ML20133K152

Rulemaking - Proposed Rule - Regulatory Analysis for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases, RG 1.84, Rev 39; RG 1.147, Rev 20; RG 1.192, Rev 4; and RG 1.193, Rev 7

ML20133K152
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/31/2020
From:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS
To:
Lopez J
Shared Package
ML20132A240	List: ML20132A241 ML20132A242 ML20133K152
References
NRC-2017-0025, RIN 3150-AJ94
Download: ML20133K152 (56)

Text

Regulatory Analysis for the Proposed Rule:

Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases NRC-2017-0025; RIN 3150-AJ94 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support DECEMBER 2020

i Abstract This proposed rule recommends approval, through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) regulations, of the latest revisions to the NRC regulatory guides (RGs) listing American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Cases for the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants Code. These are Code Cases that the NRC finds acceptable or acceptable with NRC-specified conditions (conditionally acceptable). The NRC is issuing three RG revisions that identify the ASME Code Cases proposed for approval by the NRC:

(1)

RG 1.84, Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III: Proposed Revision 39 (Draft Regulatory Guide (DG)-1366), would supersede the incorporation by reference of RG 1.84, Revision 38, issued October 2019.

(2)

RG 1.147, Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1:

Proposed Revision 20 (DG-1367), would supersede the incorporation by reference of RG 1.147, Revision 19, issued October 2019.

(3)

RG 1.192, Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code:

Proposed Revision 4 (DG-1368), would supersede the incorporation by reference of RG 1.192, Revision 3, issued October 2019.

This document presents the regulatory analysis of the proposed rule for the three RGs that list the Code Cases proposed for NRC approval. To improve the credibility of the NRC staff cost estimates for this regulatory action, the NRC staff conducted (1) an uncertainty analysis to consider the effects of input uncertainty on the cost estimate and (2) a sensitivity analysis to identify the variables that most affect the cost estimate (i.e., the cost drivers).

ii Contents Section Page Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................... i List of Figures................................................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables................................................................................................................................................. iv Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................................................................................ v Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... vii

1.

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

2.

Statement of the Problem and Objective......................................................................................... 1 2.1 Background......................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Statement of the Problem................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Objective............................................................................................................................. 3

3.

Identification and Preliminary Analysis of Alternative Approaches.................................................. 3 3.1 Alternative 1: No Action..................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Alternative 2: Incorporate by Reference NRC-Approved ASME BPV and OM Code Cases.................................................................................................................................. 4

4.

Estimation and Evaluation of Costs and Benefits............................................................................ 5 4.1 Identification of Affected Attributes..................................................................................... 5 4.2 Analytical Methodology....................................................................................................... 7 4.2.1 Regulatory Baseline............................................................................................. 8 4.2.2 Affected Entities................................................................................................... 8 4.2.3 Base Year............................................................................................................. 8 4.2.4 Discount Rates..................................................................................................... 8 4.2.5 Cost and Benefit Inflators..................................................................................... 9 4.2.6 Labor Rates.......................................................................................................... 9 4.2.7 Sign Conventions............................................................................................... 11 4.2.8 Analysis Horizon................................................................................................. 11 4.2.9 Cost Estimation.................................................................................................. 11 4.2.10 NRC Code Cases Incorporated by Reference................................................... 12 4.3 Data................................................................................................................................... 19 5

Results........................................................................................................................................... 20 5.1 Public Health (Accident).................................................................................................... 20 5.2 Occupational Health (Accident and Routine).................................................................... 21 5.3 Industry Operation............................................................................................................. 21 5.5 Total Industry Costs.......................................................................................................... 23 5.6 NRC Implementation......................................................................................................... 23 5.7 NRC Operation.................................................................................................................. 24 5.8 Total NRC Costs............................................................................................................... 25 5.9 Total Costs........................................................................................................................ 25 5.10 Improvements in Knowledge............................................................................................. 26 5.11 Regulatory Efficiency........................................................................................................ 26 5.12 Other Considerations........................................................................................................ 26 5.12.1 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995........................... 26 5.12.2 Continued NRC Practice of Incorporation by Reference of ASME Code Editions and Addenda into the Code of Federal Regulations.......................................... 27

iii 5.13 Uncertainty Analysis.......................................................................................................... 27 5.13.1 Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions..................................................................... 27 5.13.2 Uncertainty Analysis Results.............................................................................. 30 5.13.3 Summary of Uncertainty Analysis...................................................................... 33 5.14 Disaggregation.................................................................................................................. 33 5.15 Summary........................................................................................................................... 34 5.15.1 Quantified Net Benefit........................................................................................ 34 5.15.2 Nonquantified Benefits....................................................................................... 34 5.15.3 Nonquantified Costs........................................................................................... 36 5.16 Safety Goal Evaluation..................................................................................................... 36 5.16.1 Section A: Incorporation by Reference of Later Editions and Addenda of Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code.................................................. 37 5.16.2 Section B: Incorporation by Reference of Later Editions and Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV and OM Codes................................. 37 5.16.3 Other Circumstances in Which the NRC Does Not Apply the Backfit Rule to the Endorsement of a Later Code............................................................................ 37 5.16.4 Safety Goal Evaluation Result............................................................................ 38 5.17 Results for the Committee to Review Generic Requirements.......................................... 38 6

Decision Rationale......................................................................................................................... 39 7

Implementation Schedule.............................................................................................................. 42 8

References..................................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix A Major Assumptions and Input Data....................................................................................... A-1

iv List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 Total industry costs (7-percent NPV)Alternative 2................................................... 31 Figure 2 Total NRC costs (7-percent NPV)Alternative 2........................................................ 31 Figure 3 Total costs (7-percent NPV)Alternative 2................................................................. 32 Figure 4 Top eight cost drivers for which uncertainty impacts the total costs (7-percent NPV)

Alternative 2................................................................................................................. 33 List of Tables Table Page Table 1 Total Costs and Benefits for Alternative 2..................................................................... viii Table 2 CPI-U Inflator.................................................................................................................. 9 Table 3 Position Titles and Occupations.................................................................................... 10 Table 4 Conditioned Code Cases Under Consideration............................................................ 13 Table 5 Industry OperationAverted Costs for Requests......................................................... 23 Table 6 Total Industry Costs...................................................................................................... 23 Table 7 NRC Implementation Costs.......................................................................................... 24 Table 8 NRC Operation CostsAverted Cost for Requests..................................................... 25 Table 9 Total NRC Costs........................................................................................................... 25 Table 10 Total Costs.................................................................................................................. 26 Table 11 Uncertainty Analysis Variables................................................................................... 28 Table 12 Descriptive Statistics for Uncertainty Results (7-Percent NPV).................................. 32 Table 13 Disaggregation............................................................................................................ 34 Table 14 Specific CRGR Information Requirements for Regulatory Analysis........................... 38 Table 15 Summary of Totals...................................................................................................... 39

v Abbreviations and Acronyms ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME codes ASME BPV and OM Codes BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BPV boiler and pressure vessel BPV Code ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPI-U Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers CRGR Committee to Review Generic Requirements DG draft regulatory guide dpa displacement per atom EWR excavation and weld repair FR Federal Register ISI inservice inspection IST inservice testing LOE level of effort Mo molybdenum NPT national pipe thread tapered NPV net present value NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 NUREG NRC technical report OM operation and maintenance OM Code ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget PERT program evaluation and review technique RG regulatory guide SS stainless steel

vi

vii Executive Summary The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the latest revisions to three NRC regulatory guides (RGs) approving new, revised, and reaffirmed Code Cases published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The NRC proposes to incorporate by reference the following three RGs:

(1)

RG 1.84, Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III, Revision 39 (Draft Regulatory Guide (DG)-1366)

(2)

RG 1.147, Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1, Revision 20 (DG-1367)

(3)

RG 1.192, Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code, Revision 4 (DG-1368)

This regulatory action allows nuclear power plant licensees and applicants for construction permits, operating licenses, combined licenses, standard design certifications, standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses to voluntarily use the ASME Code Cases newly listed in these RGs as alternatives to engineering standards for the construction, inservice inspection, and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components.

The analysis presented in this document examines the averted costs (i.e., benefits) and costs of the proposed rulemaking and implementing guidance relative to the baseline case (i.e., the no-action alternative).

The NRC staff has made the following key findings:

Proposed Rule Analysis. The proposed rule recommended by the staff would result in a cost-justified change based on a net averted cost (benefit) to the industry that ranges from $3.79 million using a 7-percent discount rate to $4.47 million using a 3-percent discount rate. Compared to the regulatory baseline, the NRC would realize a net averted cost (i.e., benefit) that ranges from $1.40 million using a 7-percent discount rate to $1.73 million using a 3-percent discount rate. Table 1 shows the total costs and benefits to the industry and the NRC of proceeding with the proposed rule. The proposed rule alternative would result in net averted costs to the industry and the NRC ranging from $5.19 million using a 7-percent discount rate to $6.20 million using a 3-percent discount rate.

viii Table 1 Total Costs and Benefits for Alternative 2 Nonquantified Benefits. Other benefits of the recommended proposed rule include the NRCs continued ability to meet its goal of ensuring the protection of public health and safety and the environment through the approval of new editions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and ASME Operation and Maintenance Code, which allow the use of the most current methods and technology. The recommended proposed rule is consistent with the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and implementing guidance in U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, dated January 27, 2016 (OMB, 2016), which encourage Federal regulatory agencies to consider adopting voluntary consensus standards as an alternative to de novo agency development of standards affecting an industry. Finally, the ASME code consensus process is an important part of the regulatory framework.

Uncertainty Analysis. The regulatory analysis describes a Monte Carlo simulation analysis that shows the mean net benefit for this proposed rule is $5.18 million, with 90-percent confidence that the net benefit is between $3.18 million and $7.49 million using a 7-percent discount rate. A reasonable inference from the uncertainty analysis is that proceeding with the proposed rule represents an efficient use of resources and averted costs to the NRC and the industry because the minimum calculated uncertainty result is a positive value. The hours for request preparation and submission by industry is the factor responsible for the largest variation in averted costs.

Decision Rationale. When comparing the proposed rule to the no-action baseline, the staff concludes that the proposed rule is justified from a quantitative standpoint because its provisions would result in $5.19 million of net averted costs (i.e., net benefits) to the Attribute Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Industry Costs:

$0

$0

$0 NRC Costs:

($430,000)

($420,000)

($420,000)

Attribute Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Total Industry Benefits:

$5,100,000

$3,790,000

$4,470,000 Total NRC Benefits:

$2,460,000

$1,820,000

$2,150,000 Attribute Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Industry

$5,100,000

$3,790,000

$4,470,000 NRC

$2,030,000

$1,400,000

$1,730,000 Total

$7,130,000

$5,190,000

$6,200,000 Costs Benefits Net Benefits (Costs)

ix NRC and the industry. In addition, the staff concludes that the proposed rule is justified when considering non-quantified costs and benefits, because the significance of the nonquantified benefits outweighs those of the nonquantified costs.

1

1. Introduction This document presents the regulatory analysis of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) proposed rule for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Cases (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML20132A241) and the following three associated draft regulatory guides (DGs):

DG-1366, Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III, Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.84, proposed Revision 39 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20120A633)

DG-1367, Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1, RG 1.147, proposed Revision 20 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20120A631)

DG-1368, Operation and Maintenance Code Acceptability, ASME OM Code, RG 1.192, proposed Revision 4 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20120A629)

The recommended regulatory action proposes to incorporate by reference the latest revisions to the three RGs listed above so that the NRC approves the newly identified ASME Code Cases.

2. Statement of the Problem and Objective

2.1 Background

ASME develops and publishes the ASME BPV Code, which contains requirements for the design, construction, and inservice inspection (ISI) examination of nuclear power plant components, and the ASME OM Code,1 which contains requirements for inservice testing (IST) of nuclear power plant components. In response to BPV and OM Code user requests, ASME develops Code Cases that provide voluntary alternatives to BPV and OM Code requirements under special circumstances.

