or departures and exemptions from DCs, should not be treated as deficiencies and factored into the basis for rejecting the application, unless staff determines that 

there is insufficient technical information associated with the respective item. These items are factored into confirmation of planning assumptions. 

***Significant deficiencies are those review area/topic which impact the staff’s ability to conduct the detailed technical review or complete its review within a predictable timeframe.   Division of Safety Systems & Risk Assessment will provide risk significance information at time of review, if available. ** ***Identification of new review time is on a FSAR section basis and consistent with the review phases within the EPM. Changes from the pre-baseline review 

schedule and estimated hours should be on that basis. 

2 NOTE: Branches may use this form to make entries for all review area/topics; or alternatively, to make entries only for those areas 

that have issues with completeness, sufficiency, or those that require changes (+ or -) to baseline estimated staff-hours. 
ENCLOSURE 5 

Environmental Report Acceptance Review Guide 

For a Combined License (COL) Application 
Background Information 

This Review Guide is intended to be used by the environmental branches to document the 

results of their acceptance reviews of an application. Additionally, the results of the acceptance 

review will be provided to the environmental project manager (PM) and Portfolio Manager so 

they can evaluate the impacts of the technical issues identified during this review on the 

pre-baseline schedule. The environmental PM will communicate results and periodic status to 

the Lead PM. This review guide contains Table 1, “Environmental Report Acceptance Review 

Results Table,” which is organized by issue area(s) within the Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). 

Prior to the acceptance review, the environmental PM and technical reviewers should be 

familiar with: 

• The anticipated scope of the combined license (COL) application environmental review 

including: 

o Assigned COL application environmental report (ER) issue area and relevant 

supplemental information (e.g., whether the COL application will reference an 

early site permit (ESP)). 

o Applicable sections of RG 1.206. 

o Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear 

Power Stations.” 

o Corresponding section(s) of the environmental standard review plan, 

NUREG-1555, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear 

Power Plants,” (ESRP). 

o The environmental acceptance review checklist in (Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System [ADAMS] Accession No. ML072250354). This 

list is a comprehensive set of review issues based on RG 4.2 and ESRP and is 

applicable to both early site permit and COL applications. 

o Concurrent reviews (e.g., reviews with regional or generic implications). 

• The EPM pre-baseline review schedule and estimated staff-hours. 

The following directions should be used by the environmental PM and technical staff in 

performing the acceptance review. Table 1 should be used to document the acceptance review 

effort. The information in this table may be used to evaluate the acceptability of the COL 

application for docketing as discussed in Section 3.3.2 of the office instruction (OI). Each 

branch may choose to make entries for each review area or SRP section in Table 1. 

Alternatively, a branch may choose to enter information only for those technical areas 

that are found to be incomplete or technically deficient or for those areas that will require 

changes to resource planning assumptions. 

 

I. Completeness Review: Verify that the COL application contains all of the information 

required by the applicable regulations for your assigned review(s) as discussed in 

Section 3.3.2 of the OI. 

A. Document the review area(s)/topic(s) in Column 1 (List all or only those found to 

be not complete and/or requiring changes to planning assumptions). 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 5-2

B. Determine whether the applicant has addressed the applicable regulations for the 

assigned review area. (see RG 1.206 for a COL application acceptance review 

checklist.”) [yes/no in Column 2] Specifically 10 CFR 52.80(b) states the 

application must contain a complete environmental report as required by 10 CFR 

51.50(c). RG 4.2 provides an applicant with an acceptable means of compliance 

with this regulation. This information is compiled in the list of review topics by 

RG 4.2 and the ESRP. 

C. For each issue area not addressed, summarize deficiency in Column 5 and 

promptly notify management and the appropriate environmental PM. 

D. Following review of the issue area, the environmental PM provides the results to 

the Lead PM. 

II. Technical Sufficiency Review: Identify significant technical deficiencies in the COL 

application associated with your assigned review using the attached table and the 

following guidelines. The information contained in the various parts of the COL 

application that are discussed above in the Background Information should also be 

considered. A technical deficiency is defined as missing, improper, inadequate, or 

incorrect technical information needed by the NRC staff to conduct the assigned review. 

A significant technical deficiency is missing information that results in the staff being 

unable to conduct its review of the application against the acceptance criteria in the 

ESRP or conduct its review within a predictable timeframe. If a significant technical 

deficiency is identified, the application should not be docketed unless it is able to be 

addressed through RSIs. Minor technical deficiencies, by contrast, should be capable of 

being addressed with a reasonable round of RAIs and without notably impacting the 

overall schedule for the COL application. 

For the determined scope of technical sufficiency review: 

A. Document additional issue areas in Column 1, as needed 

B. Determine whether the COL application section(s) is(are) sufficient to conduct 

the detailed technical review for the issue areas identified in Column 1 [yes/no in 

Column 3] 

C. Determine whether the issue areas identified in Column 1 can be resolved 

through the RSI or RAI process. [yes/no in Column 4] 

D. Document the technical deficiency (ies) that could prevent you from beginning 

your detailed technical review in Column 5. Describe the basis (es) for the 

deficiencies. These review area/topics may involve a significant amount of time 

to address (e.g., development of computer codes or first-of-a-kind testing), so 

estimate how this could impact the overall review schedule for your COL 

application section. 

E. Notify the environmental PM of significant deficiencies as soon as they are 

identified. 

F. Following review of the issue area, the environmental PM provides the results to 

the Lead PM. 

Changes to Planning Assumptions: Re-evaluate the total review time that will be 

needed to conduct a technical review based on the significant technical deficiencies 

documented in the attached table. The acceptance review allows the reviewer to identify 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 5-3

potential changes from the EPM pre-baseline review schedule and estimated staff-hours 

so that the Portfolio Manager can develop an application-specific baseline review 

schedule and adjust the resource demands. 

After completing Table 1, review the pre-populated EPM pre-baseline review schedule 

provided by Planning and Scheduling and notify the branch chief and the environmental 

PM if schedule changes are needed. The environmental PM should discuss the 

changes with the branch chief and Lead PM. 

III. Identification of Dependencies between Concurrent Reviews: Identify any known 

dependencies between concurrent reviews. These dependencies include regional or 

generic implications, or other environmental assessments at the same site. These 

dependencies could potentially result in changes to planning assumptions. For example, 

the staff-hours associated with the review of cumulative impacts may be adopted from 

another EIS which may be separate from the baseline review schedule. Those hours 

should not be double counted in related reviews. However, this does not change the 

duration of the task. 

A. Identify and document review dependencies in Table 1 (Columns 10 and 11). 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 5-4

Table 1: Environmental Report Acceptance Review Results for [Applicant Name] [Design Center Name] [Application 

Type] 

EIS Issue Area: _________ Technical Branch: _______(Primary/Secondary) Technical Reviewer(s):___________ Branch Chief: ______________ Date:_________ Does the issue area address the applicable regulations: Yes/No Are there any technical deficiencies, changes in planning assumptions, or dependencies on concurrent reviews? Yes/No, Identify specific review area/topic 

in table below. 

1. Issue Area/Topic* 

Completeness and Technical Sufficiency 

Which Form Basis for Acceptability for 

Docketing 

Changes to Planning Assumptions to be 

Considered in Development of Baseline 

Review Schedule 

Review Dependencies Among Concurrent 

Reviews 

2. Does the ER address the items required by 

regulation (refer to 10 CFR 52.80(b) and RG 4.2? 

