MTA-PRA-001 - Revision history

Colton Smith: Revision 0 Reviewed by Monica Hurley

2026-03-24T13:44:42Z

Revision 0 Reviewed by Monica Hurley

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:44, 24 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{DISPLAYTITLE:Increase Operational Flexibility of Pressure Boundary Components Using an Enhanced Risk‑Informed Categorization Methodology - MTA-PRA-001}}		{{DISPLAYTITLE:Increase Operational Flexibility of Pressure Boundary Components Using an Enhanced Risk‑Informed Categorization Methodology - MTA-PRA-001}}
			[[Modernization_Technology_Assessment\| Return to MTA Table]]
	{{MTATemplate\|\|		{{MTATemplate\|\|
	\| Date \|12/15/2020		\| Date \|12/15/2020
Line 6:		Line 7:
	Licensing and Regulatory Affairs		Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
	\| Reference Implementation Guidance \|		\| Reference Implementation Guidance \|
	Enhanced ~~Risk‑Informed~~ Categorization Methodology for Pressure Boundary Components (EPRI [https://www.epri.com/research/products/~~3002015999 3002015999~~])		Enhanced Risk-Informed Categorization Methodology for Pressure Boundary Components (Revision 1-A) (EPRI [https://www.epri.com/research/products/3002033536 3002033536])

	Development of a Comprehensive Risk‑Informed Methodology for Pressure Boundary Components (EPRI [https://www.epri.com/research/products/3002013139 3002013139])		Development of a Comprehensive Risk‑Informed Methodology for Pressure Boundary Components (EPRI [https://www.epri.com/research/products/3002013139 3002013139])
	\| Industry SME \| EPRI ~~– Patrick O’Regan~~		\| Industry SME \| EPRI Risk and Safety Management Program

	Contact: NuclearPlantMod@epri.com		Contact: NuclearPlantMod@epri.com
	\| Previous Implementation \| Please contact EPRI for implementation examples and contacts.		\| Previous Implementation \| Please contact EPRI for implementation examples and contacts.
	\| Implementation Enablers \| N/A		\| Implementation Enablers \| N/A
	~~\| SWEEP Score \|~~
	* Cost – Level 3 – Implementation cost is less than $1 million per site.
	* Savings – Level 0 – Savings are not evaluated because the process improvement is an enabler, which does not inherently produce cost savings but permits implementation of other improvements.
	* Payback – Level 0 – Because the enhanced methodology is a process enabler, payback will only be realized through successful implementation of the 10 CFR 50.69 program, which is dependent on the cost‑saving measures taken and the lifetime of the facility.
	* Licensing Readiness – Level 3 – No changes are required for implementation. Applicable licensee interactions with the plant’s respective regulator may be required. The effort to gain NRC endorsement is currently underway.
	* Technology Readiness – Level 3 – The methodology is developed and has been implemented at some nuclear plants. Once NRC approval is received, the methodology is ready for wide operational deployment. Implementation guidance and lessons learned will be captured in the updated EPRI report 3002015999.
	* Implementation Proficiency – Level 3 – The methodology can be implemented by all sites regardless of digital experience.
	\| Applicability \| All reactor types		\| Applicability \| All reactor types

	The 10 CFR 50.69 process is an NRC approved rule.		The [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0069 10 CFR 50.69] process is an US NRC approved rule.
	\| Keywords \| Risk-informed categorization; 10 CFR 50.69; pressure boundary components; safety significance		\| Keywords \| Risk-informed categorization; [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0069 10 CFR 50.69]; pressure boundary components; safety significance
	\| Business Case Analysis Cross-Reference \| N/A		\| Business Case Analysis Cross-Reference \| N/A
	}}		}}

	==Description==		==Description==
	The NRC’s 10 CFR 50.69 process allows a plant to categorize the safety significance of its structures, systems, and components (SSCs) using a robust categorization process defined in NEI 00‑04, 10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization Guideline, as endorsed by NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.201. Recent industry experience and understanding of the existing methodology for categorizing pressure boundary components suggests that it requires substantial resources and produces overly conservative results. As a result, an enhanced risk‑informed categorization methodology for pressure boundary components as described in EPRI reports 3002013139 and ~~3002015999~~ has been developed to assist in streamlining the categorization process. This enhanced methodology provides for a full plant evaluation of all safety‑related and non‑safety‑related systems to determine if the pressure boundary components are of high safety significance (HSS) or low safety significance (LSS). Note that use of either methodology is only applicable for plants that already have an approved license amendment request (LAR) for implementation of a 10 CFR 50.69 program. This enhanced methodology is cost effective and stable because it requires a one‑time evaluation and minor changes to inputs will have minimal or no impact on the categorization results.		The US NRC’s [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0069 10 CFR 50.69] process allows a plant to categorize the safety significance of its structures, systems, and components (SSCs) using a robust categorization process defined in [https://www.nei.org/master-document-folder/technical-reports/nei-00-04-10-cfr-50-69-ssc-categorization-guideli NEI 00‑04], [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0069 10 CFR 50.69] SSC Categorization Guideline, as endorsed by US NRC in [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-reactors/rg/division-1/division-1-201 Regulatory Guide 1.201]. Recent industry experience and understanding of the existing methodology for categorizing pressure boundary components suggests that it requires substantial resources and produces overly conservative results. As a result, an enhanced risk‑informed categorization methodology for pressure boundary components as described in EPRI reports [https://www.epri.com/research/products/3002013139 3002013139] and [https://www.epri.com/research/products/3002033536 3002033536] has been developed to assist in streamlining the categorization process. This enhanced methodology provides for a full plant evaluation of all safety‑related and non‑safety‑related systems to determine if the pressure boundary components are of high safety significance (HSS) or low safety significance (LSS). Note that use of either methodology is only applicable for plants that already have an approved license amendment request (LAR) for implementation of a [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0069 10 CFR 50.69] program. This enhanced methodology is cost effective and stable because it requires a one‑time evaluation and minor changes to inputs will have minimal or no impact on the categorization results.

