ML23032A316

Rulemaking - Proposed Rule - Regulatory Analysis for American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2021-2022 Code Editions Update

ML23032A316
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/31/2023
From:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS/RASB
To:
References
ASME 2021-2022, NRC-2018-0289, RIN 3150-AK21
Download: ML23032A316 (41)

Text

ML23032A316 American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2021 and 2022 Code Editions Incorporation by Reference Proposed RuleDraft Regulatory Analysis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support JULY 2023

i ML23032A316 Abstract The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the 2021 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, and Section XI, Division 1, with conditions, and the 2022 Edition of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants, Division 1, with conditions.

The NRC has a well-established practice for approving these consensus standards through the rulemaking process and incorporating them by reference into the NRCs requirements in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.55a, Codes and standards. This practice increases consistency across the industry and demonstrates the NRCs willingness to support the use of the most updated and technically sound techniques developed by ASME to adequately protect the public.

This document is a regulatory analysis for the proposed rule. To improve the credibility of the NRCs cost estimates for this regulatory action, the staff conducted an uncertainty analysis to consider the effects of input uncertainty on the cost estimate and a sensitivity analysis to identify the variables that most affect the cost estimate (i.e., the cost drivers). The NRCs analysis demonstrates that the proposed rule, if made into a final rule, would result in a net averted cost to the industry that ranges from $0.65 million using a 7 percent discount rate to $0.72 million using a 3 percent discount rate. Compared to the regulatory baseline, the NRC would realize a net cost that ranges from $44,000 using a 7 percent discount rate to $10,000 using a 3 percent discount rate. Overall, the regulatory analysis for the proposed rule demonstrates that the rulemaking is cost beneficial resulting in a net savings that ranges from $0.61 million (7 percent discount rate) to $0.71 million (3 percent discount rate) for the industry and the NRC.

ii ML23032A316 Table of Contents Section Page Abstract

.............................................................................................................................. i List of Figures..........................................................................................................................iv List of Tables............................................................................................................................iv Executive Summary................................................................................................................. v Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................................................................vii

1.

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

2.

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

3.

Identification and Preliminary Analysis of Alternative Approaches............... 4 3.1 Alternative 1No Action...................................................................................... 4 3.2 Alternative 2Incorporate by Reference the ASME Codes with Conditions......... 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.............................................................................................. 7 4.2.2 Affected Entities.................................................................................................... 7 4.2.3 Base Year............................................................................................................. 7 4.2.4 Analysis Horizon................................................................................................... 8 4.2.5 Discount Rates..................................................................................................... 8 4.2.6 Cost-Benefit Inflators............................................................................................ 8 4.2.7 Labor Rates.......................................................................................................... 9 4.2.8 Sign Conventions.................................................................................................10 4.2.9 Applicability Period..............................................................................................10 4.2.10 Cost Estimation....................................................................................................10 4.2.11 ASME BPV and OM Codes Incorporated by Reference.......................................11 4.3 Data....................................................................................................................11

5.

Results...............................................................................................................11 5.1 Public Health (Accident)......................................................................................14 5.2 Occupational Health (Accident and Routine).......................................................14 5.3 Industry Implementation and Operation...............................................................15 5.4 NRC Implementation...........................................................................................16 5.5 NRC Operation....................................................................................................17 5.6 Total NRC Costs.................................................................................................18

iii ML23032A316 5.7 Total Costs..........................................................................................................18 5.8 Improvements in Knowledge..............................................................................18 5.9 Regulatory Efficiency..........................................................................................18 5.10 Other Considerations.........................................................................................19 5.10.1 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995..............................19 5.10.2 Continued NRC Practice of Incorporation by Reference of ASME Code Editions and Addenda into the Code of Federal Regulations............................................19 5.10.3 Increased Public Confidence...............................................................................19 5.11 Uncertainty Analysis...........................................................................................19 5.11.1 Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions.......................................................................20 5.11.2 Uncertainty Analysis Results................................................................................21 5.11.3 Summary of Uncertainty Analysis........................................................................23 5.12 Disaggregation...................................................................................................23 5.13 Summary............................................................................................................24 5.13.1 Quantified Net Benefit..........................................................................................24 5.13.2 Nonquantified Benefits.........................................................................................24 5.13.2.1 Advances in Inservice Inspection and Inservice Testing............................................ 24 5.13.2.2 Reduction in Public Health Radiation Exposures........................................................ 24 5.13.2.3 Improvements in Inservice Inspection and Inservice Testing Knowledge.................. 25 5.13.2.4 Consistent with National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and Implementing Guidance.............................................................................................. 25 5.13.2.5 Continued NRC Practice of Incorporation by Reference of ASME Code Editions and Addenda into the Code of Federal Regulations......................................................... 25 5.13.2.6 Increased Public Confidence...................................................................................... 25 5.14 Safety Goal Evaluation.......................................................................................25 5.15 Results for the Committee to Review Generic Requirements.............................26

6.

Decision Rationale............................................................................................26

7.

Schedule............................................................................................................29

8.

References.........................................................................................................30 Appendix A Major Assumptions and Input Data................................................................ A-1

iv ML23032A316 List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 Total industry costs (7 percent NPV)Alternative 2...................................................21 Figure 2 Total NRC costs (7 percent NPV)Alternative 2.......................................................22 Figure 3 Total costs (7 percent NPV)Alternative 2................................................................22 Figure 4 Top five cost drivers (7 percent NPV)Alternative 2..................................................23 List of Tables Table Page Table ES-1 Total Costs and Benefits for Rulemaking (Alternative 2).......................................... v Table 1 CPI-U Inflator............................................................................................................... 9 Table 2 Position Titles and Occupations................................................................................... 9 Table 3 Industry Implementation and Operation.......................................................................16 Table 4 NRC Implementation Costs.........................................................................................17 Table 5 NRC Operation CostsAverted Alternative Request Review......................................17 Table 6 Total NRC Net Benefits (Costs)...................................................................................18 Table 7 Total Costs..................................................................................................................18 Table 8 Uncertainty Analysis Variables....................................................................................20 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Uncertainty Results (7 Percent NPV)....................................22 Table 10 Disaggregation..........................................................................................................24 Table 11 Specific CRGR Regulatory Analysis Information Requirements................................26 Table 12 Summary of Totals....................................................................................................27

v ML23032A316 Executive Summary The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to incorporate by reference the 2021 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code,Section III, Division 1, and Section XI, Division 1, with conditions, as well as the 2022 Edition of Division 1 of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code), with conditions (together referred to as the ASME Codes). A significant portion of the averted costs from this proposed rule results from the reduction in the costs of plant-specific requests for alternatives because these provisions would be incorporated by reference.