) Yes/No (

nically sufficient for this 3. Is ER issue area tech

review area/ topic? (yes/no)** 

4. Can the technical deficiency be resolved 

through the RSI or RAI process within a 

predictable timeframe? (yes/no)** 

 5. If no, for either completeness or technical sufficiency, identify deficiency (ies). This information will be needed for technical review. 

7. Are the pre-baseline review schedule and 

estimated staff-hours appropriate for the issue 

area? (yes/no) 

8. For each no, identify the change (or basis for change). 

9. Identify the total review time in staff-hours*** 

10. Can the review of the issue area be completed 

 a concurrent review? without the completion of

(yes/no) 

11. For each no, identify which issue area section. 

RSI RAI 

*Issue Area/Topic: Item identified in 10 CFR 52.80(b) and RG 4.2. **Technical Sufficiency: The application is compared against RG 4.2 and the ESRP acceptance criteria 

****Identification of new review time is on an EIS issue area section and consistent with the review phases within the EPM. Changes from the pre-baseline review schedule and estimated hours should be on that basis. 
ENCLOSURE 6 

Safety Analysis Report Acceptance Review Guide 

For a Design Certification (DC) Application 
Background Information 

This Review Guide is intended to be used by the technical branches to perform their acceptance 

reviews of a design certification (DC) application. The findings of the acceptance review will be 

provided to the Lead Project Manager (PM) and Portfolio Manager so they can evaluate 

completeness, technical sufficiency and the impacts of the technical issues identified during this 

review on the pre-baseline schedule. This review guide contains Table 1, “Safety Analysis 

Report Acceptance Review Results Table,” which is organized by review area(s)/topic(s) within 

assigned safety evaluation report (SER) sections. 

Prior to the acceptance review, the project managers and technical reviewers should be familiar 

with: 

• The anticipated scope of review of the DC application including the following: 

o Assigned DC application section(s) and relevant supplemental information 

(e.g., Technical Reports), Design Acceptance Criteria (DAC) and/or Inspections, 

Test, Analysis, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC). 

o Applicability of RG 1.206 

 Cognizant of complete COL application contents 

 Cognizant of COL applicant responsibility when referencing a DC (site 

characteristics, site-specific design information, operational programs) 

o Corresponding section(s) of the standard review plan (SRP). 

o The List of safety analysis report (SAR) Review Areas Potentially Involving More 

Detailed Review in ADAMS (ADAMS Accession No. ML072430683). This list 

does not replace the SRP, but rather represents a list of review areas contained 

within the SRP that may potentially involve more detailed technical review 

(e.g., involve computer code evaluation, detailed data analysis, new safety 

feature, or emerging operating experience). 

o The design-centered-review approach (DCRA),1

 such that staff decisions made on 

the “reference COL” would apply to all “subsequent COLs.” 

o Concurrent reviews (e.g., other DC application reviews, COL application 

referencing the DC review or related topical report reviews). 

o Available risk insights applicable to DC application sections under review. 

• The EPM pre-baseline review schedule and estimated staff-hours. 

The following directions should be used by PMs and technical staff in performing the acceptance 

review. Table 1 should be used to document the acceptance review effort. The information in 

this table may be used to evaluate the acceptability of the COL application for docketing as 

discussed in Section 3.3.2 of the Office Instruction (OI). Each branch may choose to make 

entries for each review area or SRP section in Table 1. Alternatively, a branch may choose to 

enter information only for those technical areas that are found to be incomplete or not technically 

sufficient or those areas that will require changes to resource planning assumptions (+ or -). 

 

1

Additional information on DCRA is provided in SECY-06-0019, dated January 31, 2006. 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 6-2

I. Completeness Review: Verify that the DC application contains all of the information 

required by the applicable regulations for your assigned review(s) as discussed in Section 

3.3.2 of the OI. 

A. Document the review area(s)/topic(s) in Column 1 (List all review topics or only 

those found to be not complete, not technically sufficient, or requiring changes to 

planning assumptions). 

B. Determine whether the applicant has addressed the applicable regulations for the 

assigned review area. (see Enclosure 7 list for 10 CFR 52.47, “Contents of 

applications, technical information,”) [yes/no in Column 2]. 

10 CFR 52.47 identifies prescriptive requirements for the contents of a DC 

application. These requirements are captured in Enclosure 7. However, 52.47 

also contains cross-cutting requirements. For the following cross-cutting 

requirements, determine if any apply to your review section(s). For those in your 

review area, determine if the applicant addressed the proper items. The 

applicant’s compliance with these requirements should be provided in Chapter 1 

of the FSAR: 

1. Three Mile Island (TMI) requirements [10 CFR 52.47(a)(8)]; 

2. Proposed technical resolutions of unresolved safety issues and 

medium-and high-priority generic safety issues [10 CFR 52.47(a)(21)]; 

3. Introduction of new safety features [10 CFR 52.47(c)(2)]; 

4. Operating experience insights incorporated into the plant design [10 CFR 

52.47(a)(22)]; 

5. Conformance with SRP [10 CFR 52.47(a)(9)]; and 

6. A description and analysis of design features for the prevention and 

mitigation of severe accidents [10 CFR 52.47(a)(23)]. 

 Additional cross-cutting issues specifically related to a DC application include: 

The DC applicant will address interface requirements for those design features 

that are outside the scope of the certified design as identified by the applicant; a 

representative conceptual design for those portions of the plant for which the 

application does not seek certification; and justification that the interface 

requirements can be verified with the inspections, tests, or analyses and that the 

method for verification is included in the proposed ITAAC [52.47(a)(24), (25), and 

(26)]. 

The DC applicant should also address applicable licensing and policy issues 

developed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and documented in 

SECY-93-087, dated April 2, 1993 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083370250) and 

the associated SRM for advanced and evolutionary light-water reactor designs 

[per guidance provided in SRP Chapter 1]. 

For each review area/topic not addressed, summarize deficiency in Column 5, and 

promptly notify management of the projects branch. 

II. Technical Sufficiency Review: Identify significant technical deficiencies in the DC 

application associated with your assigned review using the attached table and the 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 6-3

following guidelines. The information contained in the various parts of the DC application 

that are discussed above in the Background Information should also be considered. A 

technical deficiency is defined as missing, improper, inadequate, or incorrect technical 

information needed by the NRC staff to conduct the assigned review. A significant 

technical deficiency is missing information that results in the staff being unable to conduct 

its review of the application against the acceptance criteria in the SRP or conduct its 

review within a predictable timeframe. If a significant technical deficiency is identified, the 

application should not be docketed unless it is able to be addressed through RSIs. Minor 

technical deficiencies, by contrast should be able to be addressed with a reasonable 

round of RAIs and without notably impacting the length of the review (i.e., the applicant 

indicated that the information is available, but was not included as part of the application). 

Additional consideration should be given to any review areas/topics contained in the 

Safety Analysis Report Acceptance Review List that could require more extensive review 

time than is reflected in the EPM pre-baseline review schedule. 

As noted in Section 3.3.2 of the OI, risk insights may be available during the acceptance 

review. If so, these insights should be used to help determine the scope of the technical 

sufficiency review. If a review area/topic is associated with to a risk-significant SSC, 

indicate a yes in Column 6, in the attached table. 

