ML12298A073

Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1259

ML12298A073
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/28/2012
From:	NRC/RES/DE
To:
Orr M
Shared Package
ML12298A066	List: ML12298A071 ML12298A073
References
DG-1259 RG 1.68, Rev. 3
Download: ML12298A073 (2)

Text

REGULATORY ANALYSIS DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-1259 Initial Test Programs for Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (Proposed Revision 4 of Regulatory Guide 1.68, dated March 2007)

1. Statement of the Problem The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.68 in March 2007 to ensure that new reactor designs are properly tested under the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50 Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities. A revision to this RG is necessary to address design qualification tests for new design certifications (DCs) and combined licenses (COLs) using the requirements in 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants. The RG also needed to be revised to add some preoperational, low-power and power ascension tests for new light water reactors (LWRs) licensed under 10 CFR Part 52. In addition, the latest revision to this RG adds new and updated references.

2. Objective The objective of this regulatory action is to update NRC guidance and provide applicants with a method to demonstrate compliance with the 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52 requirements to develop an acceptable Initial Test Program. A second objective of this revision is to incorporate new preoperational, low-power, and power ascension tests that would apply to new LWRs and to add new and updated references.

Revising this regulatory guide to endorse portions of a consensus standard is consistent with the NRC policy of evaluating the latest versions of national consensus standards to determine their suitability for endorsement by regulatory guides. This approach will also comply with the NRCs Management Directive 6.5, NRC Participation in the Development and Use of Consensus Standards. This is in accordance with Public Law 104-113, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.

3. Alternative Approaches The NRC staff considered the following alternative approaches:

1. Do not revise Regulatory Guide 1.68

2. Withdraw Regulatory Guide 1.68

3. Revise Regulatory Guide 1.68 to address the current methods and procedures.

Alternative 1: Do Not Revise Regulatory Guide 1.68 Under this alternative, the NRC would not revise guidance and the current guidance would be retained. If NRC does not take action, there would not be any changes in costs or benefit to the public, licensees or NRC. However, this 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 is considered the no-action alternative and provides a baseline condition from which any other alternatives will be assessed.

Alternative 2: Withdraw Regulatory Guide 1.68 Under this alternative the NRC would withdraw this regulatory guide. This would eliminate the current conflict that exists between the current regulatory guide and the newer regulations. It would also eliminate the only readily available description of the methods the NRC staff considers acceptable for demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52. Although this alternative would be less costly than the proposed alternative, it would impede the publics accessibility to the most current guidance information.

Alternative 3: Revise Regulatory Guide 1.68 Under this alternative, the NRC would revise Regulatory Guide 1.68. This revision would address design qualification tests for new design certifications (DCs) and combined licenses (COLs) using the requirements in 10 CFR Part 52. The revision would also add some preoperational, low-power and power ascension tests for new light water reactors (LWRs) licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 and would add new and updated references. This would ensure that the RG guidance available in this area is current, and accurately reflects the NRC staffs position.

The impact to the NRC would be the costs associated with preparing and issuing the regulatory guide revision. The impact to the public would be the voluntary costs associated with reviewing and providing comments to NRC during the public comment period. The value to NRC staff and its applicants would be the benefits associated with enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in using a common guidance document as the technical basis for license applications and other interactions between the NRC and its regulated entities.

Conclusion Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC staff recommends revision of Regulatory Guide 1.68.

The staff concludes that the proposed action will enhance efficiency and effectiveness through the use of a common guidance document as the technical basis for license applications and other interactions between the NRC and its regulated entities. It could also lead to cost savings for the industry with regard to applications for standard design certifications and combined licenses.

Page 2