This regulatory analysis evaluates the costs and benefits of the proposed rule relative to the baseline case (i.e., the no-action alternative). The NRC makes the following key findings based on this analysis:

Proposed Rule Analysis. The proposed rule would be cost beneficial based on a net (i.e., taking into account both costs and benefits) averted cost to the industry ranging from $0.65 million (7 percent net present value (NPV)) to $0.72 million (3 percent NPV).

Relative to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1), the NRC would realize a net cost ranging from $44,000 (7 percent NPV) to $10,000 (3 percent NPV). Table ES-1 shows that the total costs and benefits of proceeding with the rule would result in net averted costs to the industry and the NRC ranging from $0.61 million (7 percent NPV) to

$0.71 million (3 percent NPV).

Table ES-1 Total Costs and Benefits for Rulemaking (Alternative 2)

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

($18,000)

($17,000)

($18,000)

Total NRC Costs:

($436,000)

($394,000)

($417,000)

Total:

($454,000)

($411,000)

($435,000)

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

$873,000

$667,000

$739,000 Total NRC Benefits:

$459,000

$350,000

$408,000 Total:

$1,331,000

$1,017,000

$1,147,000 Attribute Net Benefits (Costs)

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Industry Net:

$855,000

$650,000

$721,000 NRC Net:

$23,000

($44,000)

($10,000)

Net:

$877,000

$606,000

$712,000 Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. Totals throughout this document may differ because of rounding. All values are reported in 2022 dollars.

vi ML23032A316 Nonquantified Benefits. Alternative 2 incorporates 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 later editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.55a, Codes and standards. Compared to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1), Alternative 2 would improve knowledge by allowing the industry and the NRC to gain experience with new technology and permitting licensees to use advances in inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing (IST). Alternative 2 also increases regulatory efficiency by creating consistency between the ASME Codes and NRC regulations. The proposed alternative would provide licensees and applicants with flexibility and decrease licensee uncertainty when making modifications or preparing to perform ISI or IST. Additionally, Alternative 2 is consistent with the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 and its implementing guidance in Office of Management and Budget (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. Under Alternative 1, outdated material would remain incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Uncertainty Analysis. This regulatory analysis contains a simulation analysis showing that the estimated mean benefit for this proposed rule is $0.51 million with 90 percent confidence that the total net benefit is between $0.08 million and $0.93 million (7 percent NPV). 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. The hours for the preparation of requests for alternatives and NRC hours to develop rulemaking are the factors responsible for the largest variations in averted costs.

Decision Rationale. Relative to the no-action baseline, the NRC concludes that the proposed rule is justified from a quantitative standpoint because its provisions would result in net averted costs (i.e., net benefits) to the NRC and the industry. The NRC justifies the proposed rule based on its quantified benefits, as well as the nonquantifiable benefits that would result from its implementation.

vii ML23032A316 Abbreviations and Acronyms ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASME Codes ASME BPV and OM Codes ASME OM Committee ASME Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics BPV boiler and pressure vessel CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPI-U Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers CRGR Committee to Review Generic Requirements FR Federal Register GDC general design criterion/criteria IBR incorporation by reference ISI inservice inspection IST inservice testing NPV net present value NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 OM operation and maintenance OM Code (ASME) Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants OMB Office of Management and Budget PERT program evaluation and review technique

1

1. Introduction This document presents the regulatory analysis for the proposed rule to incorporate by reference specific American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) codes and Code Cases.

The proposed rule incorporates by reference the following items into U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations:

the 2021 Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (BPV) Code,Section III, Division 1, and Section XI, Division 1, and delineation of NRC requirements for the use of this code, with conditions the 2022 Edition of Division 1 of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) and delineation of NRC requirements for the use of this code, with conditions The NRC analyzed the ASME BPV and OM Code editions (together referred to as the ASME Codes) to determine whether they are acceptable without conditions. Generally, when the NRC approves codes with conditions, licensees may experience additional regulatory costs to meet the conditioned requirements.

2. Statement of the Problem and Objective ASME develops and publishes the ASME BPV Code, which contains requirements for the design, construction, and inservice inspection (ISI) of nuclear power plant components, and the ASME OM Code, which contains requirements for operation and inservice testing (IST) of those components. Until 2012, ASME issued new editions of the BPV Code every 3 years and addenda to the editions annually, except in years when it issued a new edition. Similarly, ASME periodically published new editions of addenda to the OM Code. Starting in 2012, ASME decided to issue editions of its BPV and OM Codes (no addenda) every 2 years, issuing the BPV Code in the odd years and the OM Code in the even years. The new editions and addenda typically revise provisions of the ASME Codes to broaden their applicability, add specific elements to current provisions, delete specific provisions, clarify them to narrow the applicability of the provisions, or a combination of these. The editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes do not significantly change code philosophy or approach.

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.55a, Codes and standards, establishes requirements for the design, construction, operation, ISI, and IST of nuclear power plants. In 10 CFR 50.55a, the NRC approves or mandates the use of certain parts of ASME Code editions and addenda through the rulemaking process of incorporation by reference (IBR).

Upon IBR of the ASME Codes into 10 CFR 50.55a, the provisions of the ASME Codes are legally binding NRC requirements, as delineated in 10 CFR 50.55a, subject to the conditions on certain specific ASME Code provisions specified in 10 CFR 50.55a. The NRC last used IBR for editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes into the regulations was in a final rule (Volume 87 of the Federal Register, page 65128 (87 FR 65128); October 27, 2022), subject to NRC conditions.

2.1 Background

Appendix A, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, to 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, provides the bases and requirements for the NRCs assessment of the use of generally recognized codes and standards and the potential for, and consequences of, degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. As

2 appropriate, similar requirements appear in the licensing basis for a reactor facility.

The applicable general design criteria (GDC) include GDC 1, Quality Standards and Records; GDC 14, Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary; and GDC 32, Inspection of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary.

GDC 1 requires, in part, the following:

Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed. Where generally recognized codes and standards are used, they shall be identified and evaluated to determine their applicability, adequacy, and sufficiency and shall be supplemented or modified as necessary to assure a quality product in keeping with the required safety function.

GDC 14 establishes the following:

The reactor coolant pressure boundary shall be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested so as to have an extremely low probability of abnormal leakage, of rapidly propagating failure, and of gross rupture.

Additionally, GDC 32 establishes the following:

Components which are part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary shall be designed to permit (1) periodic inspection and testing of important areas and features to assess their structural and leak tight integrity, and (2) an appropriate material surveillance program for the reactor pressure vessel.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113, 1995)

(NTTAA) mandates the following:

All Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.

In carrying out this legislation, Federal agencies are to consult with voluntary consensus standards bodies and participate with such bodies in developing technical standards when such participation is in the public interest and compatible with the agency mission, priorities, and budget resources. If the technical standards are inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical, a Federal agency may choose to use technical standards that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies.