For the determined scope of technical sufficiency review: 

A. Document additional review areas/topics in Column 1, as needed 

B. Determine whether the DC application section(s) is(are) sufficient to conduct the 

detailed technical review for the review areas/topics identified in Column 1 [yes/no 

in Column 3] 

C. Determine whether the review areas/topics identified in Column 1 can be resolved 

through the RAI process. Discuss with management whether to categorize the 

deficiency as “significant.” [yes/no in Column 4] 

D. Document the technical deficiency(ies) that could prevent you from conducting 

your detailed technical review in Column 5. Describe the basis(es) for the 

deficiencies. These review area/topics may involve a significant amount of time to 

address (e.g., development of computer codes or first-of-a-kind testing), so 

estimate how this could impact the overall review schedule for your DC application 

section. 

E. Notify the Lead PM of significant deficiencies as soon as they are identified. 

F. Determine whether the identified technical deficiency is related to a risk-significant 

SSC [yes/no in Column 6]. 

III. Changes to Planning Assumptions: 

 Augmenting Planned Resources (Staff-Hours): 

Re-evaluate the total review time that will be needed to conduct a review based on the 

significant technical deficiencies or new, unplanned review items documented in the 

Table 1. The acceptance review allows the reviewer to identify potential changes from 

the EPM pre-baseline review schedule and estimated staff-hours so that the Portfolio 

Manager can develop an application-specific baseline review schedule and adjust the 

 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 6-4

staff-hours. The following characteristics of a DC application may require additional 

review time: 

A. Inclusion or reference to new safety features;

B. Alternative approaches to SRP acceptance criteria (including alternatives to 

regulatory guides);

C. Other miscellaneous review topics that have not been adequately represented 

within the baseline model.

Next, determine whether the review effort is reflected within the pre-baseline model 

(e.g., the estimated staff-hours are sufficient to perform the review of the alternative to an 

SRP acceptance criteria?) [yes/no in Column 7]. For each “no” in table, identify the 

change to the EPM staff-hour planning assumptions and provide a basis (e.g., “departure 

not addressed in pre-baseline review schedule”) in Column 8. Identify the projected 

review time in staff-hours needed to address all of the applicable items above for your DC 

application section. 

Reducing or Eliminating Planned Resources (Staff-Hours): 

For some SRP sections, the applicant may have incorporated by reference a technical 

report that has previously been approved by staff. This could allow for a reduction in the 

level of effort for a particular review area as it would relate to ensuring applicability of the 

technical report and the balance of information within the scope of the review. The 

responsible branch then needs to determine how much to reduce the pre-baseline model 

and answer “no” for Column 7 in Table 1. For each “no” in the table, identify the change 

to the EPM staff-hour planning assumptions and provide a basis (e.g., “limited review not 

reflected in pre-baseline review schedule”) in Column 8. Identify the projected review 

time in staff-hours needed to address all of the applicable items above for your DC 

application section. 

Review the pre-populated EPM baseline review schedule provided by Planning and 

Scheduling and notify the branch chief and Lead PM if schedule changes are needed. 

IV. Identification of Dependencies between Concurrent Reviews: Identify any known 

dependencies between concurrent reviews. These dependencies could be between a 

DC review and a concurrent COL review (e.g., EPR DCD review concurrent with the EPR 

RCOL review), or there could be dependencies between reference COLs and subsequent 

COLs. These dependencies could potentially result in changes to planning assumptions. 

For example, the staff-hours associated with the review of a topical or technical report 

may be captured separate from the baseline review schedule. Those hours should not 

be double counted in related reviews. However, this does not change the duration of the 

task. 

A. Identify and document review dependencies in Table 1(Columns 10 and 11). 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 6-5 

Table 1: Safety Analysis Report Acceptance Review Results for [Applicant Name] [Design Center Name] [Application Type]2

SAR Section: _________ Technical Branch:_______(Primary/Secondary) Technical Reviewer: ___________ Branch Chief:______________ SRP Section: ___________ Date:__________

Are there any technical deficiencies, changes in planning assumptions, or dependencies on concurrent reviews? Yes/No, Identify specific review area/topic in table below. 

1. Review Area/Topic* 

Completeness and Technical Sufficiency Which 

Form Basis for Acceptability for Docketing 

Changes to Planning Assumptions to be 

Considered in Development of Baseline 

Review Schedule Review Dependencies Among Concurrent Reviews 

2. Does DCA section address the items required 

by regulation (refer to Enclosure 7? (Yes/No) 

cally sufficient for this 3. Is DC section techni

review area/ topic? (yes/no)** 

4. Can the technical deficiency be resolved 

through the RSI or RAI process within a 

predictable timeframe? (yes/no)*** 

 5. If no, for either completeness or technical sufficiency, identify deficiency(ies). This information will be needed for technical review. 

cal deficiency related to a 6. Is the identified techni

risk-significant SSC)? (yes/no)  

7. Are the pre-baseline review schedule and 

estimated staff-hours appropriate? (yes/no) 8. For each no, identify the change (+ or -) or basis for change. 

9. Identify the total review time in staff-hours** *** 

10. Can the review of the area/topic be completed 

 a concurrent review? without the completion of

(yes/no) 

11. For each no, identify which application (DCD or COLA) and section. 

RSI RAI 

*Review Area/Topic: Item identified in RG 1.206, SRP or the regulations. **Technical Sufficiency: The application is compared against the SRP acceptance criteria. Note: New safety features, alternate regulatory compliance approaches, 

should not be treated as deficiencies and factored into the basis for rejecting the application, unless staff determines that there is insufficient technical information 

associated with the respective item. These items are factored into confirmation of planning assumptions. ***Significant deficiencies are those review area/topic which impact the staff’s ability to conduct the detailed technical review or complete its review within a predictable timeframe.   Division of Safety Systems & Risk Assessment will provide risk significance information at time of review, if available. ** ***Identification of new review time is on a FSAR section basis and consistent with the review phases within the EPM. Changes from the pre-baseline review schedule 

and estimated hours should be on that basis. 

2 NOTE: Branches may use this form to make entries for all review area/topics; or alternatively, to make entries only for those areas that have 

issues with completeness, sufficiency, or those that require changes (+ or -) to baseline estimated staff-hours. 
ENCLOSURE 7 

Design Certification Application Acceptance Review Checklist 
The DC application must include the following technical information required by 10 CFR 52.47: 

Item Information Required in DC Application 

10 CFR 52.47(a)

DCD 

Section

Yes No

1 The site parameters postulated for the design, and an analysis and 

evaluation of the design in terms of those site parameters 

Ch. 2 

2 A description and analysis of the structures, systems, and components 

(SSCs) of the facility, with emphasis upon performance requirements, the 

bases, with technical justification therefore, upon which these 

requirements have been established, and the evaluations required to 

show that safety functions will be accomplished. 

Systemrelated 

chaps. 

and/or Ch. 

