Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: 6b0b3fb5-ff2d-4827-ba5b-d3630cb3303e
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Power Reactors (Rev. 1)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 1
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2106/ML21069A237.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-05
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-1.112
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
guidance would also be applicable to advanced reactor designs. 2. What is the impact on internal and external stakeholders of not updating the RG for the known issues, in terms of anticipated numbers of licensing and inspection activities over the next several years? The primary use of this RG is for reactor licensing. There is little or no impact on internal and external stakeholders if the NRC endorsed GALE86 code and the ANSI/ANS-18.1- 1999 standard continues to be used in licensing large LWR designs in the U.S. However, the staff is not expecting any large LWR applications in the near future; instead, non-LWR and advanced reactor design applications are anticipated. Therefore, when an applicant or licensee uses calculation models, design parameters, and assumptions that differ from GALE86 and the ANSI/ANS-18.1-1999 standard, the alternative method requires additional review time and requests for additional information. 3. What is an estimate of the level of effort needed to address identified issues in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) and contractor resources? An estimate of the effort needed to review relevant technical and regulatory issues of this RG and to consider new reactor licensing lessons learned from the SMR DCA currently under staff review is 1 FTE. This work can be performed by the staff without the need for contract support. 4. Based on the answers to the questions above, what is the staff action for this guide (Reviewed with no issues identified, Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration, Revise, or Withdraw)? Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration. 5. Provide a conceptual plan and timeframe to address the issues identified during the review. A revision to the RG could benefit new reactor applications. However, with few light water reactor applicants expected in the coming years and significant staff resources necessary to revise the RG, the staff does not believe that a RG update is justified at this time. In