ML11206A211
| ML11206A211 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/31/2012 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research |
| To: | |
| Bayssie, Mekonen 301-251-7489 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML11206A203 | List: |
| References | |
| DG-2005 RG-2.003, Rev 2 | |
| Download: ML11206A211 (2) | |
Text
7/20/2011 1
REGULATORY ANALYSIS DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE (DG) - 2005 QUALITY VERIFICATION FOR PLATE-TYPE URANIUM-ALUMINUM FUEL ELEMENTS FOR USE IN RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS (Proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 2.3, dated July 1976)
Statement of the Problem The guidance endorsed in the current version of this guide is outdated. Therefore, a revision of this regulatory guidance is necessary to endorse the updated information found in the industry standard ANSI/ANS 15.2-2009, Quality Verification for Plate-Type Uranium-Aluminum Fuel Elements Objective The objective of this regulatory action is to update the regulatory guidance.
Alternative Approaches The NRC staff considered the following alternative approaches:
Do not issue Regulatory Guide 2.3.
Issue Regulatory Guide 2.3.
Alternative 1: Do Not Issue Regulatory Guide 2.3 Under this alternative, the NRC would not issue additional guidance, and the current guidance would be retained. If the NRC does not take action, there would not be any changes in costs or benefit to the public, the licensees, or the NRC. However, the no-action alternative would not address identified concerns with the current version of the regulatory guide. The NRC would continue to review each application on a case-by-case basis. This alternative provides a baseline condition from which any other alternatives will be assessed.
Alternative 2: Issue Regulatory Guide 2.3 Under this alternative, the NRC would revise Regulatory Guide 2.3, taking into consideration the availability of industry standards for license applications and technical specifications for the RTRs.
One benefit of this action is that it would aid license applicants in the preparation of the application package, as the current guidance is outdated and contains exceptions to the standard that are no longer valid.
The impact to the NRC would be the costs associated with preparing and issuing the regulatory guide. Updating this guide would require minimal cost and effort. The impact to the public would be the voluntary costs associated with reviewing and providing comments to the NRC during the public comment period. The value to the NRC staff and its applicants would be the benefits associated with enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in using a common, contemporary guidance document as the technical basis for license applications and other interactions between the NRC and its regulated entities.
7/20/2011 2
Conclusion Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC staff recommends issuance of Regulatory Guide 2.3.
The staff concludes that the proposed action will enhance the review of license applications by designating the current standard as acceptable for use by RTR license holders. It could also lead to a cost savings for the industry, especially with regard to the use of current standards within license applications and supporting documentation of program elements for RTR licenses.