15 

 

 It is expected that the standard plant will reflect through its design, 

construction, and operation an extremely low probability for accidents that 

could result in the release of significant quantities of radioactive fission 

products. The description shall be sufficient to permit understanding of 

the system designs and their relationship to the safety evaluations. Such 

items as the [ ] shall be discussed insofar as they are pertinent: 

 

• Reactor Core Ch. 4 

• RCS Ch. 5 

• I&C Systems Ch. 7 

• Electrical Systems Ch. 8 

• Containment Systems Sec. 6.2 

• Other engineered safety features Ch. 6 

• Auxiliary Systems Ch. 9 

• Emergency Systems Ch. 6 

• Power Conversion Systems Ch.10 

• Radioactive Waste Handling Systems Ch. 11 

• Fuel Handling Systems Sec 9.1 

 The following power reactor design characteristics will be taken into 

consideration by the Commission: 

 

 i) Intended use of the reactor including the proposed maximum power 

level and the nature and inventory of contained radioactive materials;

Ch. 1, 11, 

and 12 

 

 ii) The extent to which generally accepted engineering standards are 

applied to the design of the reactor; 

Ch. 3 

 iii) The extent to which the reactor incorporates unique, unusual or 

enhanced safety features having a significant bearing on the 

probability or consequences of accidental release of radioactive 

materials; 

Ch. 1 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-2 

Item Information Required in DC Application 

10 CFR 52.47(a)

DCD 

Section

Yes No

 iv) The safety features that are to be engineered into the facility and 

those barriers that must be breached as a result of an accident 

before a release of radioactive material to the environment can 

occur. Special attention must be directed to plant design features 

intended to mitigate the radiological consequences of accidents. In 

performing this assessment, an applicant shall assume a fission 

product release3

 from the core into the containment assuming that 

the facility is operated at the ultimate power level contemplated. The 

applicant shall perform an evaluation and analysis of the postulated 

fission product release, using the expected demonstrable 

containment leak rate and any fission product cleanup systems 

intended to mitigate the consequences of the accidents, together 

with applicable postulated site parameters, including site 

meteorology, to evaluate the offsite radiological consequences. The 

evaluation must determine that; (A) An individual located at any point 

on the boundary of the exclusion area for any 2-hour period following 

the onset of the postulated fission product release, would not receive 

a radiation dose in excess of 25 rem4

 total effective dose equivalent 

(TEDE); (B) An individual located at any point on the outer boundary 

of the low population zone, who is exposed to the radioactive cloud 

resulting from the postulated fission product release (during the 

entire period of its passage) would not receive a radiation dose in 

excess of 25 rem TEDE; 

3

 The fission product release assumed for this evaluation should be based 

upon a major accident, hypothesized for purposes of site analysis or 

postulated from considerations of possible accidental events. These 

accidents have generally been assumed to result in substantial meltdown of 

the core with subsequent release into the containment of appreciable 

quantities of fission products. 

4 A whole body dose of 25 rem has been stated to correspond numerically to 

the once in a lifetime accidental or emergency dose for radiation workers 

which, according to NCRP recommendations at the time could be 

disregarded in the determination of their radiation exposure status (see NBS 

Handbook 69 dated June 5, 1959). However, its use is not intended to imply 

that this number constitutes an acceptable limit for an emergency dose to 

the public under accident conditions. This dose value has been set forth in 

this section as a reference value, which can be used in the evaluation of 

plant design features with respect to postulated reactor accidents, to assure 

that these designs provide assurance of low risk of public exposure to 

radiation, in the event of an accident.

Ch. 6 

3 The application contains the design of the facility, including: 

 i) the principle design criteria for the facility [see Enclosure 1 

to this appendix for a tabulated list of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50] 

establishes minimum requirements for the principal design criteria for 

water-cooled nuclear power plants similar in design and location to 

plants for which construction permits have previously been issued by 

the Commission and provides guidance to applicants in establishing 

principal design criteria for other types of nuclear power units 

Sec. 3.1 

 ii) the design bases and their relation to the principal design criteria Chps. 2–12 

and 15 

 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-3 

Item Information Required in DC Application 

10 CFR 52.47(a)

DCD 

Section

Yes No

 iii) information relative to materials of construction, arrangement, and 

dimensions, sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the 

design will conform to the design bases with adequate margin for 

safety 

Chps. 3–12 

4 An analysis and evaluation of the design and performance of structures, 

systems, and components with the objective of assessing the risk to 

public health and safety resulting from operation of the facility and 

including determination of the margins of safety during normal operations 

and transient conditions anticipated during the life of the facility, and the 

adequacy of structures, systems, and components provided for the 

prevention of accidents and the mitigation of the consequences of 

accidents. 

Chps. 3–12 

and 15 

 

5 Analysis and evaluation of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) 

cooling performance and the need for high-point vents following 

postulated loss-of-coolant accidents shall be performed in accordance 

with the requirements of §§ 50.46 and 50.46a of this chapter. 

Secs. 

5.4.12, 6.2, 

and 6.3 

 

6 The kinds and quantities of radioactive materials expected to be produced 

in the operation and the means for controlling and limiting radioactive 

effluents and radiation exposures within the limits set forth in part 20 of 

this chapter. 

Chps. 11 

and 12 

 

7 The information required by 10 CFR 20.1406 Chps. 11 

and 12 

 

8 The technical qualifications of the applicant to engage in the proposed 

activities in accordance with the regulations in this chapter; 

Sec. 1.4 

9 The information necessary to demonstrate compliance with any 

technically relevant portions of the Three Mile Island requirements set 

forth in 10 CFR 50.34(f), except paragraphs (f)(1)(xii), (f)(2)(ix), and 

(f)(3)(v); 

[see Enclosure 2 to this appendix for §50.34(f) requirements checklist] 

Sec. 1.9, 

Ch. 19 

 

10 For applications for light-water cooled nuclear power plants, an evaluation 

of the standard plant design against the Standard Review Plan (SRP) 

revision in effect 6 months before the docket date of the application. The 

evaluation required by this section shall include an identification and 

description of all differences in design features, analytical techniques, and 

procedural measures proposed for the design and those corresponding 

features, techniques, and measures given in the SRP acceptance criteria. 

Where a difference exists, the evaluation shall discuss how the proposed 

alternative provides an acceptable method of complying with the 

Commission's regulations, or portions thereof, that underlie the 

corresponding SRP acceptance criteria. The SRP is not a substitute for 

the regulations, and compliance is not a requirement. 

Sec. 1.9** 

11 The information with respect to the design of equipment to maintain 

control over radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents 

produced during normal reactor operations described in 10 CFR 

50.34a(e); 

Ch. 11 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-4 

Item Information Required in DC Application 

10 CFR 52.47(a)

DCD 

Section

Yes No

12 Proposed TS prepared in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 

50.36 and 10 CFR 50.36a 

Chps. 16 

&11 

 

13 An analysis and description of the equipment and systems for 

combustible gas control as required by 10 CFR 50.44; 

Sec. 6.2.5 

14 The list of electric equipment important to safety that is required by 

10 CFR 50.49(d); 

Sec. 3.11, 

Ch. 8 

 

15 A description of protection provided against pressurized thermal shock 

events, including projected values of the reference temperature for 

reactor vessel beltline materials as defined in 10 CFR 50.60 and 50.61; 

Sec. 5.3.2 

16 Information demonstrating how the applicant will comply with 

requirements for reduction of risk from anticipated transients without 

scram events in § 50.62; 

Secs. 4.2 

and 15.8 

 

17 A coping analysis, and any design features necessary to address station 

blackout, as required by 10 CFR 50.63 

Sec. 8.4 

18 Information demonstrating how the applicant will comply with 

requirements for criticality accidents in § 50.68(b)(2)–(b)(4); 

Sec. 9.1 

19 A description and analysis of the fire protection design features for the 

standard plant necessary to comply with 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, 

GDC 3, and § 50.48 of this chapter; 

Sec. 9.5 

20 A description of the quality assurance program applied to the design of 

the structures, systems, and components of the facility. Appendix B to 

10 CFR Part 50, "Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants 

and Fuel Reprocessing Plants," sets forth the requirements for quality 

assurance programs for nuclear power plants. The description of the 

quality assurance program for a nuclear power plant shall include a 

discussion of how the applicable requirements of appendix B to 10 CFR 

part 50 were satisfied; 