The NRC approves the ASME BPV and OM Codes in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.55a, Codes and standards, through the process of incorporation by reference. As such, each provision of the ASME codes incorporated by reference into and mandated by 10 CFR 50.55a constitutes a legally binding NRC requirement imposed by rule.

As noted previously, ASME Code Cases mostly represent alternative approaches for complying with provisions of the ASME BPV and OM Codes. Accordingly, the NRC periodically amends 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference the NRC RGs listing approved ASME Code Cases that may be used as voluntary alternatives to the ASME BPV and OM Codes.2 1

The editions and addenda of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants have had different titles from 2005 to 2017 and are referred to collectively in this rule as the OM Code.

2 See the Federal Register notice, Incorporation by Reference of ASME BPV and OM Code Cases (68 FR 40469; July 8, 2003).

2 This proposed rule is the latest in a series of rules that incorporate by reference new versions of several RGs identifying new, revised, and reaffirmed3 and unconditionally or conditionally acceptable ASME Code Cases that the NRC approves for use. In developing these RGs, the NRC staff reviews ASME BPV and OM Code Cases, determines the acceptability of each Code Case, and publishes its findings in the RGs. The RGs are revised periodically as ASME publishes new Code Cases. The NRC incorporates by reference the RGs listing acceptable and conditionally acceptable ASME Code Cases into 10 CFR 50.55a. The NRC published a final rule in Volume 85 of the Federal Register, page 14736 (85 FR 14736; March 16, 2020),

that incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a the most recent versions of RG 1.84, Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III, Revision 38 (NRC, 2019b); RG 1.147, Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1, Revision 19 (NRC, 2019c); and RG 1.192, Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code, Revision 3 (NRC, 2019d), all issued October 2019.

2.2 Statement of the Problem ASME may revise Code Cases for many reasons, such as incorporating operational examination and testing experience or updating material requirements based on research results. On occasion, an inaccuracy in an equation is discovered, or an examination as practiced is found to be inadequate in detecting a newly discovered degradation mechanism.

Therefore, it follows that when a licensee initially implements a Code Case, 10 CFR 50.55a requires the licensee to implement the most recent version of that Code Case as listed in the approved or conditionally approved tables in 10 CFR 50.55a. A request to use a previous Code Case could be submitted and approved as an alternative under 10 CFR 50.55a(z); the NRC evaluates such requests on a case-by-case basis.

ASME BPV Code Section III applies only to new construction (i.e., the edition and addenda to be used in the construction of a plant are selected based on the date of the construction permit and licensees are not required to later update their Section III Code of record). If a licensee implements an ASME BPV Code Section III Code Case and if the NRC incorporates by reference a later version of the Code Case into 10 CFR 50.55a, that licensee may use either version of the Code Case.

Licensee programs under ASME BPV Code Section XI ISI and ASME OM Code IST are updated every 10 years to the latest edition and addenda of ASME BPV Code Section XI that were incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a and in effect 18 months before the start of the next inspection interval. Licensees that were using an earlier revision of a Code Case 3

ASME categorizes Code Cases as one of three types: new, revised, or reaffirmed. A new Code Case provides a new alternative to specific ASME Code provisions or addresses a new need. ASME defines a revised Code Case to be a revision (modification) to an existing Code Case to address, for example, technological advancements in examination techniques or to address NRC conditions imposed in one of the RGs that have been incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a. ASME defines reaffirmed as an OM Code Case that does not have any change to technical content but includes editorial changes.

3 before the effective date of the NRCs final rule incorporating its revision may continue to use the previous version for the remainder of the 120-month ISI or IST interval. This relieves licensees of the burden of having to update their ISI or IST program each time the NRC incorporates a revised Code Case. In their subsequent ISI or IST interval, licensees code of record updates must also update any Code Cases they chose to use or apply for a Code Case request under 10 CFR 50.55a(z).

2.3 Objective The objective of this proposed regulatory action is to incorporate by reference the latest revisions to three RGs that list Code Cases published by ASME and approved by the NRC:

(1)

RG 1.84, Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III, Revision 39 (DG-1366)

(2)

RG 1.147, Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1, Revision 20 (DG-1367)

(3)

RG 1.192, Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code, Revision 4 (DG-1368)

These revisions supersede the incorporation by reference of RG 1.84, Revision 38 (NRC, 2019b); RG 1.147, Revision 19 (NRC, 2019c); and RG 1.192, Revision 3 (NRC, 2019d). This regulatory action (1) improves the effectiveness of future licensing actions, (2) is consistent with the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) that encourage Federal regulatory agencies to consider adopting voluntary consensus standards as an alternative to de novo agency development of standards affecting an industry, and (3) is consistent with the NRC policy of evaluating the latest version of consensus standards already approved by the NRC in terms of their suitability for endorsement by regulation or RG.

3. Identification and Preliminary Analysis of Alternative Approaches The NRC has identified two alternatives to this action:

(1)

Alternative 1: No action (i.e., status quo, regulatory baseline).

(2)

Alternative 2: Through rulemaking, incorporate by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a the NRC -approved ASME BPV Code Cases in RG 1.84, Revision 39 (DG-1366), and RG 1.147, Revision 20 (DG-1367), and the ASME OM Code Cases in RG 1.192, Revision 4 (DG-1368).

3.1 Alternative 1: No Action The no-action alternative (status quo, regulatory baseline) is a nonrulemaking alternative. The no-action alternative would not revise the NRCs regulations to incorporate by reference the latest revisions to these three RGs and would not make conforming changes to 10 CFR 50.55a

4 to comply with guidance from the Office of the Federal Register for incorporating by reference multiple standards into regulations. The no-action alternative would likely result in licensees and applicants that want to use these ASME Code Cases requesting and receiving approval from the NRC for the use of alternatives under 10 CFR 50.55a(z). The NRC does not recommend this alternative for the following reasons:

Licensees and applicants would need to submit requests for alternatives to apply Code Cases under 10 CFR 50.55a(z) because those Code Cases have not been approved in the RGs and have not been incorporated by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a. This process would result in increased regulatory burden to licensees, applicants, and the NRC.

Public confidence in the NRC as an effective regulator may be reduced because ASME periodically publishes, revises, and annuls its Code Cases. Under Alternative 1, outdated material and possibly inaccurate information would remain incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations.

This alternative does not meet the intent of the NTTAA, which encourages Federal regulatory agencies to consider adopting voluntary consensus standards as an alternative to de novo agency development of standards affecting an industry.

3.2 Alternative 2: Incorporate by Reference NRC-Approved ASME BPV and OM Code Cases Alternative 2 would incorporate by reference the latest revisions to the RGs listing ASME Code Cases that are newly approved by the NRC. This alternative would allow licensees and applicants to implement these ASME Code Cases and their conditions and modifications, if any, without seeking prior NRC approval. This alternative continues the NRCs use of periodic rulemakings to incorporate by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a the latest RGs that list NRC-approved alternatives to the provisions of the ASME BPV and OM Codes.

The NRC recommends the rulemaking alternative for the following reasons:

This alternative reduces the regulatory burden on applicants or holders of licenses for nuclear power plants by eliminating the need to submit plant-specific requests for alternatives in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z), and it reduces the need for the NRC to review those submittals.

This alternative meets the NRCs goal of ensuring the protection of public health and safety and the environment by continuing to provide NRC approval of new, revised, or reaffirmed ASME Code Cases, which would allow the use of the most current methods and technology.

5 This alternative supports the NRCs goal of maintaining an open regulatory process by informing the public about the process and by giving the public the opportunity to participate in it.

This alternative supports the NRCs commitment to participating in the national consensus standard process through the approval of these ASME Code Cases, and this alternative conforms to NTTAA requirements.

The initial burden on the NRC to update the regulations by incorporating by reference the ASME Code Cases cited here is more than offset by the reduction in the number of plant-specific alternative requests that the NRC would otherwise evaluate. Section 5 of this analysis discusses the costs and benefits of this alternative relative to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1).

4. Estimation and Evaluation of Costs and Benefits This section presents the process for evaluating the costs and benefits expected to result from each proposed alternative relative to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1). All costs and benefits are monetized, when possible. The total costs and benefits are then summed to determine whether the difference between the costs and benefits results in a positive benefit. In some cases, costs and benefits are not monetized because meaningful quantification is not possible.

4.1 Identification of Affected Attributes This section identifies the components of the public and private sectors, commonly referred to as attributes, that the NRC staff expects to be affected by Alternative 2 (the rulemaking alternative identified in Section 3.2). Alternative 2 would apply to licensees and applicants for nuclear power plants and nuclear power plant design certifications. The NRC believes that nuclear power plant licensees would be the primary beneficiaries. The staff developed an inventory of the impacted attributes using the list in NUREG/BR-0058, draft Revision 5, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, issued January 2020 (NRC, 2020).

The rule would affect the following attributes:

Public Health (Accident). This attribute accounts for expected changes in radiation exposure to the public caused by changes in accident frequencies or accident consequences associated with Alternative 2 (i.e., delta risk relative to Alternative 1).

Compared to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1), Alternative 2 meets the NRCs goal of ensuring the protection of public health and safety and the environment by continuing to provide the NRCs approval of new ASME Code Cases that allow the use of the most current methods and technology and that may decrease the likelihood of an accident and, therefore, decrease the overall risk to public health.

6 Occupational Health (Accident). This attribute measures immediate and long-term health effects experienced by site workers because of changes in accident frequency or accident consequences associated with Alternative 2 (i.e., delta risk). A decrease in worker radiological exposure is a decrease in risk (i.e., a benefit); an increase in worker exposures is an increase in risk (i.e., a negative benefit). The use of ASME Code Cases may decrease the incremental risk to occupational health following an accident, but this effect is not easily quantifiable. For example, advances in ISI and IST may lead to an incremental decrease in the frequency of an accident, resulting in averted worker postaccident radiological exposure when compared to the regulatory baseline.

Occupational Health (Routine). This attribute accounts for radiological exposures to workers during normal facility operations (i.e., nonaccident situations). The staff expects that licensees voluntary use of NRC-approved Code Cases would reduce occupational radiation exposure in a positive, but not easily quantifiable, manner. For example, the staff expects that the use of the approved Code Cases would reduce worker radiological exposures during routine inspections or testing when compared to the regulatory baseline.

NRC Implementation. This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the NRC to place the alternative into operation. To implement Alternative 2, the NRC incurs a cost in relation to Alternative 1 (i.e., regulatory baseline) for developing the proposed and final rule and updating corresponding guidance in RG 1.84, RG 1.147, and RG 1.192.

Industry Operation. This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on all affected licensees caused by routine and recurring activities required by Alternative 2.

Under Alternative 2, licensees of nuclear power plants would submit fewer Code Case requests under 10 CFR 50.55a(z), which would provide a net benefit (i.e., averted cost) to the licensees.

NRC Operation. This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the NRC after the proposed action is taken. If the NRC does not approve an ASME Code Case that a licensee or applicant wants to use, the licensee or applicant typically will request, under 10 CFR 50.55a(z), permission to use the ASME Code Case through a submittal. This submittal requires additional NRC staff time to evaluate the Code Case to determine its acceptability and whether any limitations or modifications should apply.

Under Alternative 2, these Code Case alternative requests would be reduced, which results in a net benefit (i.e., averted cost) for the NRC.

Improvements in Knowledge. This attribute accounts for improvements in knowledge by permitting licensees to use advances in ISI and IST. Improvements in ISI and IST may also result in the earlier identification of material or equipment degradation that, if

7 undetected, could cause further degradation that eventually leads to a plant transient or the unavailability of plant equipment to respond to a plant transient.