Since 1971, provisions of the ASME BPV Code have been one part of the framework to establish the necessary design, fabrication, construction, testing, and performance requirements for structures, systems, and components important to safety. Various technical interests (e.g., utility, manufacturing, insurance, regulatory) are represented on the ASME standards committees that develop, among other things, improved methods for the construction and ISI of nuclear power plant components categorized as ASME Class 1, 2, and 3; metal containment; and concrete containment. This broad spectrum of stakeholders helps to ensure that the various interests are considered.

3 A directive from the ASME Board on Nuclear Codes and Standards transferred responsibility for the development and maintenance of rules for the IST of pumps and valves from the ASME Section XI Subcommittee on Nuclear Inservice Inspection to the ASME Committee on Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (ASME OM Committee); this led to the development of the OM Code. In 1990, ASME published the initial edition of the OM Code, which provides rules for IST of pumps and valves. The ASME OM Committee continues to maintain the OM Code. ASME intended that the OM Code replace the ASME BPV Section XI rules for IST of pumps and valves. The ASME Section XI Committee no longer updates the Section XI rules for IST of pumps and valves, which were previously incorporated by reference into NRC regulations.

In 10 CFR 50.55a, the NRC requires that nuclear power plant owners construct Class 1, 2, and 3 components in accordance with the ASME BPV Code,Section III, Division 1. Regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a also require that owners perform ISI of Class 1, 2, 3; metal containment; and concrete containment components in accordance with ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Division 1, and that they perform IST of safety-related pumps and valves within the scope of the ASME OM Code in accordance with that code. ASME develops Code Cases to gain experience with new technology before incorporating that technology into the ASME Codes; permit licensees to use advances in ISI and IST; offer alternative examinations for older plants; respond expeditiously to user needs; and provide a limited, clearly focused alternative to specific ASME Code provisions.

2.2 Statement of the Problem The NRC considered whether to incorporate the 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section III, Division 1, and ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Division 1, and the 2022 Edition of the ASME OM Code, Division 1, into its regulations.

The NRC determined to approve the ASME Codes by conditioning their use. The NRC concluded that disapproving the ASME Codes could result in the NRC and licensees incurring more costs. One outcome of this action might be that licensees and applicants would submit a petition for rulemaking, asking the NRC to incorporate by reference the full scope of the ASME Code editions and addenda that would otherwise be approved through rulemaking (i.e., the request would not be simply for the approval of a specific ASME Code provision with conditions). Alternatively, licensees and applicants could submit a larger number of requests for the use of alternatives under 10 CFR 50.55a(z) or requests for exemptions under 10 CFR 50.12 or 10 CFR 52.7, both entitled Specific exemptions. These alternative or exemption requests could also include similar broad-scope requests for approval to use the full scope of the ASME Code editions and addenda. These requests would pose unnecessary additional costs on both the licensees and the NRC, because the NRC has already determined that the ASME Codes and Code Cases that are the subject of this regulatory action are acceptable for use (in some cases with conditions).

2.3 Objective The objective of this regulatory action is to incorporate by reference the 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section III, Division 1, and ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Division 1, with conditions, and the 2022 Edition of the ASME OM Code, Division 1, with conditions.

4

3. Identification and Preliminary Analysis of Alternative Approaches This section analyzes the alternatives that the NRC considered for conditioning the use of certain provisions of the ASME Codes. The NRC identified two alternatives:

(1) the no-action alternative (i.e., regulatory baseline)

(2) the IBR of the 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section III, Division 1, and ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Division 1, with conditions, and the IBR of the 2022 Edition of the ASME OM Code, Division 1, with conditions.

3.1 Alternative 1No Action The no-action alternative is a non-rulemaking alternative. This alternative would not revise the NRCs regulations.

The no-action alternative would require licensees and applicants that want to use the many provisions of the ASME Code editions above to request and receive NRC approval for the use of alternatives under 10 CFR 50.55a(z).

3.2 Alternative 2Incorporate by Reference the ASME Codes with Conditions In Alternative 2, a rulemaking alternative, the NRC proposes to incorporate by reference the following into the CFR:

the 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section III, including Subsection NCA, and Division 1, Subsections NB through NG and appendices the 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Division 1, with conditions the 2022 Edition of the ASME OM Code, Division 1, with conditions As a result, the provisions of the ASME Codes would be legally binding NRC requirements, as delineated in 10 CFR 50.55a, and subject to the conditions on specific ASME Code provisions in 10 CFR 50.55a.

The NRC recommends this rulemaking alternative for the following reasons:

This alternative reduces the regulatory costs to applicants and licensees of nuclear power plants by eliminating the need to submit plant-specific requests for alternatives in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(z) and 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 ASME Code editions that allow the use of the most current methods and technology.

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.

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

The NRC costs to update the regulations by incorporating by reference the editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes cited here are more than offset by the averted costs due to the reduction in the number of requests for plant-specific alternatives that the NRC would otherwise evaluate. Section 5 of this analysis discusses the costs and benefits of this alternative compared to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1).

4. Estimation and Evaluation of Costs and Benefits This section describes the process for evaluating the costs and benefits expected to result from the 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 are expected to be affected by the alternatives identified in section 3. The alternatives 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 NRC developed an inventory of the affected attributes using NUREG/BR-0058, Draft Final Revision 5, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated January 28, 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 the alternative (i.e., delta risk). A decrease in public radiological exposure is a decrease in risk (i.e., benefit); an increase in public exposure is an increase in risk (i.e., cost).

Occupational Health (Accident). This attribute measures immediate and long-term health effects on site workers because of changes in accident frequency or accident consequences associated with the alternative (i.e., delta risk). A decrease in worker radiological exposure is a decrease in risk (i.e., benefit); an increase in worker exposure is an increase in risk (i.e., cost).

Occupational Health (Routine). This attribute accounts for radiological exposure to workers during normal facility operations (i.e., non-accident situations). An action could result in an increase in worker exposure. Sometimes this will be a one-time effect (e.g., installation or modification of equipment in a hot area); sometimes it will be an ongoing effect (e.g., routine surveillance or maintenance of contaminated equipment or equipment in a radiation area).

6 Industry Implementation. This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the affected licensees of implementing the mandated changes. Additional costs above the regulatory baseline are considered negative, and cost savings and averted costs are considered positive.

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

For example, an alternative that would allow a nuclear power plant licensee to use the latest edition of the ASME BPV Code without submitting an alternative request would provide a net benefit (i.e., averted cost) to the licensee.

NRC Implementation. This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the NRC of placing the alternative into operation. It includes NRC implementation costs and benefits incurred in addition to those expected under the regulatory baseline.