Ch. 17 

21 The information necessary to demonstrate that the standard plant 

complies with the earthquake engineering criteria in 10 CFR part 50, 

appendix S; 

Sec. 3.7 

22 Proposed technical resolutions of those Unresolved Safety Issues and 

medium- and high-priority generic safety issues which are identified in the 

version of NUREG–0933 current on the date up to 6 months before the 

docket date of the application and which are technically relevant to the 

design; 

Sec. 1.9 

23 The information necessary to demonstrate how operating experience 

insights have been incorporated into the plant design; 

Sec. 1.9** 

24 For light-water reactor designs, a description and analysis of design 

features for the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents, 

(e.g., challenges to containment integrity caused by core-concrete 

interaction, steam explosion, high-pressure core melt ejection, hydrogen 

combustion, and containment bypass); 

Ch. 19 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-5 

Item Information Required in DC Application 

10 CFR 52.47(a)

DCD 

Section

Yes No

25 A representative conceptual design for those portions of the plant for 

which the application does not seek certification, to aid the NRC in its 

review of the FSAR and to permit assessment of the adequacy of the 

interface requirements in paragraph (a)(25) of this section; 

As 

applicable 

 

26 The interface requirements to be met by those portions of the plant for 

which the application does not seek certification. These requirements 

must be sufficiently detailed to allow completion of the FSAR; 

As 

applicable 

 

27 Justification that compliance with the interface requirements of paragraph 

(a)(25) of this section is verifiable through inspections, tests, or analyses. 

The method to be used for verification of interface requirements must be 

included as part of the proposed ITAAC required by paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section; 

As 

applicable 

 

28 A description of the design-specific probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) 

and its results. 

Ch. 19 

 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-6 

Item Information Required in DC Application 

10 CFR 52.47(b)

DCD 

Section Yes No

1 The proposed inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria 

that are necessary and sufficient to provide reasonable assurance 

that, if the inspections, tests, and analyses are performed and the 

acceptance criteria met, a facility that incorporates the design 

certification has been constructed and will be operated in 

conformity with the design certification, the provisions of the Act, 

and the Commission's rules and regulations; 

Sec. 

14.3 

 

2 An environmental report as required by 10 CFR 51.55. Ch. 19 

Item Information Required in DC Application 

10 CFR 52.47(c), as applicable to particular applications:

DCD 

Section Yes No

1 An application for certification of a nuclear power reactor design 

that is an evolutionary change from light-water reactor designs of 

plants that have been licensed and in commercial operation before 

April 18, 1989, must provide an essentially complete nuclear power 

plant design except for site-specific elements such as the service 

water intake structure and the ultimate heat sink; 

 

2 An application for certification of a nuclear power reactor design 

that differs significantly from the light-water reactor designs 

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section or uses simplified, 

inherent, passive, or other innovative means to accomplish its 

safety functions must provide an essentially complete nuclear 

power reactor design except for site-specific elements such as the 

service water intake structure and the ultimate heat sink, and must 

meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.43(e); 

Ch. 1 

3 An application for certification of a modular nuclear power reactor 

design must describe and analyze the possible operating 

configurations of the reactor modules with common systems, 

interface requirements, and system interactions. The final safety 

analysis must also account for differences among the 

configurations, including any restrictions that will be necessary 

during the construction and startup of a given module to ensure the 

safe operation of any module already operating. 

 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-7 

Administrative Requirements

 The DC application meets the following administrative requirements: 

Item Requirements Yes No

52.45 The application must comply with the applicable filing requirements of §§ 52.3 and 

§§ 2.811 through 2.819 of this chapter. 

 

52.46 The application must contain all of the information required by 10 CFR 50.33(a) through (c) and 

(j). 

50.33 (a) Name of applicant 

50.33 (b) Address of applicant 

50.33 (c) Description of business or occupation of applicant 

50.33 (j) If the application contains Restricted Data or other defense information, it 

shall be prepared in such manner that all Restricted Data and other defense 

information are separated from the unclassified information. 

 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-8 

10 CFR 50.34(f), “Additional TMI-Related Requirements” Checklist

The application contains the information with respect to compliance with technically relevant 

positions of the TMI requirements in 10 CFR 50.34(f), with the exception of the combustible gas 

control requirements of §50.34(f)(1)(xii), (f)(2)(ix), and (f)(3)(v), which have been superceded by 

10 CFR 50.44. 

50.34(f) 

Item

Requirement Action 

Plan Item*

N/A Yes No

(1) To satisfy the following requirements, the application shall provide sufficient information to describe 

the nature of the studies, how they are to be conducted, estimated submittal dates, and a program to 

ensure that the results of these studies are factored into the final design of the facility. For licensees 

identified in the introduction to paragraph (f) of this section, all studies shall be completed no later than 

2 years following issuance of the construction permit or manufacturing license. For all other applicants, 

the studies must be submitted as part of the FSAR. 

(1)(i) Perform a plant/site-specific PRA, the aim of which is to 

seek such improvements in the reliability of core 

and containment heat removal systems as are 

significant and practical and do not impact excessively 

on the plant. 

II.B.8 

(1)(ii) Perform an evaluation of the proposed auxiliary 

feedwater system (AFWS), to include (PWRs only): 

II.E.1.1 

(A) A simplified AFWS reliability analysis using event 

tree and fault-tree logic techniques 

 

(B) A design review of AFWS 

(C) An evaluation of AFWS flow design bases 

and criteria 

 

(1)(iii) Perform an evaluation of the potential for and impact of 

reactor coolant pump seal damage following small-break 

LOCA with LOOP. If damage cannot be precluded, 

provide an analysis of the limiting small-break LOCA 

with subsequent reactor coolant pump seal damage. 

II.K.2.16 

and 

II.K.3.25 

 

(1)(iv) Perform an analysis of the probability of a small-break 

LOCA caused by a stuck-open power-operated relief 

valve (PORV). If this probability is a significant 

contributor to the probability of small-break LOCAs from 

all causes, provide a description and evaluation of the 

effect on small-break LOCA probability of an automatic 

PORV isolation system that would operate when the 

RCS pressure falls after the PORV has opened. (PWRs 

only) 

II.K.3.2 

* Alphanumeric designations corresponding to related action plan items in NUREG-0718 and NUREG-0660, are provided herein 

for information only.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-9 

50.34(f) 

Item

Requirement Action 

Plan Item*

N/A Yes No

(1)(v) Perform an evaluation of the safety effectiveness 

of providing for separation of high-pressure coolant 

injection (HPCI) and RCIC system initiation levels so 

that the RCIC system initiates at a higher water level 

than the HPCI system, and of providing that both 

systems restart on low water level. (For plants with 

high-pressure core spray [HPCS] systems in lieu of 

HPCI systems, substitute the words, “high-pressure core 

spray” for “high-pressure coolant injection” and “HPCS” 

for “HPCI.”) (BWRs only) 

II.K.3.13 

(1)(vi) Perform a study to identify practicable system 

modifications that would reduce challenges and failures 

of relief valves, without compromising the performance 

of the valves or other systems. (BWRs only) 

II.K.3.16 

(1)(vii) Perform a feasibility and risk assessment study 

to determine the optimum automatic depressurization 

system (ADS) design modifications that would eliminate 

the need for manual activation to ensure adequate core 

cooling. (BWRs only) 