Regulatory Efficiency. This attribute accounts for regulatory and compliance improvements resulting from the implementation of Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would increase regulatory efficiency because licensees and applicants that wish to use NRC-approved ASME Code Cases would not require 10 CFR 50.55a(z) alternative requests. Further, Alternative 2 is consistent with the provisions of the NTTAA that encourage Federal agencies to consider adopting voluntary consensus standards as an alternative to de novo agency development of standards affecting an industry. Alternative 2 is consistent with the NRCs policy of evaluating the latest versions of consensus standards in terms of their suitability for endorsement by regulations and RGs. In addition, Alternative 2 is consistent with the NRCs goal to harmonize with international standards to improve regulatory efficiency for both the NRC and international standards groups.

Attributes with No Effects. Attributes that are not expected to contribute to the results under any of the alternatives include industry implementation; public health (routine);

offsite property; onsite property; other government, general public, safeguards, and security considerations; and environmental considerations addressing Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

4.2 Analytical Methodology This section describes the process used to evaluate costs and benefits associated with the proposed alternatives. The benefits include any desirable changes in affected attributes (e.g., monetary savings, improved safety, improved security). The costs include any undesirable changes in affected attributes (e.g., monetary costs, increased exposures).

Of the eight affected attributes, the analysis quantitatively evaluates three: industry operation, NRC implementation, and NRC operation. Quantitative analysis requires a baseline characterization of the affected society, including factors such as the number of affected entities, the nature of the activities currently performed, and the types of systems and procedures that licensees or applicants would implement, or would no longer implement, because of the proposed alternatives. Where possible, the staff calculated costs for these three attributes using three-point estimates to quantify the uncertainty in these estimates. The detailed cost tables used in this regulatory analysis are included in the individual sections for each of the provisions. The staff evaluated the remaining five attributes qualitatively because the benefits relating to consistent policy application and improvements in ISI and IST techniques are not easily quantifiable or because the data necessary to quantify and monetize the impacts on these attributes are not available.

8 The staff documents its assumptions throughout this regulatory analysis. For reader convenience, Appendix A summarizes the major assumptions and input data used in this analysis.

4.2.1 Regulatory Baseline This regulatory analysis provides the incremental impacts of the proposed rule relative to a baseline that reflects anticipated behavior if the NRC does not undertake regulatory or nonregulatory action. The regulatory baseline assumes full compliance with existing NRC requirements, including current regulations and relevant orders. This is consistent with NUREG/BR-0058 (NRC, 2020), which states that in evaluating a new requirementthe staff should assume that all existing NRC and Agreement State requirements have been implemented. Section 5 of this regulatory analysis presents the estimated incremental costs and benefits of the alternatives compared to this baseline. This regulatory baseline is the no-action alternative (i.e., Alternative 1).

4.2.2 Affected Entities This proposed rule will affect all operating light-water nuclear power plants. The analysis considers 57 plant sites containing one or more operating U.S. light-water nuclear power reactor units in 2020, 56 plant sites in 2021, and 54 plant sites in 2022-2024.

4.2.3 Base Year All monetized costs are expressed in 2020 dollars, the expected year in which the proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register. Ongoing costs of operation related to Alternative 2 are assumed to begin no earlier than 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Code of Federal Regulations unless otherwise stated, and they are modeled on an annual cost basis.

Estimates are made for one-time NRC implementation costs. The NRC assumes that these costs will be incurred in years 2020 to 2022. Estimates are made for recurring annual operating expenses. The values for annual operating expenses are modeled as a constant expense for each year of the analysis horizon. The staff performed a discounted cash flow calculation to discount these annual expenses to 2020 dollar values, the year that the proposed rule is expected to be published.

4.2.4 Discount Rates In accordance with guidance from U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, issued September 2003 (OMB, 2003), and NUREG/BR-0058, draft Revision 5 (NRC, 2020), the staff used net present value (NPV) calculations to determine how much society would need to invest today to ensure that the designated dollar amount is available in a given year in the future. By using NPVs, the staff can value costs and benefits to a reference year for comparison, regardless of when the cost or benefit is incurred. The choice of a discount rate and its associated conceptual basis is a topic of ongoing discussion within the

9 Federal Government. Based on OMB Circular A-4 and consistent with NRC past practice and guidance, present-worth calculations in this analysis use 3-percent and 7-percent real discount rates. A 3-percent discount rate approximates the real rate of return on long-term Government debt, which serves as a proxy for the real rate of return on savings to reflect reliance on a social rate of time preference discounting concept.4 A 7-percent discount rate approximates the marginal pretax real rate of return on an average investment in the private sector; it is the appropriate discount rate whenever the main effect of a regulation is to displace or alter the use of capital in the private sector. A 7-percent rate is consistent with an opportunity cost5 of capital concept to reflect the time value of resources directed to meet regulatory requirements.

4.2.5 Cost and Benefit Inflators The staff estimated the analysis inputs for some attributes based on the values published in NUREG/BR-0058 (NRC, 2020) or other sources as referenced, which are provided in prior-year dollars. To evaluate the costs and benefits consistently, these inputs are put into base-year dollars. The most common inflator is the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Using the CPI-U, the prior-year dollars are converted to 2020 base year dollars. The following formula is used to determine the amount in 2020 base year dollars from 2019:

=

Table 2 summarizes the values of CPI-U used in this regulatory analysis.

Table 2 CPI-U Inflator Base Year CPI-U Annual Average a Actual/Forecast Percent Change from Previous Year 2019 255.657 2020 260.289 1.8%

a Statistics from BLS, Historical CPI-U, March 2020 (BLS, 2020b).

4.2.6 Labor Rates For the purposes of this regulatory analysis, the staff applied strict incremental cost principles to develop labor rates that include only labor and material costs that are directly related to the 4

The social rate of time preference discounting concept refers to the rate at which society is willing to postpone a marginal unit of current consumption in exchange for more future consumption.

5 Opportunity cost represents what is foregone by undertaking a given action. If the licensee personnel were not engaged in revising procedures, they would be occupied by other work activities. Throughout the analysis, the NRC estimates the opportunity cost of performing these incremental tasks as the industry personnels pay for the designated unit of time.

10 implementation, operation, and maintenance of the proposed rule requirements. This approach is consistent with the guidance in NUREG/CR-3568, A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment, issued December 1983 (NRC, 1983), and general cost-benefit methodology. The NRC incremental labor rate is $131 per hour.6 The staff used the 2019 BLS Occupational Employment and Wages data (www.bls.gov), which provided labor categories and the mean hourly wage rate by job type. The staff used the inflator discussed in Section 4.2.5 to inflate these labor rate data to 2020 dollars. The labor rates used in the analysis reflect total hourly compensation, which includes wages and nonwage benefits (using a burden factor of 2.4, applicable for contract labor and conservative for regular utility employees). The staff used the BLS data tables to select appropriate hourly labor rates for performing the estimated procedural, licensing, and utility-related work necessary during and after implementation of the proposed alternative. In establishing this labor rate, wages paid to the individuals performing the work plus the associated fringe benefit component of labor cost (i.e., the time for plant management exceeding those directly expensed) are considered incremental expenses and are included. Table 3 summarizes the BLS labor categories the staff used to estimate industry labor costs to implement this proposed rule, and Appendix A lists the industry labor rates used in the analysis. The staff performed an uncertainty analysis, which is discussed in Section 5.13.

Table 3 Position Titles and Occupations Position Title (in this Regulatory Analysis)

Standard Occupational Classification Code Managers Top Executives (111000)

Chief Executives (111011)

General and Operations Managers (111021)

Industrial Production Managers (113051)

First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics Installers and Repairers (491011)

First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating Workers (511011)

Technical Staff Nuclear Engineers (172161)

Physicists (192012)

Nuclear Technicians (194051)

Industrial Machinery Mechanics (499041)

Nuclear Power Reactor Operators (518011)

Administrative Staff Office and Administrative Support Occupations (430000)

First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers (431011)

Office Clerks, General (439061)

Licensing Staff Lawyers (231011)

Paralegals and Legal Assistants (232011) 6 The NRC labor rates presented here differ from those developed under the NRCs license fee recovery program (10 CFR Part 170, Fees for facilities, materials, import and export licenses, and other regulatory services under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended). NRC labor rates for fee recovery purposes are appropriately designed for full-cost recovery of the services rendered and thus include nonincremental costs (e.g., overhead, administrative, and logistical support costs).

11 Source: BLS, May 2019 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates; NAICS 221113Nuclear Electric Power Generation (BLS, 2020a).

4.2.7 Sign Conventions The sign conventions used in this analysis are that all favorable consequences for Alternative 2 are positive and all adverse consequences are negative. Negative values are shown using parentheses (e.g., negative $500 is displayed as ($500)).

4.2.8 Analysis Horizon The staff analyzed the ASME Code Cases that are (1) acceptable without conditions or (2) acceptable with conditions. The ASME Code Cases are in effect for a span of 3 years, renewable once for 3 additional years, for a total of 6 years.

4.2.9 Cost Estimation To estimate the costs associated with the evaluated alternatives, the staff used a work breakdown approach to deconstruct each requirement down to its mandated activities. For each required activity, the NRC further subdivided the work across labor categories (i.e., executives, managers, technical staff, administrative staff, and licensing staff). The staff estimated the required level of effort (LOE) for each required activity and used a blended labor rate to develop bottom-up cost estimates.

The staff gathered data from several sources and consulted ASME Code working group members to develop LOE and unit cost estimates. The staff applied several cost estimation methods in this analysis and used its collective professional knowledge and judgment to estimate many of the costs and benefits. Additionally, the staff used a buildup method, solicitation of licensee input, and extrapolation techniques to estimate costs and benefits.

The staff began by estimating some activities using the engineering buildup method of cost estimation, which combines the incremental costs of an activity from the bottom up to estimate a total cost. For this step, the NRC reviewed previous license submittals, determined the number of pages in each section, and then used these data to develop preliminary LOEs.

The staff consulted subject matter experts within and outside the agency to develop most of the LOE estimates used in the analysis. For example, to estimate licensee costs and averted costs (benefits) related to the NRC conditions on the ASME Codes in the proposed rule, the staff consulted licensees for information on the associated LOE. The staff contributed to the estimation of LOE for review-related activities.

The staff extrapolated to estimate the cost of some activities, relying on actual past or current costs to estimate the future cost of similar activities. For example, to calculate the estimated averted costs of Code Case alternative requests and the costs for preparation of the proposed rule and accompanying regulatory guidance, the staff used data from past projects to determine

12 the labor categories of the staff who would perform the work and to estimate the amount of time required under each category to complete the work. If data were not available, the staff estimated the LOE based on similar steps in the process for which data were available.

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty in the model, the staff employed Monte Carlo simulation, which is an approach to uncertainty analysis in which input variables are expressed as distributions. The simulation was run 10,000 times, and values were chosen at random from the distributions of the input variables provided in Table 11. The result was a distribution of values for the output variable of interest. Monte Carlo simulation also enables users to determine the input variables that have the greatest effect on the value of the output variable. Section 5.13 gives a detailed description of the Monte Carlo simulation methods and presents the results.

4.2.10 NRC Code Cases Incorporated by Reference When the NRC incorporates by reference Code Cases unconditionally, the licensees would not need to submit alternative requests to use these Code Cases. The lack of alternative requests for these Code Cases presents a cost savings to the industry and the NRC. Table 1 of DG-1366, DG-1367, and DG-1368 includes the ASME Code Cases, both new and revised, that are being incorporated by reference in the proposed rule.

When the NRC incorporates by reference Code Cases with conditions, licensees may incur additional regulatory burden to meet the conditioned Code Cases (i.e., Code Cases with new conditions as a result of this proposed rule). The conditions would specify (for each applicable Code Case) the additional activities that must be performed, the limits on the activities specified in the Code Case, and the supplemental information needed to provide clarity. Table 2 of DG-1366, DG-1367, and DG-1368 includes these ASME Code Cases, both new and revised, that are being incorporated by reference in the proposed rule. The proposed rule and the DGs discuss the NRCs evaluation of the Code Cases and the reasons for the agencys conditions.