NRC Operation. This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect caused by routine and recurring activities on the NRC after the rule is implemented. If the NRC does not approve changes to licensee design, fabrication, construction, testing, and inspection practices because the licensee or applicant wants to use an unapproved ASME Code, the licensee or applicant must request, under 10 CFR 50.55a(z),

permission to use a more recent ASME Code by submitting a request to apply the updated edition or addenda as an alternative to the ASME Code provisions. This submittal requires additional staff time to evaluate the ASME Code to determine its acceptability and whether any limitations or modifications should apply. Under the proposed rule (Alternative 2), these alternative requests would not be necessary, which would result in a net benefit (i.e., averted cost) for the NRC. Licensees wishing to update early to all or part of a new edition would still need to request NRC approval for that early update.

Improvements in Knowledge. This attribute accounts for improvements in knowledge acquired as the industry and the staff 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 also result in the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could lead to further degradation that eventually causes a plant transient.

Regulatory Efficiency. This attribute accounts for regulatory and compliance improvements resulting from the implementation of Alternative 2 relative to the regulatory baseline. Alternative 2 would continue the best practice of aligning NRC regulations with ASME Code standards, thereby providing the industry with the regulatory provisions for which it has sought permission via alternative requests. This rulemaking would reduce the effort the industry expends generating these requests and considering alternative means to accomplish the goals of these provisions.

Other Considerations. This attribute accounts for considerations not captured in the preceding attributes. Specifically, this attribute accounts for how Alternative 2 meets specific requirements of the Commission, helps achieve NRC policy, and provides other advantages or detriments.

7 Attributes with No Effects. Attributes not expected to be affected under any of the alternatives include considerations of public health (routine), offsite property, onsite property, other government entities, the general public, safeguards and security considerations, and the environment.

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

Of the 10 affected attributes, the analysis evaluates fourindustry implementation, industry operation, NRC implementation, and NRC operationon a quantitative basis. The staff calculated costs for these four 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 NRC evaluated the remaining six attributes on a qualitative basis because some benefits relating to consistent policy application and improvements in ISI and IST techniques are not quantifiable, or because the data necessary to quantify and monetize the impacts on these attributes are not available. The staff documents its assumptions throughout this regulatory analysis. For reader convenience, appendix A to this analysis summarizes the major assumptions and input data.

4.2.1 Regulatory Baseline This regulatory analysis identifies the incremental impacts of the proposed rule compared 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, Draft Final Revision 5, which states the following:

In establishing the baseline case, the analyst should assume that all existing NRC and Agreement State requirements and written licensee commitments are already being implemented and that the costs and benefits associated with these requirements are not part of the incremental estimates prepared for the regulatory analysis.

Section 5 of this regulatory analysis presents the estimated incremental costs and benefits of the alternatives compared to this baseline.

4.2.2 Affected Entities This proposed rule will affect all operating light-water nuclear power plants. The analysis considers 54 plant sites containing one or more operating U.S. light-water nuclear power reactor units from 2023 through 2025 and 53 plant sites from 2026 through 2027.

4.2.3 Base Year All monetized costs are expressed in 2022 dollars. Ongoing costs of operation related to Alternative 2 are assumed to begin no earlier than 30 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, unless otherwise stated, and they are modeled on an annual cost

8 basis. The NRC assumes that the final rule will be published in 2025. 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 2022 dollar values.

4.2.4 Analysis Horizon The analysis horizon starts in 2023 and ends in 2027, when the next Code edition becomes effective.

4.2.5 Discount Rates In accordance with guidance from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, issued October 2003 (OMB, 2003), and NUREG/BR-0058, Draft Final Revision 5, net present value (NPV) calculations are used 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, costs and benefits are valued 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 Federal Government.

Based on OMB Circular A4 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 the discounting concept of social rate of time preference.1 A 7 percent discount rate approximates the marginal pretax real rate of return on an average investment in the private sector, and 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 cost2 of capital concept to reflect the time value of resources directed to meet regulatory requirements.

4.2.6 Cost-Benefit Inflator The NRC estimated the analysis inputs for some attributes based on the values published in the sources referenced, which are provided in prior-year dollars. To evaluate the costs and benefits consistently, these inputs are put into 2022 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 2022 dollars. The NRC used the following formula to determine the amount in 2022 base-year dollars from 2021:

2022 2021 2022 = 2022 Table 1 summarizes the values of CPI-U used in this regulatory analysis.

1 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.

2 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.

9 Table 1 CPI-U Inflator Year CPI-U Annual Averagea Percent Change from Previous Year 2021 270.9698 2022 292.6549 8.00%

a Source: BLS, 2022 4.2.7 Labor Rates For this regulatory analysis, the NRC developed labor rates that include only labor and material costs that are directly related to the 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 $143 per hour in 2022 dollars.3 The NRC used the 2021 BLS Occupational Employment and Wages data tables (BLS, 2021) for the nuclear electric power generation industry (North American Industry Classification System Code 221113), which provide labor categories and the mean hourly wage rate by job type, and used the CPI-U inflator discussed above to convert the labor rate data to 2022 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 for regular utility employees). The NRC used the BLS data tables to select appropriate hourly labor rates for performing the estimated procedural, licensing, and utility-related work necessary for implementation of Alternative 2. 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 over and above those directly expensed) are considered incremental expenses and are included. Table 2 summarizes the BLS labor categories used to estimate industry labor costs to implement this proposed rule, and appendix A lists the industry labor rates used in the analysis. The NRC also performed an uncertainty analysis (see section 5.11).

Table 2 Position Titles and Occupations Position Title (in This Regulatory Analysis)

Standard Occupational Classification Code Managers 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)

Nuclear Technicians (194051)

Industrial Machinery Mechanics (499041) 3 These NRC labor rates 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).

10 Position Title (in This Regulatory Analysis)

Standard Occupational Classification Code 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) aSource: BLS, 2022 4.2.8 Sign Conventions The sign conventions used in this analysis are that all favorable consequences for the alternative are positive and all adverse consequences for the alternative are negative. Negative values are shown using parentheses (e.g., negative $500 is displayed as ($500)).

4.2.9 Applicability Period ASME issues editions of its BPV and OM Codes (no addenda) every 2 years, with the BPV Code issued in the odd years and the OM Code in the even years. The NRC typically will incorporate by reference the editions of the BPV and OM Codes through rulemaking at the time the next edition of the OM Code is updated. The next edition of the BPV Code will have already been updated the year before. The next time the OM Code is expected to be updated is 2025.

At that time, the NRC will start the next Code editions proposed rule, assuming there are no delays in ASME updating the next future editions of the BPV and OM Codes. Since it is assumed the next Code editions rule will take 2 years to complete and that this rule will be in effect in the beginning of 2025, the applicability period of this proposed rule is 2025 through 2027 or 3 years.

4.2.10 Cost Estimation To estimate the costs associated with the evaluated alternatives, the NRC 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 NRC estimated the required level of effort for each required activity and used a blended labor rate to develop bottom-up cost estimates.