II.K.3.18 

(1)(viii) Perform a study of the effect on all core-cooling modes 

under accident conditions of designing the core spray 

and low-pressure coolant injection systems to ensure 

that the systems will automatically restart on loss of 

water level, after having been manually stopped, if an 

initiation signal is still present. (BWRs only) 

II.K.3.21 

(1)(ix) Perform a study to determine the need for additional 

space cooling to ensure reliable long-term operation 

of the RCIC and HPCI systems, following a complete 

LOOP to the plant for at least 2 hours. (For plants with 

high-pressure core spray [HPCS] systems in lieu of highpressure coolant injection systems, substitute the words, 

“high-pressure core spray” for “high-pressure coolant 

injection” and “HPCS” for “HPCI.”) (BWRs only) 

II.K.3.24 

(1)(x) Perform a study to ensure that the automatic 

depressurization system, valves, accumulators, 

and associated equipment and instrumentation will be 

capable of performing their intended functions during 

and following an accident situation, taking no credit for 

non-safety related equipment or instrumentation, and 

accounting for normal expected air (or nitrogen) leakage 

through valves. (BWRs only) 

II.K.3.28 

(1)(xi) Provide an evaluation of depressurization methods, 

other than by full actuation of the automatic 

depressurization system, that would reduce 

the possibility of exceeding vessel integrity limits during 

rapid cooldown. (BWRs only) 

II.K.3.45 

* Alphanumeric designations corresponding to related action plan items in NUREG-0718 and NUREG-0660, are provided herein 

for information only.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-10 

50.34(f) 

Item

Requirement Action 

Plan Item*

N/A Yes No

(2) To satisfy the following requirements, the application shall provide sufficient information 

to demonstrate that the required actions will be satisfactorily completed by the operating license stage. 

This information is of the type customarily required to satisfy 10 CFR 50.35(a)(2) or to address 

unresolved GSI. 

(2)(i) Provide a simulator capability that correctly models 

the control room and includes the capability to simulate 

small-break LOCAs. (Applicable to construction permit 

applicants only) 

I.A.4.2 

(2)(ii) Establish a program, to begin during construction 

and follow into operation, for integrating and expanding 

current efforts to improve plant procedures. The scope 

of the program shall include emergency procedures, 

reliability analyses, human factors engineering, crisis 

management, operator training, and coordination with 

(the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations) and other 

industry efforts. (Applicable to construction permit 

applicants only) 

I.C.9 

(2)(iii) Provide, for Commission review, a control room design 

that reflects state-of-the-art human factors principles 

prior to committing to fabrication or revision of fabricated 

control room panels and layouts. 

I.D.1 

(2)(iv) Provide a plant safety parameter display console that 

will display to operators a minimum set of parameters 

defining the safety status of the plant, capable of 

displaying a full range of important plant parameters and 

data trends on demand, and capable of indicating when 

process limits are being approached or exceeded. 

I.D.2 

(2)(v) Provide for automatic indication of the bypassed 

and operable status of safety systems. 

I.D.3 

(2)(vi) Provide the capability of high-point venting 

of noncondensible gases from the RCS, and other 

systems that may be required to maintain adequate core 

cooling. Systems to achieve this capability shall be 

capable of being operated from the control room, and 

their operation shall not lead to an unacceptable 

increase in the probability of LOCA or an unacceptable 

challenge to containment integrity. 

II.B.1 

* Alphanumeric designations corresponding to related action plan items in NUREG-0718 and NUREG-0660, are provided herein 

for information only.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-11 

50.34(f) 

Item

Requirement Action 

Plan Item*

N/A Yes No

(2)(vii) Perform radiation and shielding design reviews 

of spaces around systems that may, as a result 

of an accident, contain accident source term11

radioactive materials, and design as necessary to permit 

adequate access to important areas and to protect 

safety equipment from the radiation environment. 11 Footnote 11 in 10 CFR 50.34(f) reads as follows: “The fission 

product release assumed for these calculations should be based 

upon a major accident, hypothesized for purposes of site analysis or 

postulated from considerations of possible accidental events, that 

would result in potential hazards not exceeded by those considered 

credible. Such accidents have generally been assumed to result in 

substantial meltdown of the core with subsequent release 

of appreciable quantities of fission products.”

II.B.2 

(2)(viii) Provide a capability to promptly obtain and analyze 

samples from the RCS and containment that may 

contain accident source term11 radioactive materials 

without radiation exposures to any individual exceeding 

5 rems to the whole body or 50 rems to the extremities. 

Materials to be analyzed and quantified include certain 

radionuclides that are indicators of the degree of core 

damage (e.g., noble gases, radioiodines and cesiums, 

and nonvolatile isotopes), hydrogen in the containment 

atmosphere, dissolved gases, chloride, and boron 

concentrations. 

II.B.3 

(2)(x) Provide a test program and associated model 

development, and conduct tests to qualify RCS relief 

and safety valves and, for PWRs, PORV block valves, 

for all fluid conditions expected under operating 

conditions, transients, and accidents. Consideration of 

ATWS conditions shall be included in the test program. 

Actual testing under ATWS conditions need not be 

carried out until subsequent phases of the test program 

are developed. 

II.D.1 

(2)(xi) Provide direct indication of relief and safety valve 

position (open or closed) in the control room. 

II.D.3 

(2)(xii) Provide automatic and manual auxiliary feedwater 

(AFW) system initiation, and provide AFW system flow 

indication in the control room. (PWRs only) 

II.E.1.2 

(2)(xiii) Provide pressurizer heater power supply and associated 

motive and control power interfaces sufficient to 

establish and maintain natural circulation in hot standby 

conditions with only onsite power available. (PWRs 

only) 

II.E.3.1 

* Alphanumeric designations corresponding to related action plan items in NUREG-0718 and NUREG-0660, are provided herein 

for information only.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-12 

50.34(f) 

Item

Requirement Action 

Plan Item*

N/A Yes No

(2)(xiv) Provide containment isolation systems that: II.E.4.2 

 (A) Ensure all non-essential systems are isolated 

automatically by the containment isolation system 

 

(B) For each non-essential penetration (except 

instrument lines) have two isolation barriers in series 

 

(C) Do not result in reopening of the containment 

isolation valves on resetting of the isolation signal 

 

(D) Utilize a containment set point pressure for initiating 

containment isolation as low as is compatible with 

normal operation 

 

(E) Include automatic closing on a high radiation signal 

for all systems that provide a path to the environs 

 

(2)(xv) Provide a capability for containment purging/venting 

designed to minimize the purging time consistent with as 

low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles for 

occupational exposure. Provide and demonstrate high 

assurance that the purge system will reliably isolate 

under accident conditions. 

II.E.4.4 

(2)(xvi) Establish a design criterion for the allowable number of 

actuation cycles of the ECCS and reactor protection 

system consistent with the expected occurrence rates of 

severe overcooling events (considering both anticipated 

transients and accidents). (B&W designs only) 

II.E.5.1 

(2)(xvii) Provide instrumentation to measure, record, and readout 

in the control room (A) containment pressure, (B) 

containment water level, (C) containment hydrogen 

concentration, (D) containment radiation intensity (high 

level), and (E) noble gas effluents at all potential, 

accident release points. Provide for continuous 

sampling of radioactive iodines and particulates in 

gaseous effluents from all potential accident release 

points, and for onsite capability to analyze and measure 

these samples. 