The conditioned Code Cases can possibly place an additional resource burden on licensees under the affected attribute of industry operation. However, licensees would not need to submit alternative requests to use the conditioned Code Cases. The lack of alternative requests for these conditioned Code Cases presents a cost savings to the industry and the NRC. Table 4 lists the conditions on the Code Cases that are being considered in this proposed rule and whether the conditions present an additional resource burden to industry.

The NRC will include approved Code Cases in the next update of the draft RGs whether or not licensees are likely to use the Code Cases. The incorporation by reference of Code Cases provides the industry flexibility to use certain Code Case methodologies without NRC approval or alternative requests. Any Code Case the staff does not expect the industry to use is estimated as having negligible cost and benefits.

13 Table 4 Conditioned Code Cases Under Consideration DG Listing Conditioned Code Case Number New Condition(s) Description Incremental Resources Required DG-1366 N-71-20 The proposed conditions on Code Case N-71-20 are the same as the conditions on N-71-19 that the NRC approved in Revision 38 of RG 1.84.

When ASME revised N-71, it did not modify the Code Case in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore, the conditions would be retained in Revision 39 of RG 1.84.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1366 N-155-3 The proposed conditions on Code Case N-155-3 are the same as the conditions on N-155-2 that the NRC approved in Revision 38 of RG 1.84.

When ASME revised N-155, it did not modify the Code Case in a way that would make it possible for the NRC to remove the conditions. Therefore, the conditions would be retained in Revision 39 of RG 1.84.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1366 N-755-4 This Code Case is applicable only to butt fusion joints and eventually became Mandatory Appendix XXVI in the 2015 Edition of Section III of the ASME Code. The relevant provisions of Code Case N-755-4 are the same as those in Mandatory Appendix XXVI.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1366 N-779 The NRC finds the Code Case satisfactory and technically acceptable for use only with code editions Summer 1979 and later. This Code Case, as written, is not acceptable for use with editions of Section III earlier than the Summer 1979 edition, which included the Delta T1 term in NB-3600 Equation 10, because the Code Case is based on equations used in the Summer 1979 edition and later editions of the Code.

This condition is a clarification that this Code Case is acceptable as is with ASME Code Section III Summer 1979 Addenda and later editions. Hence, the staff has determined that the condition would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1366 N-852 The NRC is including a condition that this Code Case can only be used for the service life of a component that had the horizontally arranged NPT Code Symbol Stamp applied during the time period from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2015.

The staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1366 N-883 This Code Case may be used for the construction of items by a holder of a construction permit, operating license, or combined license under 10 CFR Part 50 or 10 CFR Part 52 before the establishment of an owner.

The staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

14 DG Listing Conditioned Code Case Number New Condition(s) Description Incremental Resources Required DG-1366 N-886 This Code Case is applicable for the use of polyethylene pipe in Section III, Class 3, Division 1, aboveground applications. This Code Case refers to Mandatory Appendix XXVI of Section III of the ASME Code. The 2015 Edition of Mandatory Appendix XXVI contains butt fusion joints for buried piping. The 2017 Edition of Mandatory Appendix XXVI contains butt fusion and electrofusion joints for buried piping.

Therefore, all the conditions as noted in the 2015-2017 Section III rule related to buried piping Mandatory Appendix XXVI apply to this Code Case. The same conditions as buried piping also apply to above ground application.

Two additional conditions are needed for above ground applications, one on fire protection and one on carbon black distribution to protect from windows and delamination The staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-513-5 Code Case N-513-5 contains provisions to permit temporary acceptance of flaws, in moderate energy Class 2 or 3 piping, including elbows, pipe bends, reducers, expanders, branch tees, and gate valves without performing a repair/replacement activity for a limited period.

The Code Case contains provisions regarding the scope, flaw characterization, periodic leakage monitoring, flaw evaluation, and augmented examinations. The NRC finds that the provisions of N-513-5 are acceptable except for the augmented examination provisions in Section 5 of the Code Case.

The NRC proposes two conditions to define flaw and significant flaw as those terms are used in Section 5 of N-513-5. The first proposed condition defines a flaw as a non-through-wall planar or nonplanar flaw with a wall thickness less than 87.5 percent of the nominal wall thickness of the pipe or the design minimum wall thickness. The second proposed condition defines significant flaw as any pipe location that does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 of N-513-5 or if any detected flaw that has a depth greater than 75 percent of the pipe wall thickness.

1.

These conditions apply only if a planar or nonplanar flaw is found during an augmented examination.

These conditions provide clarification for how the Code Case should be used and so the staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-516-5 In the rulemaking for the 2009 Addenda through 2013 Editions of the ASME Code (82 FR 32934),

the NRC-specified conditions that should be applied to Section XI, Article IWA-4660 when performing underwater welding on irradiated materials. These conditions provide guidance on what level of neutron irradiation and/or helium content would require review and approval by the NRC because of the impact of neutron fluence on weldability. These conditions provide separate The additional conditions provide clarification with NRC regulations and were determined by the staff to have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

15 DG Listing Conditioned Code Case Number New Condition(s) Description Incremental Resources Required criteria for three generic classes of material:

ferritic material, austenitic material other than P-No. 8 (e.g., nickel-based alloys) and austenitic P-No. 8 material (e.g., stainless steel alloys).

These conditions are currently located in § 50.55a(b)(2)(xii)(A) and (B).

DG-1367 N-705-1 The proposed condition on Code Case N-705-1 is identical to the condition on Code Case N-705 that the NRC approved in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

The condition is identical to the condition in the previous version of the Code Case.

Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-766-3 The proposed conditions on Code Case N-766-3 are identical to the conditions on N-766-1 that the NRC approved in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-831-1 The proposed conditions on Code Case N-831-1 are identical to the conditions on N-831 that the NRC approved in Revision 19 of RG 1.147.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-847 Provides guidelines for a repair/mitigation process for welds. The process, excavation and weld repair (EWR), removes susceptible material from the outside diameter of the pipe, and replaces it with more resistant weld material.

However, the EWR process, as defined in this code case, has certain challenges addressing the cracking mechanisms in these operating environments and materials. Therefore, the NRC is proposing six conditions to ensure the inservice inspection frequency guidelines of the code case are inline with the previous requirements and guidance. The six conditions are:

1. The first condition is a continuation of the condition of § 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F)(16) which requires that a partial arc EWR, as described in Inspection Item O of ASME Code Case N-770-5, cannot be used without NRC review and approval for PWR designs.

2. The second condition is related to Figure 1A and Figure 1B of the Code Case. The NRC requires, through the second condition, that the intersection points at the interface between EWR metal and existing base metal must be rounded to minimize stress concentration.

3. The third condition is related to Section 2(d)(2) of the Code Case which discusses the flaw The staff expects that licensees are unlikely to use this Code Case and has determined that these conditions would have a negligible effect on the incremental resources needed for industry.

16 DG Listing Conditioned Code Case Number New Condition(s) Description Incremental Resources Required evaluations required for the design considerations of the EWR. Therefore, the NRC requires, through the third condition, that flaw analysis include the potential for crack growth through the dilution zone.

4. The fourth condition is related to Section 2 of the Code Case. The NRC is requiring the use of NUREG-2228, Weld Residual Stress Finite Element Analysis Validation: Part II--Proposed Validation Procedure," because it provides a proven method for validating the weld residual stress analysis methodology.

5. For the fifth condition, the NRC has concluded that the inspection requirements related to the volumetric examinations for EWRs for BWRs need to be augmented as follows:

a. The first volumetric examination following application of BWR EWR-2A, EWR-1B, and EWR-2B welds is performed to verify effectiveness of the repair/mitigation before the new weld can be placed in a longer term volumetric inspection frequency. Based on the lower operating temperatures of a BWR, and hence the potential slow crack growth rate of the remaining flaw left in service, the NRC has concluded that the examination should occur during the second refueling outage after the EWR application.

b. The long term volumetric inspections for BWRs require modification for EWR-1A EWRs and EWR-1B EWRs because for EWR-1A EWRs, the augmented inspection requirements are consistent with the conditions of the inspection frequencies of Code Case N-770-5 and for EWR-1B EWRs, due to the design which would allow a crack to be left in service, should not be allowed to go uninspected for the remainder of plant life. Therefore, the NRC requires the long term volumetric inspection of these welds at each a10-year inservice inspection interval.

6. For the sixth condition, the NRC has concluded that NRC Generic Letter 88-01, (1988) as supplemented by Generic Letter 88-01, Supplement 1 (1992), or BWRVIP-75-A, represent sufficient requirements subject to the fifth condition above, to determine examination frequencies and scope expansion criteria.

Therefore, the sixth condition requires that licensees must not use an alternative other than those specified in Table 1, Note (1) of the Code Case.

17 DG Listing Conditioned Code Case Number New Condition(s) Description Incremental Resources Required

7.

DG-1367 N-864 Code Case N-864 proposes to eliminate the required ASME Code,Section XI examination for the reactor vessel threads-in-flange for all inservice inspection intervals. The NRC is proposing conditions on the use of Code Case N-864 that are consistent with the limits the NRC has placed on alternatives requests.

The first condition requires that the reactor pressure vessel threads-in-flange examinations (ASME Section XI, Examination Category B-G-1, Item No. B6.40) must be performed in at least every third 10-year ISI interval. The second condition in Code Case N-864 ensures that sufficient monitoring and maintenance activities are performed when the Code Case is applied.

1.

The staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-869 The Code Case contains provisions regarding the scope, flaw characterization, periodic leakage monitoring, flaw evaluation, and augmented examinations. The NRC finds that the augmented examination provisions in Section 5 of the Code Case are inadequate and need additional requirements. The NRC, therefore, proposes two conditions to define flaw and significant flaw as those terms are used in Section 5 of N-869. Licensees would be required to apply these definitions to Section 5 when using the Code Case.

The first proposed condition defines a flaw as a non-through-wall planar or nonplanar flaw with a wall thickness less than 87.5 percent of the nominal wall thickness of the pipe or the design minimum wall thickness. The second proposed condition defines significant flaw as any pipe location that does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 of N-869 or if any detected flaw that has a depth greater than 75 percent of the pipe wall thickness.

These conditions apply only if a planar or nonplanar flaw is found during an augmented examination.

These conditions provide clarification for how the Code Case should be used and so the staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-876 The NRC is proposing two conditions on this Code Case. The first condition that must be applied when performing Underwater Laser Beam Welding on irradiated materials provides guidance on what level of neutron irradiation and/or helium content would require review and approval by the NRC because of the impact of neutron fluence on weldability. The second condition limits the depth of the cladding repair due to concerns with the fracture toughness of the base metal.

These conditions provide criteria for when the Code Case can be used.

The staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-878 This Code Case addresses the testing and certification of material used in the manufacture of non-welded fittings, but does not address how the licensee must ensure that the procured non-These conditions provide clarification for how the Code Case should be used.

18 DG Listing Conditioned Code Case Number New Condition(s) Description Incremental Resources Required welded fittings meet the design and testing requirements of the ASME Code,Section III, NB/NC/ND-3671.7 for Class 1, 2, or 3 applications. Therefore, the NRC is proposing conditions for the licensee to verify the design and testing activities associated with qualification of non-welded fittings required by Section III, NB/NC/ND-3671.7 that are performed by the fabricator.

The staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-880 This Code Case does not address how the licensee must ensure the procured welded fittings meet the design and testing requirements of the ASME Code,Section III, NB/NC/ND-3671.7 for Class 1, 2, or 3 applications. Verification that the Section III requirements for the design and testing of these welded fittings have been met prior to use is essential in ensuring the structural integrity of these Class 1, 2 and 3 systems is maintained. Therefore, the NRC is proposing conditions requiring the licensee to verify the design and testing activities associated with qualification of welded fittings required by Section III, NB/NC/ND-3671.7 that are performed by the fabricator.

These conditions provide clarification for how the Code Case should be used.

The staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-889 The NRC is proposing three conditions on this Code Case. The first proposed condition states that this Code Case may not be applied for neutron exposures greater than 20 dpa.