The NRC gathered data from several sources and consulted ASME Code working group members to develop level of effort and unit cost estimates. The NRC 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 NRC used a buildup method and extrapolation techniques to estimate costs and benefits.

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

11 NRC consulted subject matter experts within the agency to develop most of the level of effort estimates used in the analysis.

The NRC extrapolated to estimate some cost activities, relying on past or current actual costs to estimate the future cost of similar activities. For example, to calculate the estimated averted costs of alternative requests and the costs for preparation of the proposed rule, the NRC used data from past projects to determine the labor categories of those who would perform the work and to estimate the time required under each category to complete the work.

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty in the model, the NRC used Monte Carlo simulation, which expresses uncertain input variables as distributions. The NRC ran the simulation 10,000 times and chose values randomly from the distributions of the input variables. 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 5.11 of this analysis describes the Monte Carlo simulation methods and presents the uncertainty results.

4.2.11 ASME BPV and OM Codes Incorporated by Reference The NRC analyzed the 2021 and 2022 Editions of the ASME Codes to determine whether they are (1) acceptable without conditions or (2) generally acceptable with conditions. Typically, when the NRC approves codes with conditions, licensees may experience additional regulatory costs to meet the conditioned requirements. For each applicable case, the conditions may specify additional activities that must be performed, the limits on the activities, or supplemental information needed to provide clarity (or a combination of these). This regulatory analysis evaluated NRC imposed conditions on the 2021 and 2022 Editions of the ASME Codes to determine the costs and benefits.

4.3 Data The NRC used data from subject matter experts, applied the knowledge gained from past rulemakings, and obtained from the staff quantitative and qualitative (i.e., nonquantified) information on attributes affected by the proposed rule. The NRC considered the potential differences between the new requirements and the current requirements to estimate the change in costs and benefits.

5. Results This section presents the quantitative and qualitative results by attribute for Alternative 2 relative to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1). As described in the previous sections, the staff quantified costs and benefits when possible. The results are either positive or negative, depending on whether the alternative has a favorable or adverse effect compared to the regulatory baseline. Attributes not presented in monetary values are discussed in qualitative terms.

The NRCs regulatory analysis guidelines (NRC, 2020) state that the agencys practice of periodic review and endorsement of consensus standards, such as new versions of the ASME Codes and associated Code Cases, is a special case because consensus standards have already undergone extensive external review and have received industry endorsement. In addition, endorsement of the ASME Codes and Code Cases has been a longstanding NRC policy. Licensees and applicants participate in the development of the ASME Codes and Code

12 Cases and are aware that periodic updating of the ASME Codes is part of the regulatory process. Code Cases are ASME-developed alternatives to the ASME Codes, which licensees and applicants may voluntarily choose to adopt without an alternative request if the Code Cases are approved through IBR in the NRCs regulations. Finally, endorsement of the ASME Codes and Code Cases is consistent with the NTTAA, because the NRC has determined that sound regulatory reasons exist for establishing regulatory requirements for design, maintenance, ISI, IST, and examination by rulemaking.

The NRC proposes to amend or add the following conditions to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1)(i)(E) to incorporate by reference the 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section III, including Subsection NCA and Division 1, Subsections NB through NG and appendices, which would result in no incremental costs or benefits:

Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(iv)(A) Section III condition: Quality Assurance Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(vi) Section III condition: Subsection NH Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xi) Section III condition: Mandatory Appendix XXVI Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xiii) Section III condition: preservice inspection of steam generator tubes Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xiv) Section III condition: repairs to stamped components For Section III, the NRC is proposing to add condition 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(1)(xiv) that if Nonmandatory Appendix NN is used to eliminate surface defects and repairs of stamped components before the completion of the Form N-3 Data Report, all applicable requirements of Nonmandatory Appendix NN shall be met. The 2021 Edition includes Nonmandatory Appendix NN and states, in the provisions of NCA-8151 and NCA-8500 in the 2021 Edition of Section III, that guidance for the elimination of surface defects and repairs of stamped components before the completion of the Form N-3 Data Report is contained within Nonmandatory Appendix NN. For this condition, no costs are associated with its implementation, and this condition would be used for new plants constructed under 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.

Moreover, the NRC proposes to amend or add the following conditions to 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1)(ii)(C) to incorporate by reference the 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Division 1, which would result in no cost or benefit:

Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2) conditions: on ASME BPV Code,Section XI Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(viii) Section XI condition: concrete containment examinations Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix) Section XI condition: metal containment examinations Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xv) Section XI condition: Appendix VIII specimen set and qualification requirements Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xxxiv) Section XI condition: Nonmandatory Appendix U

13 Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xliv)Section XI condition: Nonmandatory Appendix Y Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xlv)Section XI condition: pressure testing of containment penetration piping after repair/replacement activities Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xlvi)Section XI condition: contracted repair/replacement organization fabricating items offsite of the owners facilities Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xlvii)Section XI condition: weld overlay design crack growth analysis Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xlviii)Section XI condition: analytical evaluations of degradation Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xlix)Section XI condition: analytical evaluations of flaws in cladding Add 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D)(9)Section XI condition: volumetric qualifications Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F) augmented ISI requirements: examination requirements for Class 1 piping and nozzle dissimilar-metal butt welds For Section XI, the NRC proposes to add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(xlvii) to require stress corrosion crack growth analysis of the weld overlay material in Nonmandatory Appendix Q of ASME Code,Section XI. In the 2021 Edition, ASME changed subparagraph Q-3000(a) to specifically note that stress corrosion crack growth analysis is not required within the weld overlay material.

While these overlay materials are expected to be more stress corrosion crack resistant, Article Q-2000 does not require all overlay materials to be impervious to potential cracking. If the licensee can justify that the material would not experience stress corrosion cracking growth over the design life of the overlay, the licensee should document this conclusion in the design.

The NRC, therefore, proposes this condition to require the analysis of a hypothetical flaw in determining the design and design life of a weld overlay under Nonmandatory Appendix Q. This condition is designed to maintain the status quo, and it is cost neutral.

The NRC proposes to add 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D)(9) to allow licensees the option to use Supplement 15 of Mandatory Appendix VIII in the 2021 Edition or later of Section XI, which was IBR in 10 CFR 50.55a, for volumetric qualification of examinations required by table 1 of ASME Code Case N-729-6. The proposed condition would allow all licensees to keep the current program under 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(D) to implement ASME Code Case N-729-6 as currently conditioned. It allows all licensees to use the current volumetric examination qualification requirements as they are now required. The proposed condition will provide licensees the option to use a new volumetric examination qualification program developed by ASME and the Electric Power Research Institute to meet the current requirements or the existing ASME Code Case N-729 requirements. The NRC proposed this approach to minimize the impact on licensees and allow them to use the new qualification program. This condition is designed to be cost neutral.

