Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: 111d9c37-d539-4042-97a1-8ddc5dd093dc
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste Management Systems, Structures, and Components Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants + HISTORY –HISTORY 07/2020 – Periodic Review of Revision 2 – Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration 03/2018 – Periodic Review of Revision 2 – Revise 06/2015 – Periodic Review of Revision 2 – Revise 08/2000 – DG-1100 , Proposed Revision 2 (Rev. 2)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 1
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2019/ML20190A131.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-1.143
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ubmitted are not expected to revise their radwaste system designs, licenses, or applications based on a revision to the RG. There are not many new light water reactor applications expected in the near future and some potential future applicants may have significantly different radwaste system design and design specifications than large light water reactors. In addition, current guidance continues to provide an acceptable way to meet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements for applicants, and any significant gaps can be addressed through pre-application meetings, regulatory audits, or RAIs. Since a RG update would only benefit new applicants and few light water reactor applications are expected over the next several years, there should be little overall impact from not updating the RG. What is an estimate of the level of effort needed to address identified issues in 3. terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) and contract resources? Revision of the RG would take approximately 0.2 FTE of NRC staff time over a 2 year period. No contract dollars are needed. Based on the answers to the questions above, what is the staff action for this 4. guide (Reviewed with no issues identified, Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration, Revise, or Withdraw)? Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration. The staff will evaluate the need to revise the RG during the next periodic review. Provide a conceptual plan and timeframe to address the issues identified during 5. the review. A revision to the RG could benefit new reactor applications. 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. The staff will evaluate the need to revise the RG during the next periodic review. NOTE: This review was conducted in July 2020 and reflects the staff’s plans as of that date. These plans are tentative and subject to