Document: NUREG-0800
Document ID: 75093034-0d96-4f33-8b5d-aa7cb62592bf
Document Type: srp
Title: Technical Rationale58
Source: NUREG-0800
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0520/ML052070627.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 13
Section ID: 13.4.57
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ithout prior experience with in nuclear plant design, construction, or operation and those who have such experience. It is important that the reviewer assure himself be convinced that applicants 64 in the former category lacking in experience do not underestimate the magnitude of the task. 65 The reviewer should be alert to the possibility that excessive workloads may be placed upon too small a number of individuals. Interface arrangements and controls between the applicant and major contractors (NSSS vendors, architect/engineers, constructors) should be examined to assure ensure that the applicant will be in charge of and responsible for design and construction activities. If the application involves the addition of more than one unit, the reviewer should assure ensure that headquarters staffing plans take this fact into account. This is particularly important if additional units are scheduled to come on line at intervals of about one year or less, since the shakedown period for the operation of a new plant can be expected to produce quite heavy workloads. In some of these cases the applicant may plan to bolster the plant staff organization during such periods so that it is necessary to evaluate headquarters staffing plans in conjunction with those for the plant staff organization. The reviewer should assess the degree of participation during the design and construction phases by that the headquarters group that typically has plant operating (generating) responsibility. 66 Interfaces between such a group and those with project engineering responsibilities should be examined. The review procedure for this section consists, therefore, of the following:67 1. An examination of the information submitted to determine that all subject matter identified in subsection I above has been addressed. 2. A comparison of the information with the acceptance criteria of subsection II above in the light of the additional points set forth earlier in this SRP section. DRAFT Rev. 3 -