Regulatory Analysis for Part 52 ITAAC Proposed Rule

REGUALTORY ANALYSIS
DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-1250,
“GUIDANCE FOR ITAAC CLOSURE UNDER 10 CFR PART 52”
(Proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.215, dated October 2009)

Statement of the Problem
The purpose of Regulatory Guide 1.215, “Guidance for ITAAC Closure under 10 CFR Part 52,”
is to provide a tool for licensees to use in standardizing the content and format of licensee submittals to
satisfy the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) notification requirements in
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 52.99, “Inspection during Construction.” The
purpose of this proposed revision to Regulatory Guide 1.215 is to maintain consistency with anticipated
rulemaking changes to 10 CFR 52.99 and with changes in the industry guidance document Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) 08-01, “Industry Guideline for the ITAAC Closure Process under
10 CFR Part 52,” Revision 4, issued July 2010.
As the process evolves, licensee submittals necessary to meet the requirements in 10 CFR 52.99
could vary greatly in the amount of information submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). Therefore, the issuance of this revision to the regulatory guidance is necessary to provide
licensees with information that they will need to develop (1) quality ITAAC notifications on a timely
basis, (2) associated details at levels that meet the NRC’s expectations, (3) submittals of required and
supporting documentation, and (4) associated licensee ITAAC closure schedules. The NRC will likely
revise this guide as experience grows with the implementation of the ITAAC process during new plant
construction.

Objective
The objective of this regulatory action is to provide guidance on technical matters related to
ITAAC submittals pertaining to nuclear power plant construction in accordance with the ITAAC listed in
a combined license and to provide additional guidance on the proposed changes to 10 CFR 52.99.

Alternative Approaches
The NRC staff considered the following alternative approaches:
Do not revise Regulatory Guide 1.215.
Revise Regulatory Guide 1.215.
Alternative 1: Do Not Revise Regulatory Guide 1.215
Under this alternative, the NRC would not issue additional guidance. If the NRC does not take
action, there would be no change in costs or benefit to the public, licensees, or the NRC. However, the
“no-action” alternative would not address identified concerns in the absence of NRC guidance and would
likely cause confusion following the issuance of proposed changes to 10 CFR 52.99. This alternative
provides a baseline condition from which any other alternatives will be assessed.

Alternative 2: Revise Regulatory Guide 1.215
Under this alternative, the NRC would revise Regulatory Guide 1.215, taking into consideration
the endorsement of NEI 08-01.
One benefit of this action is that it would enhance the quality of the notifications required under
the proposed 10 CFR 52.99 and would help to ensure consistency. Furthermore, this guide also describes
the NRC’s construction inspection program and may aid licensees in meeting the agency’s expectations.
The impact to the NRC would be the costs associated with preparing and issuing the revised
regulatory guide. 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
current and prospective combined license applicants would be the benefits associated with enhanced
efficiency and effectiveness in using a common guidance document as the technical basis for licensee
ITAAC notifications, closure schedules, and other interactions between the NRC and its regulated
entities. Because stakeholders and the NRC are currently working together to discuss changes in
associated rulemaking, there are modest resources required to participate in the regulatory guide revision
process.

Conclusion
Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC staff recommends revision of Regulatory
Guide 1.215. The staff concludes that the proposed action will enhance the licensee’s understanding of
the NRC’s expectations for adequate ITAAC notifications and closure packages before and during new
nuclear power plant construction. It could also lead to cost savings for the industry, especially with
regard to reducing paperwork, preparing licensee submittals, and reducing the potential need for licensees
to make multiple submittals to achieve and maintain ITAAC closure.

Page 2