The second proposed condition states that at dose levels below 0.75 dpa, the user must use the higher of the Code Case N-889 or the Section XI, Nonmandatory Appendix C, C-8520 CGR predictions. The final proposed condition states that the irradiated yield stress model for cold-worked Molybdenum bearing materials must be used for cold-worked non-Molybdenum bearing stainless steels (including Type 204 and 247 stainless steels).

These conditions provide criteria for when the Code Case can be used.

The staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1367 N-890 The proposed NRC condition requires the user to comply with the provisions of Section III, NB-2300 and Section III, G-2110(b) to demonstrate the applicability of the ASME KIc curve to SA-533 Type B, Class 2 material. These provisions require the user to generate the necessary toughness data to demonstrate that the ASME KIC curve is a conservative representation of the actual material toughness.

These conditions provide clarification for how the Code Case should be used.

The staff has determined that these conditions would have no effect on the incremental resources needed for a licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1368 OMN-1 Rev 2 The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-1, Revision 2 (2020 Edition), are identical to the conditions on OMN-1, Revision 2 (2017 Edition),

that the NRC approved in Revision 3 of RG 1.192. ASME reaffirmed OMN-1, Revision 2, in the 2020 Edition with no change to the Code Case.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1368 OMN-3 The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-3 (2020 Edition) are identical to the conditions on OMN-3 (2017 Edition) that the NRC approved in All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the

19 DG Listing Conditioned Code Case Number New Condition(s) Description Incremental Resources Required Revision 3 of RG 1.192. ASME reaffirmed OMN-3 in the 2020 Edition with no change to the Code Case.

Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1368 OMN-4 The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-4 (2020 Edition) are identical to the conditions on OMN-4 (2017 Edition) that the NRC approved in Revision 3 of RG 1.192. ASME reaffirmed OMN-4 in the 2020 Edition with no change to the Code Case.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1368 OMN-9 The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-9 (2020 Edition) are identical to the conditions on OMN-9 (2017 Edition) that the NRC approved in Revision 3 of RG 1.192. ASME reaffirmed OMN-9 in the 2020 Edition with no change to the Code Case.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1368 OMN-12 The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-12 (2020 Edition) are identical to the conditions on OMN-12 (2017 Edition) that the NRC approved in Revision 3 of RG 1.192. ASME reaffirmed OMN-12 in the 2020 Edition with no change to the Code Case.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1368 OMN-18 The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-18 (2020 Edition) are identical to the conditions on OMN-18 (2017 Edition) that the NRC approved in Revision 3 of RG 1.192. ASME reaffirmed OMN-18 in the 2020 Edition with no change to the Code Case.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1368 OMN-19 The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-19 (2020 Edition) are identical to the conditions on OMN-19 (2017 Edition) that the NRC approved in Revision 3 of RG 1.192. ASME reaffirmed OMN-19 in the 2020 Edition with no change to the Code Case.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

DG-1368 OMN-20 The proposed conditions on Code Case OMN-20 (2020 Edition) are identical to the conditions on OMN-20 (2017 Edition) that the NRC approved in Revision 3 of RG 1.192. ASME reaffirmed OMN-20 in the 2020 Edition with no change to the Code Case.

All of these conditions are identical to the conditions in the previous version of the Code Case. Hence, no incremental resources are needed for any licensee that uses the Code Case.

4.3 Data The staff used data from subject matter experts, knowledge gained from past rulemakings, and the NRC budget for this rulemaking to estimate the costs and benefits associated with this proposed rule. Quantitative and qualitative (i.e., nonquantified) information on attributes affected by the proposed rule came from the staff. The NRC considered the potential differences between the new requirements and the current requirements and incorporated the proposed incremental changes into this regulatory analysis.

20 5

Results This section presents the quantitative and qualitative results by attribute relative to the regulatory baseline. As described in the previous sections, costs and benefits are quantified where possible and can have either a positive or a negative algebraic sign, depending on whether Alternative 2 has a favorable or adverse effect compared to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1). This section discusses those attributes that are not easily represented in monetary values. Although this ex ante cost-benefit analysis7 provides information that can be used when deciding whether to select the rulemaking alternative, the analysis is based on estimates of the future costs and benefits. Whether the estimates hold in the future, the process of conducting regulatory analyses has value in and of itself because it helps decisionmakers think in depth about specific rulemaking alternatives and their associated results.

The NRCs regulatory analysis guidelines (NRC, 2020) state that the NRCs periodic review and endorsement of consensus standards, such as new versions of the ASME Code and associated Code Cases, is a special case because consensus standards have already undergone extensive external review and have been endorsed by industry. In addition, endorsement of the ASME Code and Code Cases has been a longstanding NRC policy. Licensees and applicants participate in the development of the ASME Code and Code Cases and are aware that periodic updating of the ASME Code is part of the regulatory process. Code Cases are ASME-developed alternatives to the ASME BPV and OM Codes that licensees and applicants may voluntarily choose to adopt without an alternative request if the Code Cases are approved through incorporation by reference in the NRCs regulations. Finally, endorsement of the ASME Code and Code Cases is consistent with the NTTAA, inasmuch as the NRC has determined that sound regulatory reasons exist for establishing regulatory requirements for design, maintenance, ISI, and IST and examination by rulemaking.

In a typical incorporation of Code Cases, the NRC endorsements can involve hundreds, if not thousands, of individual provisions. Evaluating the benefit in relation to the cost of each individual provision in this regulatory analysis would be prohibitive, and such an exercise would have limited value. Thus, this regulatory analysis does not evaluate individual requirements of the consensus standards.

5.1 Public Health (Accident)

Industry practice to adopt ASME BPV and OM Code Cases through incorporation by reference into the regulations may incrementally reduce the likelihood of a radiological accident in a positive, but not easily quantifiable, manner. Pursuing Alternative 2 would continue to meet the NRCs goal of maintaining safety by still providing the NRCs approval of new ASME Code Cases to allow licensees to gain experience with new technology before its incorporation into 7

An ex ante cost-benefit analysis is prepared before a policy, program, or alternative is in place and can assist in the decision about whether resources should be allocated to that alternative.

21 the ASME Code. Alternative 2 would also permit licensees to use advances in ISI and IST, provide alternative examinations for older plants, respond promptly to user needs, and offer a limited and clearly focused alternative to specific ASME Code provisions. Improvements in ISI and IST may also result in the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could lead to further degradation that eventually causes a plant transient. For these reasons, Alternative 2 maintains the same level of, or may provide an incremental improvement in, safety when compared to the regulatory baseline.

5.2 Occupational Health (Accident and Routine)

The NRCs practice of reviewing ASME BPV and OM Code Cases, determining their acceptability, and specifying its finding in RGs that are incorporated by reference into the regulations ensures that the mandated ASME Code requirements and approved Code alternatives result in an acceptable level of quality and safety. Pursuing Alternative 2 (the rule alternative) would continue to meet the NRCs goal of maintaining safety, permitting licensees to use ISI and IST advancements, providing alternative examinations, responding to user needs, and offering alternatives to ASME Code provisions. The staff expects that licensees and applicants voluntary use of NRC-approved Code Cases would reduce occupational radiation exposure in a positive, but not easily quantifiable, manner. For example, the staff expects that the use of the approved Code Cases would result in an incremental decrease in the likelihood of an accident and would reduce worker radiological exposures during routine inspections or testing when compared to the regulatory baseline.

5.3 Industry Operation This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect of routine and recurring activities required by the proposed alternative for all affected licensees. Under Alternative 2, a nuclear power plant licensee would not need to submit a request for an alternative under 10 CFR 50.55a(z) or a relief request under 10 CFR 50.55a(f) or (g) to receive permission to use a later edition or addenda of the ASME codes (as an alternative to the ASME code provisions) that provides a net benefit (i.e., averted cost) to the licensee.

The use of later editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes would benefit nuclear power plant licensees and applicants for several reasons. Later editions and addenda may introduce the use of advanced techniques, procedures, and measures. Alternative 2 has the advantage that, on implementation of the proposed rule, licensees and applicants would be able to voluntarily ask to use a more recent edition or addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes under the provisions in 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) and (g)(4)(iv).8 8

Regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4) and (g)(4) establish the effective ASME Code edition and addenda to be used by licensees in performing IST of pumps and valves and ISI of components (including supports),

respectively. NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-12, Clarification on Use of Later Editions and Addenda to the ASME OM Code and Section XI, dated July 28, 2004 (NRC, 2004), clarified the requirements for IST and ISI programs when using later editions and addenda of the ASME OM Code.

22 Submission of a Code Case relief or alternative request to the NRC is not a trivial matter. Once ASME issues a code edition, the licensee or applicant must determine the applicability of the code edition to its facility and the benefit derived from its use. If the licensee or applicant determines that use of the code would be beneficial, but the NRC has not approved the code edition, the licensee or applicant must prepare a request for the use of the Code Case, and appropriate levels of licensee or applicant management must review and approve the request before submission to the NRC. A review of Code Case requests submitted to the NRC over the last 5 years found that these submittals ranged from a few pages to several hundred pages, with an average of approximately 32 pages of average technical complexity.

Therefore, the NRC estimates that a Code Case request submittal requires an average of 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> of effort to develop the technical justification and an additional 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> to research, review, approve, process, and submit the document to the NRC for the use of the Code Case alternatives under 10 CFR 50.55a(z) (for a total of 230 hours0.00266 days <br />0.0639 hours <br />3.80291e-4 weeks <br />8.7515e-5 months <br /> per submittal). The actual time for a Code Case request submittal maybe lower or higher than 230 hours0.00266 days <br />0.0639 hours <br />3.80291e-4 weeks <br />8.7515e-5 months <br /> depending on the complexity of the submittal. The NRC assumes that licensees or applicants would decide whether to request the use of a code alternative by weighing the cost against the benefit to be derived. In some cases, licensees may decide to forfeit the benefits of using the newer ASME Code, whether in terms of radiological considerations or burden reduction.

A review of past submittals of Code Case requests has determined that plant owners submit Code Case relief and alternative requests that cover multiple units and multiple plant sites.

Based on annual Code Case relief and alternative request submissions before and after ASME final rules are published, the staff estimated that if Alternative 2 is not adopted, operating sites would submit 28 relief requests annually for the Code Cases in this proposed rule. Under Alternative 2, a nuclear power plant licensee would no longer need to submit these Code Case alternative requests under 10 CFR 50.55a(z), which would provide a net benefit (i.e., averted cost) to the licensee. As shown in Table 5, Alternative 2 would avert 28 additional Code Case submittals (and their associated preparation) each year under 10 CFR 50.55a(z). The averted Code Case submittals would start in 2022, the year that the final rule is expected to take effect.

23 Table 5 Industry OperationAverted Costs for Requests 5.5 Total Industry Costs Table 6 shows the total industry costs in terms of the implementation and operation costs, for the requirements under Alternative 2. These total industry costs represent cost savings of

$3.79 million at a 7-percent NPV and $4.47 million at a 3-percent NPV.

Table 6 Total Industry Costs Note: Total costs are rounded to three significant figures.

5.6 NRC Implementation The NRC will incur implementation costs for the stages of the rulemaking process. These costs include writing the FR notice, revising the regulatory guides, reviewing and addressing public comments on the rule, and review of the rule by the NRC. The NRC implementation costs account for the development of the proposed and final rule. The staff estimates a total of 2,900 hours0.0104 days <br />0.25 hours <br />0.00149 weeks <br />3.4245e-4 months <br /> for development of the rule and 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> for the revision of the RGs. Table 7 shows the NRC implementation costs to develop the proposed and final rules.

