Document: NRC Regulatory Guide
Document ID: c55ba6c5-aa2d-4ad6-aba2-2001e16524ab
Document Type: regulatory_guide
Title: Ultrasonic Testing of Reactor Vessel Welds During Preservice and Inservice Examinations (Rev. 1)
Source: NRC Regulatory Guide Division 1
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1221/ML12216A015.pdf
Revision Date: 2023-06
Chapter: 
Section ID: RG-1.150
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
nsing delays occur because decisions have to be made on the basis of uncertain information. Flaw size determination from consistent UT results would help remove or reduce the uncertainties and debates over the safety issues. Because of the above, NRC staff time for review of reported data and interpretation of indications is likely to be reduced. 1.3.2 Other Government Agencies Not applicable, unless the government agency is an applicant, such as TVA. 1.3.3 Industry The value/impact on industry of the regulatory guide positions is stated by each position in the appendix to this value/impact statement. Some highlights of the value and impact of the regulatory guide positions are stated below. 1.3.3.1 Value. This regulatory guide specifies supplemen- tary procedures that will lead to the following advantages: a. Attaining greater accuracy and consistency in flaw characterization. b. Providing information for consistent flaw characteriza- tion at NRC review time and thus reducing NRC staff effort in review of flaw indications. c. Helping assess flaw growth. d. Providing a more reliable basis for flaw detection and evaluation, which should help in the uniform enforce- ment of rules and the avoidance of delay in licensing decisions. e. Reducing licensing time for reviewing examination results, which will aid in the reduction of reactor down- time during examinations and will be of great benefit to industry. With present construction costs of about 1.3 billion dollars for a 1000-megawatt reactor and the average size of a reactor running around 1100-megawatt capacity, the savings per day by eliminating reactor downtime are likely to be $500,000 or more. f. Avoiding unnecessary repairs due to flaw size uncer- tainties. g. Reducing radiation exposure to personnel by helping to eliminate unnecessary repairs. The radiation exposure during repairs is usually many times the exposure during examination, so a net reduction in radiation exposure is expected. h. Reducing margins of