	==Benefits==		==Benefits==
Line 35:		Line 29:
	Level 0 – Savings are not evaluated because the process improvement is an enabler, which does not inherently produce cost savings but permits implementation of other improvements.		Level 0 – Savings are not evaluated because the process improvement is an enabler, which does not inherently produce cost savings but permits implementation of other improvements.
	===Benefits Description===		===Benefits Description===
	Implementation of an enhanced risk-informed categorization methodology for pressure boundary components enables efficient implementation of 10 CFR 50.69 which can result in savings through:		Implementation of an enhanced risk-informed categorization methodology for pressure boundary components enables efficient implementation of [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0069 10 CFR 50.69] which can result in savings through:

	* Reduction in overall cost of the implementation of a ~~10 CFR 50~~.69 program because the methodology requires a one‑time full plant evaluation instead of a system‑by‑system evaluation. Based on experience, these system‑by‑system evaluations cost approximately $20,000 to $40,000 per system.		* Reduction in overall cost of the implementation of a [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0069 10 CFR 50.69] program because the methodology requires a one‑time full plant evaluation instead of a system‑by‑system evaluation. Based on experience, these system‑by‑system evaluations cost approximately $20,000 to $40,000 per system.
	* Increased operational flexibility of pressure boundary components by focusing attention on the components that are the most important to plant safety.		* Increased operational flexibility of pressure boundary components by focusing attention on the components that are the most important to plant safety.
	* Improved ability to implement cost reductions on LSS components by reducing time spent on categorization and allowing for more long‑term planning.		* Improved ability to implement cost reductions on LSS components by reducing time spent on categorization and allowing for more long‑term planning.
Line 50:		Line 44:
	Less than six months.		Less than six months.
	===Scope Context===		===Scope Context===
	Per site. Cost does not include the efforts associated with obtaining an approved LAR for implementation of a 10 CFR 50.69 program.		Per site. Cost does not include the efforts associated with obtaining an approved LAR for implementation of a [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0069 10 CFR 50.69] program.

	To maximize the potential cost savings, the following prerequisites should be met before implementing this categorization methodology:		To maximize the potential cost savings, the following prerequisites should be met before implementing this categorization methodology:
Line 60:		Line 54:
	==Risks==		==Risks==
	No unique risks beyond standard project risks associated with implementing changes at nuclear power plants.		No unique risks beyond standard project risks associated with implementing changes at nuclear power plants.

			==SWEEP Score==
			{\| class="wikitable" style="vertical-align:bottom;"
			\|-
			! Category
			! Level
			! Description
			\|-
			\| Cost
			\| 3
			\| Implementation cost is less than $1 million per site.
			\|-
			\| Savings
			\| 0
			\| Savings are not evaluated because the process improvement is an enabler, which does not inherently produce cost savings but permits implementation of other improvements.
			\|-
			\| Payback
			\| 0
			\| Because the enhanced methodology is a process enabler, payback will only be realized through successful implementation of the [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0069 10 CFR 50.69] program, which is dependent on the cost‑saving measures taken and the lifetime of the facility.
			\|-
			\| Licensing Readiness
			\| 3
			\| No changes are required for implementation. Applicable licensee interactions with the plant’s respective regulator may be required.
			\|-
			\| Technology Readiness
			\| 3
			\| The methodology is developed and has been implemented at some nuclear plants. The methodology is ready for wide operational deployment. Implementation guidance is captured in the updated EPRI report [https://www.epri.com/research/products/3002033536 3002033536].
			\|-
			\| Implementation Proficiency
			\| 3
			\| The methodology can be implemented by all sites regardless of digital experience.
			\|}

Jacob Sommer: 1 revision imported

2026-03-05T01:37:56Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:37, 5 March 2026
(No difference)