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV 2022 Code Case relief request preparation and submission 28 230

$134

$850,000

$740,000

$800,000 2023 Code Case relief request preparation and submission 28 230

$134

$850,000

$690,000

$780,000 2024 Code Case relief request preparation and submission 28 230

$134

$850,000

$650,000

$760,000 2025 Code Case relief request preparation and submission 28 230

$134

$850,000

$610,000

$730,000 2026 Code Case relief request preparation and submission 28 230

$134

$850,000

$570,000

$710,000 2027 Code Case relief request preparation and submission 28 230

$134

$850,000

$530,000

$690,000

$5,100,000

$3,790,000

$4,470,000 Cost Relief Requests Prepared per Year Total Labor Hours per Relief Request Weighted Hourly Rate Total:

Activity Year Total Industry Costs Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Total Implementation Costs:

$0

$0

$0 Total Operation Costs:

$5,100,000

$3,790,000

$4,470,000 Total Industry Cost:

$5,100,000

$3,790,000

$4,470,000 Attribute

24 Table 7 NRC Implementation Costs 5.7 NRC Operation When the NRC receives a request to use a Code Case as an alternative, the staff requires additional time to evaluate the requests acceptability relative to the criteria currently approved by the agency. Under Alternative 2, the additional 28 Code Case request submittals per year would not be required. The averted Code Case request submittals would start in 2022, the year that the final rule is expected to take effect. If the NRC incorporates the ASME Code Cases by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations, a nuclear power plant licensee could use a more current ASME Code Case without submitting a request to the NRC for review.

As shown in Table 8, the NRC estimates that each submittal would require, on average, 115 hours0.00133 days <br />0.0319 hours <br />1.901455e-4 weeks <br />4.37575e-5 months <br /> of staff time to perform the technical review (including resolving technical issues),

document the evaluation, and respond to the licensees request. The absence of these submittals would result in an NRC averted cost that ranges from $1.82 million based on a 7-percent NPV to $2.15 million based on a 3-percent NPV. Therefore, Alternative 2 would provide a net benefit (i.e., averted cost).

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV 2020 Develop proposed rule 1

1450

$131

($190,000)

($190,000)

($190,000) 2020 Revise Regulatory Guides 1

400

$131

($50,000)

($50,000)

($50,000) 2021 Develop and issue final rule 1

1450

$131

($190,000)

($180,000)

($180,000) 2021 Finalize Regulatory Guides 1

400

$131

($50,000)

($50,000)

($50,000)

($430,000)

($420,000)

($420,000)

Year Total:

Cost Weighted Hourly Rate Hours Number of Actions Activity

25 Table 8 NRC Operation CostsAverted Cost for Requests 5.8 Total NRC Costs Table 9 shows the total NRC costs in terms of the implementation and operation costs for Alternative 2. The total NRC costs represent cost savings; these savings are estimated to range from $1.40 million at a 7-percent discount rate to $1.73 million at a 3-percent discount rate.

Table 9 Total NRC Costs 5.9 Total Costs Table 10 shows the total costs in terms of the implementation and operation costs for the industry and the NRC under Alternative 2. These total costs represent cost savings to the industry and NRC and are estimated to range from 5.19 million at a 7-percent discount rate to

$6.20 million at a 3-percent discount rate.

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV 2022 Review Code Case relief request submittal 28 115

$131

$410,000

$360,000

$390,000 2023 Review Code Case relief request submittal 28 115

$131

$410,000

$330,000

$380,000 2024 Review Code Case relief request submittal 28 115

$131

$410,000

$310,000

$360,000 2025 Review Code Case relief request submittal 28 115

$131

$410,000

$290,000

$350,000 2026 Review Code Case relief request submittal 28 115

$131

$410,000

$270,000

$340,000 2027 Review Code Case relief request submittal 28 115

$131

$410,000

$260,000

$330,000

$2,460,000

$1,820,000

$2,150,000 Cost Total:

Weighted Hourly Rate Total NRC Staff Hours per Relief Request Relief Requests Reviewed per Year Activity Year Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Total Implementation Cost:

($430,000)

($420,000)

($420,000)

Total Operation Cost:

$2,460,000

$1,820,000

$2,150,000 Total NRC Cost:

$2,030,000

$1,400,000

$1,730,000 Total NRC Costs Attribute

26 Table 10 Total Costs 5.10 Improvements in Knowledge Compared to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1), Alternative 2 would improve the knowledge of the industry and the NRC staff by permitting licensees to use advances in ISI and IST. The industry and the NRC will develop greater knowledge and common understanding of the ASME Code.

5.11 Regulatory Efficiency Compared to the regulatory baseline, Alternative 2 would increase regulatory efficiency because licensees that want to use NRC-approved ASME Code Cases would not need to submit requests for alternatives to the NRCs regulations. This would give licensees flexibility and decrease their uncertainty when modifying or preparing to perform ISI or IST. Further, Alternative 2 is consistent with the provisions of the NTTAA, which encourages Federal regulatory agencies to consider adopting voluntary consensus standards as an alternative to de novo agency development of standards affecting an industry. Alternative 2 is also consistent with the NRCs policy of evaluating the latest versions of consensus standards in terms of their suitability for endorsement by regulations and RGs. Finally, Alternative 2 is consistent with the NRCs goal of harmonizing with international standards to improve regulatory efficiency for both the NRC and international standards groups.

5.12 Other Considerations 5.12.1 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Alternative 2 is consistent with the provisions of the NTTAA and its implementing guidance in OMB Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, dated January 27, 2016 (OMB, 2016), which encourage Federal regulatory agencies to consider adopting voluntary consensus standards as an alternative to de novo agency development of standards affecting an industry.

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Industry Implementation

$0

$0

$0 Industry Operation

$5,100,000

$3,790,000

$4,470,000 Total Industry Cost

$5,100,000

$3,790,000

$4,470,000 NRC Implementation

($430,000)

($420,000)

($420,000)

NRC Operation

$2,460,000

$1,820,000

$2,150,000 Total NRC Cost

$2,030,000

$1,400,000

$1,730,000 Net:

$7,130,000

$5,190,000

$6,200,000 Attribute Total Averted Costs (Costs)

27 5.12.2 Continued NRC Practice of Incorporation by Reference of ASME Code Editions and Addenda into the Code of Federal Regulations Alternative 2 would continue the NRCs practice of establishing requirements for the design, construction, operation, ISI, and IST of nuclear power plants by approving the use of new ASME BPV and OM Code Cases in 10 CFR 50.55a.

Given the existing data and information, Alternative 2 is the most effective way to implement the updated ASME Code Cases. The updates would amend 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference the latest revisions to RGs 1.84, 1.147, and 1.192, which list Code Cases published by ASME and approved by the NRC.

5.13 Uncertainty Analysis The staff completed a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for this regulatory analysis using the specialty software @RISK. The Monte Carlo approach answers the question, What distribution of net costs and benefits results from multiple draws of the probability distribution assigned to key variables?

5.13.1 Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions The staff provides the following analysis of the variables with the greatest uncertainty on estimates of values. To perform this analysis, the staff performed a Monte Carlo simulation analysis using the @RISK software program.9 Monte Carlo simulations involve introducing uncertainty into the analysis by replacing the point estimates of the variables used to estimate base-case costs and benefits with probability distributions. By defining input variables as probability distributions instead of point estimates, the influence of uncertainty on the results of the analysis (i.e., the net benefits) can be effectively modeled.

The probability distributions chosen to represent the different variables in the analysis were bounded by the range-referenced input and the staffs professional judgment. When defining the probability distributions for use in a Monte Carlo simulation, summary statistics are needed to characterize the distributions. These summary statistics include the minimum, most likely, and maximum values of a program evaluation and review technique (PERT) distribution,10 the minimum and maximum values of a uniform distribution, and the specified integer values of a 9

Information about this software is available at https://www.palisade.com.

10 A PERT distribution is a special form of the beta distribution with specified minimum and maximum values.

The shape parameter is calculated from the defined most likely value. The PERT distribution is similar to a triangular distribution in that it has the same set of three parameters. Technically, it is a special case of a scaled beta (or beta general) distribution. The PERT distribution is generally considered superior to the triangular distribution when the parameters result in a skewed distribution, as the smooth shape of the curve places less emphasis in the direction of skew. Similar to the triangular distribution, the PERT distribution is bounded on both sides and therefore may not be adequate for modeling purposes that need to capture tail or extreme events.

28 discrete population. The staff used the PERT distribution to reflect the relative spread and skewness of the distribution defined by the three estimates.

Table 11 identifies the data elements, the distribution, and the low, most likely, and high estimates of the distribution that were used in the uncertainty analysis.

Table 11 Uncertainty Analysis Variables Data Element Mean Estimate Distribution Low Estimate Most Likely Estimate High Estimate N-858 (Alternative Volumetric Coverage Requirements for Ultrasonic Examination of Class 1 Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds)

Averted request (industry)

Hours to produce request 210 PERT 180 210 240 Annual number of requests 1

PERT 0

1 2

Averted request (NRC)

Hours to approve request 105 PERT 90 105 120 Annual number of requests 1

PERT 0

1 2

N-864 (Reactor Vessel Threads in Flange Examinations)

Averted request (industry)

Hours to produce request 210 PERT 180 210 240 Annual number of requests 3

PERT 2

3 5

Averted request (NRC)

Hours to approve request 105 PERT 90 105 120 Annual number of requests 3

PERT 2

3 5

N-869 (Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws)

Averted request (industry)

Hours to produce request 210 PERT 200 210 220 Annual number of requests 4

PERT 2

4 7

Averted request (NRC)

Hours to approve request 105 PERT 100 105 110 Annual number of requests 4

PERT 2

4 7

N-878 (Quality Assurance Program Requirements) and N-880 (Procurement Requirements of Welded Fittings)

Averted request (industry)

Hours to produce request 607 PERT 224 640 860 Annual number of requests 1

PERT 0

1 2

Averted request (NRC)

Hours to approve request 304 PERT 112 320 430 Annual number of requests 1

PERT 0

1 2

N-879 (Use of Micro-Alloyed Carbon Steel Bar in Patented Mechanical Joints)

29 Data Element Mean Estimate Distribution Low Estimate Most Likely Estimate High Estimate Averted request (industry)

Hours to produce request 223 PERT 200 220 260 Annual number of requests 2

PERT 1

2 4

Averted request (NRC)

Hours to approve request 112 PERT 100 110 130 Annual number of requests 2

PERT 1

2 4

N-882 (Alternative Requirements for Attaching Nonstructural Electrical Connections)

Averted request (industry)

Hours to produce request 243 PERT 200 240 300 Annual number of requests 1

PERT 0

1 2

Averted request (NRC)

Hours to approve request 122 PERT 100 120 150 Annual number of requests 1

PERT 0

1 2

N-891 (Alternative Requirements to Appendix XXVI, XXVI-2400, XXVI-4130, and XXVI-4131)

Averted request (industry)

Hours to produce request 293 PERT 240 300 320 Annual number of requests 1

PERT 0

1 2

Averted request (NRC)

Hours to approve request 147 PERT 120 150 160 Annual number of requests 1

PERT 0

1 2

OMN Code Cases Averted request (industry)

Hours to produce request 210 PERT 170 210 250 Annual number of requests 4

PERT 0

3 9

Averted request (NRC)

Hours to approve request 105 PERT 85 105 125 Annual number of requests 4

PERT 0

3 9

Develop and Issue Rule (NRC)

Hours to develop 1,840.0 PERT 1,440 1,600 3,200 Number of years 1.0 PERT 1

1 1

Develop and issue regulatory guide changes (NRC)

Hours to develop 920.0 PERT 720 800 1600 Number of years 1.0 PERT 1

1 1

Averted review of Code Case request (NRC)

Hours to review 143.3 PERT 120 140 180 Number of actions (this is a recurring averted cost) 23.6 PERT 16.5 22.5 35.0 Hourly Rate for NRC

30 Data Element Mean Estimate Distribution Low Estimate Most Likely Estimate High Estimate Weighted hourly rate (NRC)

$131.00 PERT

$131.00

$131.00

$131.00 Hourly Rate for Industry Weighted hourly rate (industry)

$133.81 PERT

$108.03

$135.77

$151.78 5.13.2 Uncertainty Analysis Results The NRC performed the Monte Carlo simulation by recalculating the results 10,000 times. For each iteration, the values identified in Table 11 were chosen randomly from the probability distributions that define the input variables. The values of the output variables were recorded for each iteration, and these values were used to define the resultant probability distribution.

