ML14111A457: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| issue date = 04/30/2014 | | issue date = 04/30/2014 | ||
| title = Periodic Review of Rg 3.53, Applicability of Existing Regulatory Guides to the Design and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. | | title = Periodic Review of Rg 3.53, Applicability of Existing Regulatory Guides to the Design and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. | ||
| author name = Bayssie | | author name = Bayssie M | ||
| author affiliation = NRC/RES/DE/RGDB | | author affiliation = NRC/RES/DE/RGDB | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter: | {{#Wiki_filter:Regulatory Guide Periodic Review Regulatory Guide Number: 3.53 | ||
3.53 | |||
Office/division/branch: | ==Title:== | ||
Applicability of Existing Regulatory Guides to the Design and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Office/division/branch: NMSS/DSFST/LB Technical Lead: Haile Lindsay Recommended Staff Action: Revise | |||
: 1. What are the known technical or regulatory issues with the current version of the Regulatory Guide (RG)? | |||
In RG 3.53, the issues deal with the applicability of existing RGs to the design and operation of an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). This is important because this RG | In RG 3.53, the issues deal with the applicability of existing RGs to the design and operation of an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). This is important because this RG hasnt been updated in over 30 years and it is important to capture the essential information to make sure that our ISFSIs are being operated, designed, and constructed in a proper manner. | ||
: 2. What is the impact on internal and external stakeholders of not updating | : 2. What is the impact on internal and external stakeholders of not updating the RG for the known issues, in terms of anticipated numbers of licensing and inspection activities over the next several years? | ||
The staff anticipates a potentially large number of licensing actions in the next several years. Therefore, the impact may be significant in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of licensee applications and our reviews. | The staff anticipates a potentially large number of licensing actions in the next several years. Therefore, the impact may be significant in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of licensee applications and our reviews. | ||
: 3. What is an estimate of the level of effort needed to address identified issues in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) and contractor resources? | : 3. What is an estimate of the level of effort needed to address identified issues in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) and contractor resources? | ||
: 4. Based on the answers to the questions above, what is the staff action for this guide (Reviewed with no issues identified, Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration, Revise, or Withdraw)? | An estimate of the effort needed to correct the identified issues is between 0.1 full-time equivalent (FTE) and 0.2 FTE. | ||
The staff plans to revise this RG. | : 4. Based on the answers to the questions above, what is the staff action for this guide (Reviewed with no issues identified, Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration, Revise, or Withdraw)? | ||
The staff plans to revise this RG. | |||
1 | |||
: 5. Provide a conceptual plan and timeframe to address the issues identified during the review. | |||
The staff anticipates submitting the draft guide to the Office of the US Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) by fall of 2014. The staff anticipates the draft guide to be issued for public comment by early 2015. | The staff anticipates submitting the draft guide to the Office of the US Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) by fall of 2014. The staff anticipates the draft guide to be issued for public comment by early 2015. | ||
NOTE: This review was conducted in April, 2014 and reflects the staffs plans as of that date. These plans are tentative and subject to change. | |||
NOTE: This review was conducted in April, | 2}} | ||
Latest revision as of 06:47, 5 December 2019
| ML14111A457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/2014 |
| From: | Bayssie M NRC/RES/DE/RGDB |
| To: | |
| Bayssie M | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14111A453 | List: |
| References | |
| RG-3.053 | |
| Download: ML14111A457 (2) | |
Text
Regulatory Guide Periodic Review Regulatory Guide Number: 3.53
Title:
Applicability of Existing Regulatory Guides to the Design and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Office/division/branch: NMSS/DSFST/LB Technical Lead: Haile Lindsay Recommended Staff Action: Revise
- 1. What are the known technical or regulatory issues with the current version of the Regulatory Guide (RG)?
In RG 3.53, the issues deal with the applicability of existing RGs to the design and operation of an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). This is important because this RG hasnt been updated in over 30 years and it is important to capture the essential information to make sure that our ISFSIs are being operated, designed, and constructed in a proper manner.
- 2. What is the impact on internal and external stakeholders of not updating the RG for the known issues, in terms of anticipated numbers of licensing and inspection activities over the next several years?
The staff anticipates a potentially large number of licensing actions in the next several years. Therefore, the impact may be significant in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of licensee applications and our reviews.
- 3. What is an estimate of the level of effort needed to address identified issues in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) and contractor resources?
An estimate of the effort needed to correct the identified issues is between 0.1 full-time equivalent (FTE) and 0.2 FTE.
- 4. Based on the answers to the questions above, what is the staff action for this guide (Reviewed with no issues identified, Reviewed with issues identified for future consideration, Revise, or Withdraw)?
The staff plans to revise this RG.
1
- 5. Provide a conceptual plan and timeframe to address the issues identified during the review.
The staff anticipates submitting the draft guide to the Office of the US Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) by fall of 2014. The staff anticipates the draft guide to be issued for public comment by early 2015.
NOTE: This review was conducted in April, 2014 and reflects the staffs plans as of that date. These plans are tentative and subject to change.
2