Also for Section XI, the NRC proposes to modify 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1)(iii)(D) and 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(F) to update the requirements for the augmented inspection of

14 dissimilar-metal butt welds in U.S. pressurized-water reactors from ASME Code Case N-770-5 to ASME Code Case N-770-7. This condition is cost neutral.

Lastly, the NRC proposes to amend or add the following conditions to in 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(1)(iv)(C) to incorporate by reference the 2022 Edition of the ASME OM Code for nuclear power plants. In addition, the NRC is streamlining 10 CFR 50.55a wherever possible to provide clearer IST regulatory requirements for nuclear power plant licensees and applicants, which would result in no incremental costs or benefits for this section:

Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(ii) OM condition: motor-operated valve testing Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) OM condition: check valves Amend 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(iii) OM condition: flow-induced vibration Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(vii) OM condition: snubber visual examination interval extension Add 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(3)(x) OM condition: Class 1 pressure relief valve sample expansion 5.1 Public Health (Accident)

The NRCs practice of adopting the latest ASME BPV and OM Code editions may incrementally reduce the likelihood of a radiological accident in a positive but not easily quantifiable manner.

Pursuing Alternative 2 would meet the NRC goal of maintaining safety by approving the latest ASME Code editions. Incorporating the latest ASME Code editions into plant procedures may also result in the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could cause further degradation that eventually leads to a plant transient. As such, Alternative 2 would maintain the same level of safety or provide an incremental improvement in safety when compared to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1).

Compared to the regulatory baseline, Alternative 2 meets the NRCs goal of ensuring the protection of public health and safety and the environment by approving the latest ASME Code editions. This ensures the industry is periodically updating to the most current methods and technology and may decrease the potential for an accident, thus decreasing the overall risk to public health.

Compared to the regulatory baseline, Alternative 2 may decrease the probability of an accident because it ensures that plant safety systems are designed with equipment relied on to remain functional during and following design-basis accidents. Also, Alternative 2 may decrease the probability of an accident because of improved inspection and testing techniques to ensure material condition.

5.2 Occupational Health (Accident and Routine)

The NRC practice of reviewing the latest ASME BPV and OM Code editions and incorporating them by reference into the regulations ensures that the mandated ASME Code requirement results in acceptable quality and safety. Pursuing Alternative 2 would continue to meet the NRC goal of maintaining safety, as it would provide NRC approval of the latest ASME Code editions.

15 This may incrementally decrease the likelihood of an accident resulting in worker exposure or in worker radiological exposures during routine inspections or testing when compared to the regulatory baseline.

5.3 Industry Implementation and Operation These attributes account for the projected net economic effect of implementation, routine, and recurring activities required by the alternative for all affected licensees. Under Alternative 2, nuclear power plant licensees and experts would have the opportunity to attend a public meeting to ask questions on the proposed rule. The NRC estimates that personnel from affected sites would review the final rule and guidance. Therefore, the NRC estimate for industry representatives attending the proposed rule meeting and reviewing the final rule and guidance is ($17,000) at the 7 percent NPV and ($18,000) at the 3 percent NPV. Additionally, power plant licensees would not need to submit a request under 10 CFR 50.55a(z) for permission to use the latest edition of or addenda to the ASME Codes as an alternative to the ASME Code provisions.

This provides a net benefit (i.e., averted cost) to these licensees. Some licensees may need to submit an early update request under 10 CFR 50.55a(f)(4)(iv) or 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(4)(iv),4 which is an incremental cost for Alternative 2.

The use of later editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes would benefit NRC nuclear power plant licensees and applicants. Later editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes may introduce the use of advanced techniques, procedures, and measures.

Further, submission of an 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 benefits of using it. 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 use of the Code alternative, and appropriate levels of licensee or applicant management must review and approve the request before submission to the NRC. A review of recent ASME Code alternative requests submitted to the NRC found that these submittals ranged from a few pages to a few hundred pages.

The NRC estimates that a submittal to request an ASME Code alternative under 10 CFR 50.55a(z) requires an average of 124 hours0.00144 days <br />0.0344 hours <br />2.050265e-4 weeks <br />4.7182e-5 months <br /> for the licensee or applicant to research, review, approve, process, and submit the document to the NRC. The NRC assumes that licensees or applicants would decide whether to request an alternative by weighing the cost against the derived benefit. In some cases, licensees may decide to forfeit the benefits of using a newer ASME Code, whether in terms of radiological considerations or averted costs.

A review of past submittals of code alternative requests shows that plant owners submit a single code alternative request that covers multiple units and multiple plant sites. Under Alternative 2, a licensee of a nuclear power plant would no longer need to submit alternative requests under 10 CFR 50.55a(z). This would provide a net benefit (i.e., averted cost) to the licensee. The NRC plans to issue this rule by 2025 and determined that the implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the avoidance of approximately 17 code alternative requests (and their associated 4

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 for updating early to later editions of and addenda to the ASME OM Code.

16 preparation) each year. As shown in table 3, the NRC estimates that the industry operation benefits for the averted requests for alternatives range from $0.67 million (7 percent NPV) to

$0.74 million (3 percent NPV) for Alternative 2. The total industry benefits represent averted costs of $0.65 million (7 percent NPV) and $0.72 million (3 percent NPV).

Table 3 Industry Implementation and Operation Year Activity Requests Prepared per Year Mean Labor Hours Weighted Hourly Rate Benefit (Cost)

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV 2023 Industry employees and experts attend proposed rule meeting 55 2

$136

($15,000)

($15,000)

($15,000) 2024 Industry reviews final rule and guidance (hours) 5 5

$136

($3,000)

($2,000)

($3,000)

Implementation Subtotal

($18,000)

($17,000)

($18,000) 2025 Averted Code Case alternative request preparation and submission 17 124

$136

$291,000

$238,000

$266,000 2026 Averted Code Case alternative request preparation and submission 17 124

$136

$291,000

$222,000

$222,000 2027 Averted Code Case alternative request preparation and submission 17 124

$136

$291,000

$207,000

$251,000 Operation Subtotal

$873,000

$667,000

$739,000 Total

$855,000

$650,000

$721,000 Note: All values are reported in 2022 dollars.

5.4 NRC Implementation The NRC will incur implementation costs to complete the rulemaking process. These costs include writing the Federal Register notice, reviewing and addressing public comments on the proposed rule, and issuing the rule. Table 4 shows the average labor hours for the NRC staff attending public meetings and the NRC implementation costs to develop and issue the final rule.

The total NRC costs are ($0.39) million (7 percent NPV) and ($0.41) million (3 percent NPV).

