ML102730449
| ML102730449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/2010 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| To: | |
| Hicks, Angelisa L., 301-251-7448 RES/DE | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML102730357 | List: |
| References | |
| DG-3034 RG-3.012, Rev 1 | |
| Download: ML102730449 (2) | |
Text
Page 1 REGULATORY ANALYSIS REGULATORY GUIDE 3.12 GENERAL DESIGN GUIDE FOR VENTILATION SYSTEMS OF PLUTONIUM PROCESSING AND FUEL FABRICATION PLANTS (Draft was issued as DG-3034, dated July 2008)
Statement of the Problem The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) first issued Regulatory Guide 3.12 in August 1973 to provide guidance for facilities processing plutonium. Since that time, there have been few commercial facility applications for plutonium processing and fuel fabrication. The NRC is currently licensing a mixed-oxide fuel fabrication facility for use in processing surplus weapons materials and expects future proposals for the licensing of additional facilities. These future facilities may be commercial facilities or facilities licensed through the U.S. Department of Energys Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
In 2000, the NRC made significant regulatory changes to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, which requires applicants to prepare integrated safety analyses. Integrated safety analyses are systematic evaluations of nuclear facility hazards that use risk-informed approaches. In addition, new industry consensus standards are available that update previous guidance to reflect new experiences and state-of-the-art equipment.
Therefore, revision of this regulatory guidance is necessary to incorporate the new regulatory requirements and the most current industry standards.
Objective The objective of this regulatory action is to provide current guidance for the design of ventilation systems for use in plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plants.
Alternative Approaches The NRC staff considered the following alternative approaches:
Do not revise Regulatory Guide 3.12.
Update Regulatory Guide 3.12.
Alternative 1: Do Not Revise Regulatory Guide 3.12 Under this alternative, the NRC would not revise this guidance, and the original version of this regulatory guide would continue to be used. This alternative is considered the baseline or no-action alternative and, as such, involves no value/impact considerations.
Alternative 2: Update Regulatory Guide 3.12 Under this alternative, the NRC would update Regulatory Guide 3.12, taking into consideration new regulatory requirements and the most current industry consensus standards.
One benefit of this action is that it would enhance the safety of plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plants by incorporating a risk-informed approach through the use of integrated safety analyses.
Page 2 Integrated safety analyses systematically evaluate all safety hazards related to the use of nuclear materials at a facility and provide a technical basis for focusing resources on the most hazardous operations.
The costs to the NRC would be the one-time cost of issuing the revised regulatory guide (which is expected to be relatively small), and applicants would incur little or no cost.
Conclusion Based on this regulatory analysis, the staff recommends that the NRC revise Regulatory Guide 3.12. The staff concludes that the proposed action will enhance the safety of plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plants by incorporating new regulatory requirements and the most current industry consensus standards. It could also lead to cost savings for the industry, especially with regard to applications of a risk-informed approach to facility design and operation.