ML23292A081
| ML23292A081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/2013 |
| From: | Piccone J Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RG-3.014, Rev 0 | |
| Download: ML23292A081 (2) | |
Text
Regulatory Guide Periodic Review
Regulatory Guide Number: 3.14, Revision 0
Title:
Seismic Design Classification for Plutonium Processing and Fuel Fabrication Plants
Office/division/branch: NMSS/SFAS Technical Lead: Josephine Piccone
Staff Action Decided: Reviewed with no issues identified
(1) What are the known technical or regulatory issues with the current version of the Regulatory Guide (RG)?
Regulatory Guide 3.14, Seismic Design Classification for Pluto nium Processing and Fuel Fabrication Plants, provides guidance to applicants for a plutonium processing and fuel fabrication facility license regarding an acceptable metho d for identification of principal structures, systems, and components important to safe ty that must be designed to withstand the effects of earthquakes.
Although the staff has no specific technical issues or concerns with the guidance in RG 3.14, it may need to update its guidance or develop guidance sp ecific to reprocessing facilities if an application for a reprocessing facility licens e is expected.
(2) What is the impact on internal and external stakeholders o f not updating the RG for the known issues, in terms of anticipated numbers of licens ing and inspection activities over the next several years?
Currently, the guidance in RG 3.14 is used in the licensing bas is of the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication facility (MFFF). Since its guidance rem ains generally relevant, there is no immediate need to update the content of RG 3.14. T here is no known impact on licensing or inspection activities.
In addition, at this time there are no license applications, ot her than the MFFF, pending before the Commission and none are expected in the near future. As a result, there are no impacts on licensing and inspection activities with the curr ent RG versions.
(3) What is an estimate of the level of effort needed to addres s identified issues in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) and contractor resources?
NMSS/SFAS cannot provide a meaningful estimate at this time of the resources it would require to revise RG 3.14 to extend its applicability to reproc essing facilities. However, any revisions to RG 3.14 for applicability to reprocessing faci lities would likely be minor and not require significant resources.
(4) Based on the answers to the questions above, what is the st aff action for this guide (Reviewed with no issues identified, Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration, Revise, or Withdraw)?
Reviewed with no issues identified. However, if sufficient ind ustry interest in licensing a reprocessing facility is expressed, and if the Commission direc ts the staff to prepare for the reviews, then the staff could consider issuing new or revis ed guidance.
(5) Provide a conceptual plan and timeframe to address the issu es identified during the review.
NOTE: This review was conducted in September 2013 and reflects the staffs plans as of that date. These plans are tentative and are subject to change.