17 Table 4 NRC Implementation Costs Year Activity Number of Actions Hours Weighted Hourly Rate Benefit (Cost)

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV 2023 NRC hosts a public meeting on proposed rule 22 2

$143

($7,000)

($6,000)

($6,000)

Subtotal

($7,000)

($6,000)

($6,000) 2023 Develop final rule 1

1,500

$143

($215,000)

($200,000) ($208,000) 2024 Develop/issue final rule 1

1,500

$143

($215,000)

($187,000) ($202,000)

Subtotal

($429,000)

($388,000) ($410,000)

Total:

($436,000)

($394,000) ($417,000)

Total costs are rounded to the nearest thousand. All values are reported in 2022 dollars.

5.5 NRC Operation When the NRC receives an alternative request, the staff requires time to evaluate the acceptability of the request against the current agency-approved criteria. Under Alternative 2, the NRC estimates that 17 alternative request submittals per year would not be submitted. The IBR of the ASME Code editions in the CFR allows a nuclear power plant licensee to use a more current ASME Code edition or addendum without submitting an alternative request for NRC review.

As shown in table 5 the NRC estimates that each submittal would require an average of 62 hours7.175926e-4 days <br />0.0172 hours <br />1.025132e-4 weeks <br />2.3591e-5 months <br /> of staff time to perform the technical review (including resolving technical issues),

document the evaluation, and respond to the licensee about its request. By eliminating the need for these submittals, the staff estimates that the averted cost would range from $0.35 million (7 percent NPV) to $0.41 million (3 percent NPV).

Table 5 NRC Operation CostsAverted Alternative Request Review Year Activity Alternative Requests Reviewed Labor Hours Weighted Hourly Rate Net Benefits (Costs)

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV 2025 Averted Code Case alternative request review 17 62

$143

$153,000

$125,000

$140,000 2026 Review Code Case alternative request submittal 17 62

$143

$153,000

$116,000

$136,000 2027 Review Code Case alternative request submittal 17 62

$143

$153,000

$109,000

$132,000 Total:

$459,000

$350,000

$408,000 a All values are reported in 2022 dollars.

18 5.6 Total NRC Costs Table 6 shows the total NRC costs broken down by implementation and operation costs for Alternative 2. These total NRC costs are estimated to range from ($44,000) (7 percent NPV) to

($10,000) (3 percent NPV).

Table 6 Total NRC Net Benefits (Costs)

Attribute Total NRC Averted Benefits (Costs)

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Implementation Totals:

($436,000)

($394,000)

($417,000)

Operation Totals:

$459,000

$350,000

$408,000 NRC Totals:

$23,000

($44,000)

($10,000)

Note: All values are reported in 2022 dollars.

5.7 Total Costs Table 7 shows the Alternative 2 costs and benefits broken down by implementation and operation for the industry and the NRC. These total averted costs are estimated to range from

$0.61 million (7 percent NPV) to $0.71 million (3 percent NPV).

Table 7 Total Costs Attribute Total Averted Costs (Costs)

Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Industry Implementation:

($18,000)

($17,000)

($18,000)

Industry Operation:

$873,000

$667,000

$739,000 Industry Totals:

$855,000

$650,000

$721,000 NRC Implementation:

($436,000)

($394,000)

($417,000)

NRC Operation:

$458,000

$350,000

$407,000 NRC Totals:

$22,000

($44,000)

($10,000)

Net:

$877,000

$606,000

$712,000 Note: All values are reported in 2022 dollars.

5.8 Improvements in Knowledge Compared to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1), Alternative 2 would improve knowledge by allowing the industry and the staff to gain experience with new technology and by permitting licensees to use advances in ISI and IST. Improved ISI and IST may lead to the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could result in further degradation that eventually causes a plant transient.

5.9 Regulatory Efficiency Compared to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1), Alternative 2 would increase regulatory efficiency because of the resulting consistency between the ASME Codes and NRC regulations.

Licensees and applicants that wish to use more current editions of or addenda to the ASME Codes would not be required to submit 10 CFR 50.55a(z) alternative requests to the NRC for review and approval. This would provide licensees and applicants with flexibility and

19 would decrease licensee uncertainty when making modifications or preparing to perform ISI or IST.

The NRC does not recommend Alternative 1 for the following two reasons:

(1)

Licensees would need to submit requests for alternatives to use more current editions of or addenda to the ASME Codes under 10 CFR 50.55a(z). This process would result in increased regulatory costs for licensees and the NRC.

(2)

The NRCs role as an effective industry regulator would be undermined. Although ASME periodically publishes and revises its codes, under Alternative 1, outdated material would remain incorporated by reference in the CFR.

5.10 Other Considerations 5.10.1 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.

5.10.2 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 editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes in 10 CFR 50.55a.

Given the existing data and information, Alternative 2 is the more effective way to implement the updated ASME Codes. The updates would amend 10 CFR 50.55a to incorporate by reference the following ASME Code editions and addenda:

the 2021 Edition of ASME BPV Code,Section III, Division 1, and ASME BPV Code,Section XI, Division 1, with conditions on their use the 2022 Edition of ASME OM Code, Division 1, with conditions on its use 5.10.3 Increased Public Confidence Alternative 2 incorporates 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 later editions of and addenda to the ASME 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, which increases public confidence.

5.11 Uncertainty Analysis

20 The NRC completed a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for this regulatory analysis using the specialty software @Risk.5 The Monte Carlo approach answers the question, What distribution of net benefits results from multiple model simulations using the probability distributions assigned to key input variables?

5.11.1 Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions Monte Carlo simulations introduce 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.6 The staff used the PERT distribution to reflect the relative spread and skewness of the distribution defined by the three estimates.

Table 8 identifies the data elements, the distribution and summary statistic, and the mean value of the distribution used in the uncertainty analysis.

Table 8 Uncertainty Analysis Variables Data Elements Mean Estimate Distribution Low Estimate Best Estimate High Estimate Averted Alternative Request Weighted industry hourly rate

$136.32 PERT

$134.33

$136.32

$138.25 Industry hours averted to produce alternative request 124 PERT 24 123 230 Number of alternative requests averted 17 PERT 17 17 18 Averted NRC hours to review an alternative request 62 PERT 12 62 115 a Note: All values are reported in 2022 dollars.

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

6 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.

21 5.11.2 Uncertainty Analysis Results The NRC performed the Monte Carlo simulation by repeatedly recalculating the results 10,000 times. For each iteration, the staff chose values randomly from the probability distributions that define the input variables. The staff recorded values of the output variables for each iteration and used these resulting values to define the resultant probability distribution.

Figures 1, 2, and 3 display the histograms of the incremental costs and benefits from the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1). For the analysis shown in each figure, the NRC ran 10,000 simulations, changing the key variables to assess the resulting effect on costs and benefits. The analysis shows that the industry would benefit if this rule is issued, and the NRC would experience a small net cost. Overall, however, issuing the rule is cost beneficial.