II.F.1 

(2)(xviii) Provide instruments that provide in the control room an 

unambiguous indication of inadequate core cooling, 

such as primary coolant saturation meters in PWRs, and 

a suitable combination of signals from indicators of 

coolant level in the reactor vessel and in-core 

thermocouples in PWRs and BWRs. 

II.F.2 

(2)(xix) Provide instrumentation adequate for monitoring plant 

conditions following an accident that includes core 

damage. 

II.F.3 

* Alphanumeric designations corresponding to related action plan items in NUREG-0718 and NUREG-0660, are provided herein 

for information only.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-13 

50.34(f) 

Item

Requirement Action 

Plan Item*

N/A Yes No

(2)(xx) Provide power supplies for pressurizer relief valves, 

block valves, and level indicators such that (A) level 

indicators are powered from vital buses; (B) motive and 

control power connections to the emergency power 

sources are through devices qualified in accordance with 

requirements applicable to systems important to safety, 

and (C) electric power is provided from emergency 

power sources. (PWRs only) 

II.G.1 

(2)(xxi) Design auxiliary heat removal systems such that 

necessary automatic and manual actions can be taken 

to ensure proper functioning when the main feedwater 

system is not operable. (BWRs only) 

II.K.1.22 

(2)(xxii) Perform a failure modes and effects analysis 

of the integrated control system (ICS) to include 

consideration of failures and effects of input and output 

signals to the ICS. (B&W designs only) 

II.K.2.9 

(2)(xxiii) Provide, as part of the reactor protection system, 

an anticipatory reactor trip that would be actuated 

on loss of main feedwater and on turbine trip. 

(B&W designs only) 

II.K.2.10 

(2)(xxiv) Provide the capability to record reactor vessel water 

level in one location on recorders that meet normal postaccident recording requirements. (BWRs only) 

II.K.3.23 

(2)(xxv) Provide an onsite Technical Support Center, an onsite 

Operational Support Center, and, for construction permit 

applications only, a near-site Emergency Operations 

Facility. 

III.A.1.2 

(2)(xxvi) Provide for leakage control and detection in the design 

of systems outside containment that contain (or might 

contain) accident source term11 radioactive materials 

following an accident. Applicants shall submit a leakage 

control program, including an initial test program, a 

schedule for retesting these systems, and the actions to 

be taken for minimizing leakage from such systems. 

The goal is to minimize potential exposures to workers 

and the public, and to provide reasonable assurance 

that excessive leakage will not prevent the use of 

systems needed in an emergency. 

III.D.1.1 

(2)(xxvii) Provide for monitoring of in-plant radiation and airborne 

radioactivity as appropriate for a broad range of routine 

and accident conditions. 

III.D.3.3 

(2)(xxviii) Evaluate potential pathways for radioactivity 

and radiation that may lead to control room habitability 

problems under accident conditions resulting in 

an accident source term11 release, and make necessary 

design provisions to preclude such problems. 

III.D.3.4 

* Alphanumeric designations corresponding to related action plan items in NUREG-0718 and NUREG-0660, are provided herein 

for information only.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-14 

50.34(f) 

Item

Requirement Action 

Plan Item*

N/A Yes No

(3) To satisfy the following requirements, the application shall provide sufficient information 

to demonstrate that the requirement has been met. This information is of the type customarily required 

to satisfy paragraph (a)(1) of this section or to address the applicant’s technical qualifications and 

management structure and competence. 

(3)(i) Provide administrative procedures for evaluating 

operating, design, and construction experience 

and for ensuring that applicable important industry 

experiences will be provided in a timely manner to those 

designing and constructing the plant. 

I.C.5 

(3)(ii) Ensure that the QA list required by Criterion II in 

Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 includes all SSC 

important to safety. 

I.F.1 

(3)(iii) Establish a QA program based on consideration of 

(A) ensuring independence of the organization 

performing checking functions from the organization 

responsible for performing the functions; (B) performing 

QA/quality control (QC) functions at construction sites to 

the maximum feasible extent; (C) including QA 

personnel in the documented review of and concurrence 

in quality related procedures associated with design, 

construction, and installation; (D) establishing criteria for 

determining QA programmatic requirements; 

(E) establishing qualification requirements for QA and 

QC personnel; (F) sizing the QA staff commensurate 

with its duties and responsibilities; (G) establishing 

procedures for maintenance of “as-built” documentation; 

and (H) providing a QA role in design and analysis 

activities. 

I.F.2 

(3)(iv) Provide one or more dedicated containment 

penetrations, equivalent in size to a single 

3-foot-diameter opening, in order not to preclude future 

installation of systems to prevent containment failure, 

such as a filtered vented containment system. 

II.B.8 

(3)(vi) For plant designs with external hydrogen recombiners, 

provide redundant dedicated containment penetrations 

so that, assuming a single failure, the recombiner 

systems can be connected to the containment 

atmosphere. 

II.E.4.1 

* Alphanumeric designations corresponding to related action plan items in NUREG-0718 and NUREG-0660, are provided herein 

for information only.
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 7-15 

50.34(f) 

Item

Requirement Action 

Plan Item*

N/A Yes No

(3)(vii) Provide a description of the management plan for design 

and construction activities, to include: (A) the 

organizational and management structure singularly 

responsible for direction of design and construction of 

the proposed plant; (B) technical resources director by 

the applicant; (C) details of the interaction of design and 

construction within the applicant’s organization and the 

manner by which the applicant will ensure close 

integration of the architect engineer and the nuclear 

steam supply vendor; (D) proposed procedures for 

handling the transition to operation; (E) the degree of 

top-level management oversight and technical control to 

be exercised by the applicant during design 

and construction, including the preparation 

and implementation of procedures necessary to guide 

the effort. 

II.J.3.1 

* Alphanumeric designations corresponding to related action plan items in NUREG-0718 and NUREG-0660, are provided herein 

for information only.
ENCLOSURE 8 

Environmental Report Acceptance Review Guide 

For a Design Certification Application 
Background Information 

This Review Guide is intended to be used by the technical branches with responsibility for the 

Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) Chapter 7, Environmental Impacts of Postulated 

Accidents of NUREG-1555 and Standard Review Plan (SRP) Chapter 19, Severe Accidents, of 

NUREG-0800 to document the results of their acceptance reviews of a design certification 

application’s Environmental Report (ER). The results of the acceptance review will be provided 

to the environmental PM and planning and scheduling project managers so they can evaluate 

the impacts of the technical issues identified during this review on the pre-baseline schedule. 

The technical branch chiefs will communicate results and periodic status of the acceptance 

review as necessary to the environmental PM and the Lead PM branch chiefs. This review 

guide contains Table 1, “Environmental Report Acceptance Review Results Table,” which is 

organized by issue area(s) within the ESRP for Sections 7.2 and 7.3 (see Appendix A, of the 

Environmental Review Acceptance Checklist for Early Site Permit and Combined License 

Applications ADAMS Accession No. ML072250354). 

Prior to the acceptance review, the environmental PM and technical reviewers should be 

familiar with: 

• The anticipated scope of the design certification (DC) application environmental review 

including: 

o NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan” (SRP), Section 19.0, Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment and Severe Accident evaluation for New Reactors.” 

o Section 7.2, Severe Accidents, and Section 7.3, Severe Accident Mitigation 

Alternatives, of the ESRP, NUREG-1555, “Standard Review Plans for 

Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants.”. 

o Appendix A, Accidents, of the environmental acceptance review checklist in 

ADAMS (ADAMS Accession No. ML072250354) related to severe accidents 

(ESRP Section 7.2) and severe accident mitigation alternatives (ESRP 

Section 7.3). This list is a set of sufficiency review questions based on the 

specific sections in NUREG-15551

. 

o Concurrent reviews (e.g., reviews with regional or generic implications). 