For the analysis shown in each figure below, 10,000 simulations were run in which the key variables were changed to assess the resulting effect on costs and benefits. Figure 1, 2, and 3 display the histograms of the incremental costs and benefits from the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1). The analysis shows that both the industry and the NRC would benefit in terms of cost savings (positive cost) if this rule is issued.

31 Figure 1 Total industry costs (7-percent NPV)Alternative 2 Figure 2 Total NRC costs (7-percent NPV)Alternative 2

32 Figure 3 Total costs (7-percent NPV)Alternative 2 Table 12 presents descriptive statistics for the uncertainty analysis.

Table 12 Descriptive Statistics for Uncertainty Results (7-Percent NPV)

Uncertainty Result Incremental Cost-Benefit (2020 million dollars)

Min Mean Std Dev Max 5%

95%

Total Industry Cost

$1.33

$3.76

$0.90

$7.00

$2.41

$5.36 Total NRC Cost

$0.10

$1.42

$0.44

$3.07

$0.74

$2.19 Total Cost

$1.43

$5.18

$1.32

$10.07

$3.18

$7.49 Table 12 displays the key statistical results, including the 90-percent confidence interval in which the net benefits would fall between the 5-percent and 95-percent values.

Figure 4 shows a tornado diagram that identifies the cost drivers for this proposed rulemaking.

This figure ranks the cost drivers based on their contribution to the uncertainty in cost. The largest cost driver is the number of requests submitted annually to the NRC for the OM Code Cases. This cost driver generates the largest variation in the total costs due to uncertainty. The remaining cost drivers show diminishing variation on the total cost.

33 Figure 4 Top eight cost drivers for which uncertainty impacts the total costs (7-percent NPV)Alternative 2 5.13.3 Summary of Uncertainty Analysis The simulation analysis shows that the estimated mean benefit (i.e., positive averted costs or savings) for this proposed rule is $5.18 million with 90-percent confidence that the net benefit is between $3.18 million and $7.49 million using a 7-percent discount rate. A reasonable inference from the uncertainty analysis is that proceeding with the proposed rule represents an efficient use of resources and averted costs for the NRC and the industry because the minimum calculated uncertainty result is a positive value. The staff estimates that the rule alternative is cost beneficial both to industry and to the NRC when they are considered separately.

5.14 Disaggregation The NRC performed a screening review to determine whether any of the individual requirements (or set of integrated requirements) of the rule would be unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the rulemaking. The NRC determined that the objectives of the rulemaking are to incorporate RGs by reference and to make conforming changes. Furthermore, the NRC concludes that each of the rules requirements would be necessary to achieve one or more objectives of the rulemaking. Table 13 provides the results of this review.

$3,253,850.00

$7,446,620.00

$4,851,560.00

$5,539,540.00

$4,831,210.00

$5,487,540.00

$4,878,340.00

$5,485,420.00

$4,891,440.00

$5,450,010.00

$5,022,880.00

$5,429,940.00

$4,960,780.00

$5,355,780.00

$4,983,770.00

$5,368,560.00

$5,025,010.00

$5,377,830.00

$5,006,820.00

$5,312,750.00 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 7.50 Total Cost 7% NPV Values in Millions ($)

Number of requests produced annually for N-882 Number of requests produced annually for N-891 Number of requests produced annually for N-864 NRC hours to develop rule Number of requests produced annually for N-879 Industry hours to produce request for each OM CC Number of requests produced annually for N-869 Industry Labor Rate Number of requests produced annually for N-878 Number of requests produced annually per OM CC Total Cost 7% NPV Inputs Ranked By Effect on Output Mean Input High Input Low Baseline = $5,182,518.00

34 Table 13 Disaggregation Regulatory Goals for Proposed Rule (1) Approve Use of the New Code Cases in Each of the RGs (2) Make Incorporation by Reference Conforming Changes 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(i), NRC RG 1.84, Revision 39 (DG-1366)

X X

10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii), NRC RG 1.147, Revision 20 (DG-1367)

X X

10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(iii), NRC RG 1.192, Revision 4 (DG-1368)

X X

5.15 Summary This regulatory analysis identified both quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs and benefits that would result from incorporating NRC-approved ASME BPV and OM Code Cases by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations. Although quantifiable costs and benefits appear to be more tangible, the staff urges decisionmakers not to discount costs and benefits that cannot be quantified. Such benefits or costs can be as important as or even more important than benefits or costs that can be quantified and monetized.

5.15.1 Quantified Net Benefit As shown in Table 10 above, the estimated quantified averted costs for Alternative 2, compared to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1), over 6 years will be from approximately $5.19 million (7-percent discount rate) to $6.20 million (3-percent discount rate). Table 10 shows that Alternative 2 would also be cost beneficial for the NRC and the industry when they are considered separately.

5.15.2 Nonquantified Benefits In addition to the quantified costs discussed in this regulatory analysis, the attributes of public health (accident), occupational health (accident and routine), improvements in knowledge, regulatory efficiency, and other considerations would produce several nonquantified costs and benefits for the general public, industry, and the NRC. These benefits are summarized below.

5.15.2.1 Advances in Inservice Inspection and Inservice Testing Advances in ISI and IST may incrementally decrease the likelihood of a radiological accident, the likelihood of postaccident plant worker exposure, and the level of plant worker radiological exposures during routine inspections or testing. The NRCs approval of later editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes and associated Code Cases may contribute to plant safety by providing alternative examination methods that may result in the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could result in further degradation and lead to a plant transient. These alternative methods may increase assurance of plant safety system readiness

35 and may prevent, through inspection and testing, the introduction of a new failure mode or common-cause failure mode not previously evaluated.

5.15.2.2 Reduction in Public Health Radiation Exposures The industrys practice of adopting the ASME BPV and OM Code Cases that are incorporated by reference into the regulations may incrementally reduce the likelihood of a radiological accident in a positive, but not easily quantifiable, manner. Pursuing Alternative 2 would continue to meet the NRC goal of maintaining safety by still providing NRC approval of later editions and addenda of the ASME Code and associated Code Cases to permit licensees to use advances in ISI and IST, provide alternative examinations for older plants, respond promptly to user needs, and provide a limited and clearly focused alternative to specific ASME Code provisions. Improvements in ISI and IST may also result in the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could lead to further degradation that eventually causes a plant transient. As such, Alternative 2 would maintain the same level of safety, or possibly an incremental improvement in safety, that may result in an incremental decrease in public health radiation exposures when compared to the regulatory baseline.

5.15.2.3 Reduction in Worker Radiation Exposures The NRCs approval of later editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes and associated Code Cases may reduce occupational radiation exposures in a positive, but not easily quantifiable, manner. For example, the advances in ISI and IST may result in an incremental decrease in the likelihood of an accident resulting in worker exposure when compared to the regulatory baseline.

5.15.2.4 Improvements in Inservice Inspection and Inservice Testing Knowledge The NRC approval of later editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes and associated Code Cases would improve knowledge by enhancing the ability of the industry and the staff to gain experience with new technology before its incorporation into the ASME Codes and by permitting licensees to use advances in ISI and IST. Improved ISI and IST may result in the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could lead to further degradation that eventually causes a plant transient.

5.15.2.5 Consistent with National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and Implementing Guidance Alternative 2 is consistent with the provisions of the NTTAA and its implementing guidance in OMB Circular A-119, which encourage Federal regulatory agencies to consider adopting voluntary consensus standards as an alternative to de novo agency development of standards affecting an industry.

36 5.15.2.6 Continued NRC Practice of Incorporation by Reference of ASME Code Editions and Addenda into the Code of Federal Regulations Alternative 2 would continue the NRCs practice of establishing requirements for the design, construction, operation, ISI, and IST of nuclear power plants by approving the use of later editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes in 10 CFR 50.55a.

5.15.2.7 Increased Public Confidence Alternative 2 would incorporate the current ASME Code edition, addenda, and Code Cases for the design, construction, operation, ISI, and IST of nuclear power plants by approving the use of editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes in 10 CFR 50.55a. This alternative would allow licensees to use risk-informed, performance-based approaches and the most current methods and technology to design, construct, operate, examine, and test nuclear power plant components, while maintaining NRC oversight of these activities.

The timely incorporation by reference of current addenda and editions of the ASME BPV and OM Codes into the Code of Federal Regulations and the review and approval of associated Code Cases would help the NRC remain an effective industry regulator. This role would be undermined if outdated material remains incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations.

5.15.3 Nonquantified Costs The staff believes that incorporating by reference the most recent ASME BPV and OM Code editions and addenda and associated NRC-approved Code Cases into the Code of Federal Regulations would decrease industry and NRC operation costs. If the staff has underestimated the number or the complexity of these eliminated submittals, then the averted costs would increase proportionally.

5.16 Safety Goal Evaluation The proposed rule alternative would allow licensees and applicants to apply the most recent ASME BPV and OM Code Cases approved by the NRC, sometimes with NRC-specified conditions. The NRCs safety goal evaluation applies only to regulatory initiatives considered to be generic safety enhancement backfits subject to the substantial additional protection standard at 10 CFR 50.109(a)(3). The NRC does not regard the incorporation by reference of NRC-approved ASME Code Cases to be backfitting or to represent an inconsistency with any issue finality provisions in 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, certifications, and approvals for nuclear power plants. The Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking states the basis for this determination.

37 5.16.1 Section A: Incorporation by Reference of Later Editions and Addenda of Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code Incorporation by reference of the Code Cases of Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code is prospective in nature. Incorporation of the Code Cases would not affect a design that has been approved or a plant that has received a construction permit, an operating license, or a combined license. This is because the Code Cases of the ASME BPV Code to be used in constructing a plant are, by rule, determined based on the date of the construction permit or the combined license and are not changed, except voluntarily by the licensee with NRC approval.

Thus, incorporation by reference of later Code Cases of Section III, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code would not constitute a backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).

5.16.2 Section B: Incorporation by Reference of Later Editions and Addenda of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV and OM Codes Incorporation by reference of later Code Cases of Section XI, Division 1, of the ASME BPV Code and of the ASME OM Code would affect the ISI and IST programs of operating reactors.

However, the Backfit Rule generally does not apply to incorporation by reference of later Code Cases of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code and the ASME OM Code for the following reasons:

The NRCs longstanding policy has been to incorporate later versions of the ASME Codes into its regulations; thus, licensees know when receiving their operating licenses that such updating is part of the regulatory process. This is reflected in 10 CFR 50.55a, which requires licensees to revise their ISI and IST programs every 120 months to the latest edition and addenda of Section XI of the ASME BPV Code and of the ASME OM Code incorporated by reference into 10 CFR 50.55a that are in effect 12 months before the start of a new 120-month ISI and IST interval. Thus, when the NRC endorses a later version of an ASME Code, it is implementing this longstanding policy.

The ASME BPV and OM Codes are national consensus standards developed by participants with broad and varied interests, in which all interested parties, including the NRC staff and nuclear utility personnel, participate. This consideration is consistent with both the intent and spirit of the Backfit Rule (i.e., the NRC provides for the protection of public health and safety but does not unilaterally impose undue burden on applicants or licensees).

5.16.3 Other Circumstances in Which the NRC Does Not Apply the Backfit Rule to the Endorsement of a Later Code The NRC does not apply the Backfit Rule to the endorsement of a later code in the following other circumstances:

38 When the NRC takes exception to a later ASME BPV or OM Code provision and merely retains the current existing requirement, prohibits the use of the later Code provision, or limits the use of the later Code provision, the Backfit Rule would not apply because the NRC is not imposing new requirements. However, the NRC provides the technical or policy bases, or both, for taking exceptions to the code in the Statement of Considerations for the rule.

