Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: 239cc7c1-f2cb-46cc-945d-8009db28aa6c
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations + HISTORY - HISTORY 12/2023 – DG-4034 , Proposed Revision 4 12/2011 – DG-4021 , Proposed Revision 3 02/1995 – DG-4004, Second Proposed Revision 2 11/1992 – DG-4003, Proposed Revision 2 (Rev. 4)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 4
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2312/ML23123A090.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-10
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-4.7
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
cribed in NUREG-1537, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors.”k Use of a single, bounding accident analysis does not prevent an applicant from providing analyses for multiple postulated accidents for siting, the set of which bounds the plant behavior. Such an approach could allow reduced conservativism in the plant design by considering multiple source terms based on release mechanisms and plant conditions for different types of events while not fully adopting the methodology described in RG 1.233. (c) Consideration of Uncertainty The radiological releases proposed for use in the siting analysis should provide margin to all design-basis safety analyses. If using a single analysis or derived value, a justification should be provided for why this value adequately bounds the design basis. The more conservative the siting analysis, the simpler this justification can be. j IAEA, Safety Standards, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-2/1, “Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design” (Rev. 1), Vienna, Austria, 2016. k NUREG–1537, Part 1, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content,” and NUREG–1537, Part 2, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria.”, February 1996 (ML12156A069 and ML12156A075). DG-4034, Appendix A, Page A-8 The degree to which uncertainty needs to be considered in the siting analysis depends on both the reactor design and the details of the radiological consequence analysis used to satisfy the regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) (also referenced by 10 CFR 100.21), 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(ix), or 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(vi), as applicable. A simpler design with relatively coarse assumptions might require less accounting for uncertainty at the cost of design margin (e.g., through the use of more conservative assumptions).