10.142.237.162: /* Cost */

2026-03-03T21:05:03Z

Cost

New page

{{DISPLAYTITLE:Increase Operational Flexibility of Pressure Boundary Components Using an Enhanced Risk‑Informed Categorization Methodology - MTA-PRA-001}}
{{MTATemplate||
| Date |12/15/2020
| Functional Area Where Benefits Will Be Realized | Probabilistic Risk Analysis

Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
| Reference Implementation Guidance |
Enhanced Risk‑Informed Categorization Methodology for Pressure Boundary Components (EPRI [https://www.epri.com/research/products/3002015999 3002015999])

Development of a Comprehensive Risk‑Informed Methodology for Pressure Boundary Components (EPRI [https://www.epri.com/research/products/3002013139 3002013139])
| Industry SME | EPRI – Patrick O’Regan

Contact: NuclearPlantMod@epri.com
| Previous Implementation | Please contact EPRI for implementation examples and contacts.
| Implementation Enablers | N/A
| SWEEP Score |
* Cost – Level 3 – Implementation cost is less than $1 million per site.
* Savings – Level 0 – Savings are not evaluated because the process improvement is an enabler, which does not inherently produce cost savings but permits implementation of other improvements.
* Payback – Level 0 – Because the enhanced methodology is a process enabler, payback will only be realized through successful implementation of the 10 CFR 50.69 program, which is dependent on the cost‑saving measures taken and the lifetime of the facility.
* Licensing Readiness – Level 3 – No changes are required for implementation. Applicable licensee interactions with the plant’s respective regulator may be required. The effort to gain NRC endorsement is currently underway.
* Technology Readiness – Level 3 – The methodology is developed and has been implemented at some nuclear plants. Once NRC approval is received, the methodology is ready for wide operational deployment. Implementation guidance and lessons learned will be captured in the updated EPRI report 3002015999.
* Implementation Proficiency – Level 3 – The methodology can be implemented by all sites regardless of digital experience.
| Applicability | All reactor types

The 10 CFR 50.69 process is an NRC approved rule.
| Keywords | Risk-informed categorization; 10 CFR 50.69; pressure boundary components; safety significance
| Business Case Analysis Cross-Reference | N/A
}}

==Description==
The NRC’s 10 CFR 50.69 process allows a plant to categorize the safety significance of its structures, systems, and components (SSCs) using a robust categorization process defined in NEI 00‑04, 10 CFR 50.69 SSC Categorization Guideline, as endorsed by NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.201. Recent industry experience and understanding of the existing methodology for categorizing pressure boundary components suggests that it requires substantial resources and produces overly conservative results. As a result, an enhanced risk‑informed categorization methodology for pressure boundary components as described in EPRI reports 3002013139 and 3002015999 has been developed to assist in streamlining the categorization process. This enhanced methodology provides for a full plant evaluation of all safety‑related and non‑safety‑related systems to determine if the pressure boundary components are of high safety significance (HSS) or low safety significance (LSS). Note that use of either methodology is only applicable for plants that already have an approved license amendment request (LAR) for implementation of a 10 CFR 50.69 program. This enhanced methodology is cost effective and stable because it requires a one‑time evaluation and minor changes to inputs will have minimal or no impact on the categorization results.

==Benefits==
===Benefits Estimate===
Level 0 – Savings are not evaluated because the process improvement is an enabler, which does not inherently produce cost savings but permits implementation of other improvements.
===Benefits Description===
Implementation of an enhanced risk-informed categorization methodology for pressure boundary components enables efficient implementation of 10 CFR 50.69 which can result in savings through:

* Reduction in overall cost of the implementation of a 10 CFR 50.69 program because the methodology requires a one‑time full plant evaluation instead of a system‑by‑system evaluation. Based on experience, these system‑by‑system evaluations cost approximately $20,000 to $40,000 per system.
* Increased operational flexibility of pressure boundary components by focusing attention on the components that are the most important to plant safety.
* Improved ability to implement cost reductions on LSS components by reducing time spent on categorization and allowing for more long‑term planning.
* Improved plant safety by identifying all risk‑informed safety classification (RISC)‑2 components upfront, reducing the need to evaluate each component on a system‑by‑system basis.
* Increased stability to the overall categorization process by defining prerequisites and predetermined HSS systems so that minor changes will have minimal to no impact on the categorization results during periodic updates.

==Costs and Schedule==
===Cost===
Level 3 – Implementation cost is less than $1 million per site.

===Schedule===
Less than six months.
===Scope Context===
Per site. Cost does not include the efforts associated with obtaining an approved LAR for implementation of a 10 CFR 50.69 program.

To maximize the potential cost savings, the following prerequisites should be met before implementing this categorization methodology:

* The plant has a robust internal events probabilistic risk assessment model including internal flooding.
* The plant has a robust program for addressing localized corrosion, flow‑accelerated corrosion, and erosion.
* The plant’s protective measures for internal flooding events are not categorized as LSS.

==Risks==
No unique risks beyond standard project risks associated with implementing changes at nuclear power plants.