• The Enterprise Project Management (EPM) pre-baseline review schedule and estimated 

staff-hours. 

The following directions should be used by the technical reviewers in performing the acceptance 

review. Table 1 should be used to document the acceptance review effort. The information in 

this table may be used to evaluate the acceptability of the DC application for docketing as 

discussed in Section 3.3.2 of the Office Instruction (OI). Each branch may choose to make 

entries for each review area or ESRP section in Table 1. Alternatively, a branch may choose to 

enter information only for those technical areas that are found to be incomplete or technically 

deficient or for those areas that will require changes to resource planning assumptions. 

 

 

1

The scope of the environmental review for a DC application is limited to the analysis of severe accident 

mitigation design alternatives 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 8-2 

I. Completeness Review: Verify that the DC application’s environmental report contains 

all of the information required by the applicable regulations for your assigned 

review(s) as discussed in Section 3.3.2 of the OI. 

A. Document the review area(s)/topic(s) in Column 1 (List all or only those found to 

be not complete and/or requiring changes to planning assumptions). 

B. Determine whether the applicant has addressed the regulatory requirements for 

an Environmental Report for a Standard Design Certification found at 10 CFR 

51.55(a), which state: (a) Each applicant for a standard design certification under 

subpart B of part 52 of this chapter shall submit with its application a separate 

document entitled, "Applicant's Environmental Report—Standard Design 

Certification." The environmental report must address the costs and benefits of 

severe accident mitigation design alternatives, and the bases for not 

incorporating severe accident mitigation design alternatives in the design to be 

certified. 

C. For each issue area not addressed, summarize deficiency in Column 5 and 

promptly notify EPM and management. 

D. Following review of the ER, the technical branch chief(s) for ESRP Sections 7.2 

and 7.3, and for SRP Section 19.0 provides a memo to the Lead PM branch chief 

which documents any completeness deficiencies found by technical staff during the 

review. The environmental PM Branch Chief would concur on the technical 

branch memos. 

II. Technical Sufficiency Review: Identify significant technical deficiencies in the DC 

application’s environmental report associated with your assigned review using the 

attached table and the following guidelines. The information contained in the various 

parts of the DC application’s environmental report that are discussed above in the 

Background Information should also be considered. A technical deficiency is defined as 

missing, improper, inadequate, or incorrect technical information needed by the NRC 

staff to conduct the assigned review. A significant technical deficiency is missing 

information resulting in the staff being unable to conduct its review of the application 

against the acceptance criteria in the ESRP or complete its review within a predictable 

timeframe. If a significant technical deficiency is identified, the application should not 

be docketed unless it is able to be addressed through RSIs. Minor technical 

deficiencies, by contrast, should be capable of being addressed with a reasonable 

round of RAIs and without notably impacting the overall schedule for the DC 

application. 

For the determined scope of technical sufficiency review: 

A. Document additional issue areas in Column 1, as needed. 

B. Determine whether the DC application’s environmental report section(s) is(are) 

sufficient to conduct the detailed technical review for the issue areas identified 

in Column 1. [yes/no in Column 3] 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 8-3 

C. Determine whether the issue areas identified in Column 1 can be resolved 

through the RAI process. Discuss with management whether to categorize the 

deficiency as “significant.” [yes/no in Column 4] 

D. Document the technical deficiency(ies) that could prevent you from 

conducting your detailed technical review in Column 5. Describe the 

basis(es) for the deficiencies. These review area/topics may involve a 

significant amount of time to address (e.g., development of computer 

codes or first-of-a-kind testing) and estimate how this could impact the 

overall review schedule for your DC application section. 

E. Notify the environmental and Lead PM of significant deficiencies as soon 

as they are identified. 

F. Following review of the ER, the technical branch chief(s) for ESRP Sections 7.2 

and 7.3, and for SRP Section 19.0, provides a memo to the Lead PM branch chief 

which documents any technical sufficiency deficiencies found by technical staff during 

the review. The environmental PM Branch Chief would concur on the technical 

branch memos. 

III. Changes to Planning Assumptions: Re-evaluate the total review time that will be needed 

to conduct a technical review based on the significant technical deficiencies documented 

in the Table 1. The acceptance review allows the reviewer to identify potential changes 

from the EPM pre-baseline review schedule and estimated staff-hours so that the 

Portfolio Manager can develop an application-specific baseline review schedule and 

adjust the resource demands. 

After completing Table 1, the technical staff and environmental PM review the 

pre-populated EPM baseline review schedule provided by the Planning Optimization 

Branch and notify the appropriate branch chiefs if schedule changes are needed. The 

environmental PM should discuss the changes with the technical branch chief and Lead 

PM.

IV. Identification of Dependencies between Concurrent Reviews: Identify any known 

dependencies between concurrent reviews. These dependencies include regional or 

generic implications, or other environmental assessments at the same site. These 

dependencies could potentially result in changes to planning assumptions. Those hours 

should not be double counted in related reviews. However, this does not change the 

duration of the task. 

A. Identify and document review dependencies in Table 1 (Columns 10 and 11). 
NRO Office Instruction NRO-REG-100 8-4 

Table 1: Environmental Report Acceptance Review Results for [Applicant Name] [Design Center Name] Design 

Certification

Issue Area: __________ Technical Branch: (Primary/Secondary): __________ Technical Reviewer(s): _______________ 

Branch Chief _________ Date: ___________ Does the issue area address the applicable regulations: Yes/No Are there any technical deficiencies, changes in planning assumptions, or dependencies on concurrent reviews? Yes/No, Identify specific review area/topic in table below.

1. Issue 

Area/Topic* 

Completeness and Technical Sufficiency 

Which 

Form Basis for Acceptability for Docketing 

Changes to Planning Assumptions to be 

Considered in Development of Baseline Review 

Schedule 

Review Dependencies Among Concurrent 

Reviews 

2. Does the ER address the items required by 

regulation (refer to10 CFR 51.55 ? (Yes/No) 

3. Is ER issue area technically sufficient for this 

review area/ topic? (yes/no)** 

4. Can the technical deficiency be resolved 

through the RAI process? (yes/no)** 5. If no, for either completeness or technical sufficiency, identify deficiency(ies). This information will be needed for technical review. 

7. Are the pre-baseline review schedule and 

estimated staff-hours appropriate for the 

issue area? (yes/no) 

8. For each no, identify the change (or basis for change). 

9. Identify the total review time in staff-hours*** 

10. Can the review of the issue area be 

completed without the completion of a 

concurrent review? (yes/no) 11. For each no, identify which issue area section. 

*Issue Area/Topic: Item identified in 10 CFR 52.47(b)(2)). **Technical Sufficiency: The application is compared against SRP 19.0 and the ESRP acceptance criteria of ESRP Sections 7.2 and 7.3 of the Environmental Acceptance Review Checklist for Early Site Permit and Combined License Applications (see ADAMS Accession No. ML072250354) 

***Identification of new review time is on an issue area section and consistent with the review phases within the EPM. Changes from the prebaseline review schedule and estimated hours should be on that basis.