When an NRC exception relaxes an existing ASME BPV or OM Code provision but does not prohibit a licensee from using the existing code provision, the Backfit Rule would not apply.

5.16.4 Safety Goal Evaluation Result Based on the reasons described, a safety goal evaluation is not appropriate for this regulatory analysis.

5.17 Results for the Committee to Review Generic Requirements This section addresses regulatory analysis information requirements for rulemaking actions or staff positions subject to review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR).

All information called for by the CRGR charter (NRC, 2018) is presented in this regulatory analysis or in the Federal Register notice for the proposed rule. Table 14 provides a cross-reference between the relevant information and its location in this document or the Federal Register notice.

Table 14 Specific CRGR Information Requirements for Regulatory Analysis CRGR Charter Citation (NRC, 2018)

Information Item to Be Included in a Regulatory Analysis Prepared for CRGR Review Where Item Is Discussed Appendix C, (i)

The new or revised generic requirement or staff position as it is proposed to be sent out to licensees or issued for public comment.

Proposed rule text in Federal Register notice for the proposed rule.

Appendix C, (ii)

Draft papers or other documents supporting the requirements or staff positions.

Federal Register notice for the proposed rule.

Appendix C, (iii)

The sponsoring offices position on each proposed requirement or staff position as to whether the proposal would modify, implement, relax, or reduce existing requirements or staff positions.

Regulatory Analysis, Section 5, and Backfitting and Issue Finality,Section XIII, Federal Register notice for the proposed rule.

Appendix C, (iv)

The proposed method of implementation.

Regulatory Analysis, Section 7.

39 CRGR Charter Citation (NRC, 2018)

Information Item to Be Included in a Regulatory Analysis Prepared for CRGR Review Where Item Is Discussed Appendix C, (vi)

Identification of the category of power reactors, new reactors, or nuclear materials facilities or activities to which the proposed generic requirement or staff position applies.

Regulatory Analysis, Section 4.2.2.

Appendix C, (vii)-(viii)

If the proposed action involves a power reactor backfit and the exceptions at 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4) are not applicable, the items required at 10 CFR 50.109(c) and the required rationale at 10 CFR 50.109(a)(3).

Backfitting and Issue Finality,Section XIII, Federal Register notice for the proposed rule.

Section III For proposed generic relaxations or decreases in current requirements or staff positions, a determination, along with the rationale, that (1) the public health and safety and the common defense and security would be adequately protected if the proposed relaxations were implemented and (2) the cost savings attributed to each action would be significant enough to justify the action.

Federal Register notice for the proposed rule.

Appendix C, (xi)

An assessment of how the proposed action relates to the Commissions Safety Goal Policy Statement.

Regulatory Analysis, Section 5.16.

6 Decision Rationale Table 15 provides the quantified and qualified costs and benefits for Alternative 2. The quantitative analysis used best estimate values.

Table 15 Summary of Totals Net Monetary Savings or (Costs)Total Present Value Nonquantified Benefits or (Costs)

Alternative 1: No action

$0 None Alternative 2: Incorporate by reference RG 1.84, Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III, Revision 39 (DG-1366); RG 1.147, Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1, Revision 20 (DG-1367); and RG 1.192, Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code, Revision 4 (DG-1368)

Benefits:

Advances in ISI and IST: May incrementally decrease the likelihood of a radiological accident, the likelihood of postaccident plant worker exposure, and the level of plant worker radiological exposures during routine inspections or testing.

40 Net Monetary Savings or (Costs)Total Present Value Nonquantified Benefits or (Costs)

Industry (all provisions):

$3.79 million using a 7% discount rate

$4.47 million using a 3% discount rate NRC (all provisions):

$1.40 million using a 7% discount rate

$1.73 million using a 3% discount rate Net Benefit (Cost) (all provisions):

$5.19 million using a 7% discount rate

$6.20 million using a 3% discount rate Public Health (Accident): May incrementally reduce the likelihood of a radiological accident in a positive, but not easily quantifiable, manner. Pursuing Alternative 2 would continue to meet the NRC goal of maintaining safety by still providing NRC approval of the use of later editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Codes and applicable Code Cases to permit licensees to use advances in ISI and IST, provide alternative examinations for older plants, respond expeditiously to user needs, and provide a limited and clearly focused alternative to specific ASME Code provisions. Improvements in ISI and IST may also result in the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could lead to further degradation that eventually causes a plant transient. As such, when compared to the regulatory baseline, Alternative 2 would maintain the same level of safety or possibly an incremental improvement in safety, which may result in an incremental decrease in public health radiation exposures.

Occupational Health (Accident and Routine): The use of later editions and addenda of the ASME BPV and OM Code and applicable Code Cases may reduce postaccident occupational radiation exposures in a positive, but not easily quantifiable, manner. The advances in ISI and IST may result in an incremental decrease in the likelihood of an accident resulting in worker exposure when compared to the regulatory baseline.

41 Net Monetary Savings or (Costs)Total Present Value Nonquantified Benefits or (Costs)

Improvements in Knowledge: The NRC and industry staff would gain experience with new technology and ISI and IST advances.

Consistent with the NTTAA and Implementing Guidance: Alternative 2 is consistent with the provisions of the NTTAA and implementing guidance in OMB Circular A-119, which encourage Federal regulatory agencies to consider adopting voluntary consensus standards as an alternative to de novo agency development of standards affecting an industry. Furthermore, the ASME Code consensus process is an important part of the regulatory framework.

Costs:

Nonquantified Costs: If the staff has underestimated the number or the complexity of these eliminated submittals, then the averted costs would increase proportionally.

The industry and the NRC would benefit from the proposed rulemaking (Alternative 2) because of the averted costs from licensees not needing to submit and the NRC not needing to review and approve ASME Code Case requests on a plant-specific basis under 10 CFR 50.55a(z).

Alternative 2 would also have the qualitative benefit of meeting the NRC goal of ensuring the protection of public health and safety and the environment through the NRCs approval of the use of later ASME BPV and OM Code Cases. It would also allow for the use of the most current methods and technology. This alternative would also support the NRCs goal of maintaining an open regulatory process, because approving ASME Code Cases would demonstrate the agencys commitment to participating in the national consensus standards process and maintain the NRCs role as an effective regulator.

The NRC has had a decades-long practice of approving or mandating, or both, the use of certain of these ASME Code Cases in 10 CFR 50.55a through the rulemaking process of incorporation by reference. Retaining the practice of approving or mandating the ASME Codes would continue the regulatory stability and predictability provided by the current practice.

Retaining the practice would also ensure consistency across the industry and assure the

42 industry and the public that the NRC will continue to support the use of the most updated and technically sound techniques developed by ASME to provide adequate protection to the public.

In this regard, these ASME Codes are voluntary consensus standards developed by participants with broad and varied interests, and they have already undergone extensive external review before being evaluated by the NRC. Finally, the NRCs use of the ASME codes is consistent with the NTTAA, which directs Federal agencies to adopt voluntary consensus standards instead of developing Government-unique standards (i.e., those developed by Federal agencies), unless inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

Based solely on quantified costs and benefits, the regulatory analysis shows that the rulemaking is justified because the total quantified benefits of the proposed regulatory action would exceed the costs of the proposed action, for all discount rates up to 7 percent. Certainly, if the qualitative benefits (including the safety benefit, regulatory efficiency, and other nonquantified benefits) are considered together with the quantified benefits, then the benefits would outweigh the identified quantitative and qualitative impacts. The uncertainty analysis shows a net benefit (averted cost) for all simulations with a range of averted cost from $1.43 million to $10.07 million at a 7-percent NPV. Therefore, integrating both quantified and nonquantified costs and benefits, the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the costs to implement the rule.

7 Implementation Schedule This rule will become effective 30 days after the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.

8 References National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, as amended, Public Law 104-113.

Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ113/pdf/PLAW-104publ113.pdf.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, September 2003. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.

OMB, Circular No. A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, January 27, 2016. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/01/27/2016-01606/revision-of-omb-circular-no-a-119-federal-participation-in-the-development-and-use-of-voluntary.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), May 2019 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates; NAICS 221113Nuclear Electric Power Generation, March 2020a. Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2019/may/naics5_221113.htm; last accessed on April 15, 2020.

BLS, Historical CPI-U, March 2020, March 2020b. Available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/home.htm; last accessed on April 15, 2020.

43 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment, NUREG/CR-3568, December 1983 (ADAMS Accession No. ML062830096).

NRC, Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-12, Clarification on Use of Later Editions and Addenda to the ASME OM Code and Section XI, July 28, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042090436).

NRC, Charter: Committee to Review Generic Requirements, Revision 9, June 2018.

Available at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/crgr/charter.html.

NRC, 2019-2020 Information Digest, NUREG-1350, Volume 31, August 2019a.

NRC, Regulatory Guide 1.84, Design, Fabrication, and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section III, Revision 38, October 2019b (ADAMS Accession No. ML19128A276).

NRC, Regulatory Guide 1.147, Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1, Revision 19, October 2019c (ADAMS Accession No. ML19128A244).

NRC, Regulatory Guide 1.192, Operation and Maintenance Code Case Acceptability, ASME OM Code, Revision 3, October 2019d (ADAMS Accession No. ML19128A261).

NRC, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0058, draft Revision 5, January 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19261A277).

A-1 Appendix A Major Assumptions and Input Data Table A-1 Major Assumptions and Input Data Data Element Best Estimate Unit Source or Basis of Estimate Key Years Year of proposed rule 2020 year NRC input Analysis base year 2020 year NRC input Number of Reactor Units Number of currently operating reactor units in 2020 94 units Based on NUREG-1350, Volume 31, Appendix A (NRC, 2019a).

Number of forecasted operating reactor units in 2024 91 units Based on NUREG-1350, Volume 31, Appendix A (NRC, 2019a). Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, will anticipate operation in 2021 and 2022.

Number of Sites Number of sites with currently operating reactors in 2020 58 sites Information on operating reactor sites was obtained from the NRCs Operating Nuclear Power Reactors (by Location or Name) at https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/ with data current as of August 26, 2019 (last accessed on April 3, 2020).

Number of sites forecasted with currently operating reactors in 2024 55 sites Calculation: [total number of sites with operating reactors] + [sites with construction completed in years 2020 through 2024] - [sites with all units closed in years 2020 through 2024]. Information on operating reactor sites was obtained from the NRCs Operating Nuclear Power Reactors (by Location or Name) https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/ with data current as of August 26, 2019 (last accessed on April 3, 2020).

Applicability Period (Years)

Proposed rule applicability term 6

years Code Cases last 3 years and are typically renewed once, for a total of 6 years.

A-2 Data Element Best Estimate Unit Source or Basis of Estimate Labor Rates Executive

$245 Dollars per hour Labor rates used are from the BLS Employer Costs for National Compensation Survey dataset, 2019 values. These hourly rates were inflated to 2020 dollars using values of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. A multiplier of 2.4, which includes fringe and indirect management cost, was then applied and resulted in the displayed labor rates.

Managers

$159 Dollars per hour BLS tables Technical staff

$116 Dollars per hour BLS tables Administrative staff

$84 Dollars per hour BLS tables Licensing staff

$123 Dollars per hour BLS tables Industry plant technician

$105 Dollars per hour BLS tables NRC staff

$131 Dollars per hour NRC, Rulemaker@nrc.gov, NRC Labor Rates for Use in Regulatory Analyses, 2019.

PKG: ML20132A240; RA: ML20133K152

• concurred via email OFFICE NMSS/REFS/RASB*

QTE*

NMSS/REFS/RASB/RAT*

NMSS/DRM/RASB/BC*

NMSS/DRM/RRPB/BC*

NAME CHowells JDougherty FSchofer CBladey IBerrios DATE 04/27/2020 05/14/2020 05/01/2020 06/12/2020 06/11/2020 OFFICE NMSS/REFS/D*

OGC*

NRR/D*

NAME KCoyne SClark HNieh DATE 06/26/2020 09/08/2020 12/23/2020