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

22 Figure 2 Total NRC costs (7 percent NPV)Alternative 2 Figure 3 Total costs (7 percent NPV)Alternative 2 Table 9 presents descriptive statistics on the uncertainty analysis. The 5 percent and 95 percent values (labeling the bands to either side of the 90 percent band) that appear as numerical values on the top of the vertical lines in figures 1, 2, and 3 are reflected in table 9 as the 0.05 and 0.95 values, respectively.

Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Uncertainty Results (7 Percent NPV)

Uncertainty Result Incremental Cost-Benefit (2022 Dollars)

Minimum Mean Standard Deviation Maximum 0.05 0.95 Total Industry Benefit (Cost) 130,000 648,000 209,000 1,255,000 307,000 994,000 Total NRC Benefit (Cost)

(667,000)

(143,000) 150,000 323,000 (393,000) 104,000 Total Benefit (Cost)

(346,000) 506,000 259,000 1,309,000 81,000 934,000 Note: All values are rounded.

Examining the range of the resulting output distribution shown in table 9 makes it possible to discuss the potential incremental costs and benefits of the proposed rule more confidently. This table 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, whose uncertainty has the largest impact on total costs (and averted costs) for this proposed rule. This figure ranks the cost drivers based on their impact on the uncertainty in the net cost. The three biggest cost

23 drivers of uncertainty for this rule are averted industry hours to produce alternative requests, averted NRC hours to evaluate alternative requests, and NRC hours to develop a rule. The remaining cost drivers show diminishing variation.

Figure 4 Top five cost drivers (7 percent NPV)Alternative 2 5.11.3 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 $0.50 million with a 90 percent confidence interval that the benefit is between $0.08 million and $0.93 million using a 7 percent discount rate. The uncertainty analysis concludes that there is a 97.8 percent likelihood that the rule is net cost beneficial. A reasonable inference from the uncertainty analysis is that proceeding with this rule represents an efficient use of resources and averted costs for the NRC and the industry.

5.12 Disaggregation To comply with the guidance contained in Section E.2.3, Criteria for the Treatment of Individual Requirements, of Appendix E, Special Circumstances and Relationship to Other Procedural Requirements, to NUREG/BR-0058, the NRC performed a screening review to determine whether any of the individual requirements (or set of integrated requirements) of the proposed rule would be unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the rulemaking. The NRC determined that the objectives of the rulemaking are to incorporate standards by reference; provide updated rules for the design, construction, operation, ISI, and IST of safety-related systems; and impose conditions on the use of the updated standards referenced in the rules. Furthermore, the NRC concludes that each of the requirements in the proposed rule would be necessary to achieve one or more objectives of the rulemaking. Table 10 shows the results of this screening review.

24 Table 10 Disaggregation Regulatory Goals for Proposed Rule (1) Approve Use of the Code Edition or Addenda (2) Make IBR Conforming Changes 2021 Edition of the ASME BPV Code X

X 2022 Edition of the ASME OM Code X

X 5.13 Summary This regulatory analysis identified both quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs and benefits that would result from incorporating NRC-approved ASME BPV and OM Code editions by reference into the CFR. Although quantifiable costs and benefits appear to be more tangible, the staff urges decisionmakers not to disregard costs and benefits that are nonquantifiable. Such benefits or costs can be just as important, or even more important, than benefits or costs that can be quantified and monetized.

5.13.1 Quantified Net Benefit As shown in table 7, the estimated quantified incremental averted costs for Alternative 2 relative to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1) over the remaining term of the affected entities operating licenses range from approximately $0.61 million (7 percent NPV) to $0.71 million (3 percent NPV). This table also shows that Alternative 2 would be cost beneficial for the industry.

5.13.2 Nonquantified Benefits In addition to the quantified costs discussed in this regulatory analysis, the attributes of public health (accident), improvements in knowledge, regulatory efficiency, and other considerations would produce a number of nonquantified benefits for the industry and the NRC. The sections below summarize these benefits.

5.13.2.1 Advances in Inservice Inspection and Inservice Testing Advances in ISI and IST may incrementally decrease the likelihood of a radiological accident, the likelihood of post-accident 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 Codes may contribute to plant safety by providing improved examination methods that may lead to the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could cause further degradation and result in a plant transient. These improved methods may increase the assurance of plant safety-system readiness and may prevent, through inspection and testing, the introduction of a new failure mode or common-cause failure mode not previously evaluated.

5.13.2.2 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. 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 this reason, Alternative 2 would

25 maintain the same level of safety, or provide an incremental improvement in safety, which may result in an incremental decrease in public health radiation exposures when compared to the regulatory baseline.

5.13.2.3 Improvements in Inservice Inspection and Inservice Testing Knowledge The NRC approval of later editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes would improve knowledge by allowing 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 lead to the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could result in further degradation that eventually causes a plant transient.

5.13.2.4 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.

5.13.2.5 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 of and addenda to the ASME Codes in 10 CFR 50.55a.

5.13.2.6 Increased Public Confidence Alternative 2 would incorporate the current ASME Code editions and addenda for the design, construction, operation, ISI, and IST of nuclear power plants by approving the use of editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes in 10 CFR 50.55a. This alternative would allow licensees to use 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 IBR of current addenda to and editions of the ASME Codes into the CFR would maintain the NRCs role as an effective industry regulator. This role would likewise be undermined if outdated material remains incorporated by reference in the CFR.

5.14 Safety Goal Evaluation Alternative 2 would allow licensees and applicants to apply the most recent ASME BPV and OM Code editions and addenda and NRC-approved Code Cases, 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 standard at 10 CFR 50.109(a)(3). The NRC does not regard the IBR of ASME Code editions and addenda and NRC-approved Code Cases to be backfitting. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register gives the basis for this determination. For these reasons, a safety goal evaluation is not appropriate for this regulatory analysis.

26 5.15 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 11 provides cross-references for the relevant information to its location in this document or the Federal Register notice.

Table 11 Specific CRGR Regulatory Analysis Information Requirements 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 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, (ii) documents supporting the requirements or staff positions Federal Register notice for the proposed rule Appendix C, (iii) the sponsoring offices position on each requirement or staff position as to whether the change would modify, implement, or 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 method of implementation Regulatory Analysis, Section 7 Appendix C, (vi) identification of the category of power reactors, new reactors, or nuclear materials facilities or activities to which the generic requirement or staff position applies Regulatory Analysis, Section 4.2.2 Appendix C, (vii)-(viii) if the action involves a power reactor backfit and the exceptions at 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4) do not apply, the items required at 10 CFR 50.109(c) and the required rationale at 10 CFR 50.109(a)(3)

Does not apply Appendix C, (xi) an assessment of how the action relates to the Commissions Safety Goal Policy Statement Regulatory Analysis, Section 5.14

6. Decision Rationale Table 12 provides the quantified and qualified costs and benefits for Alternative 2. The quantitative analysis used best estimate values.

27 Table 12 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 ASME BPV Code 2021 Editions and ASME OM Code 2022 Editions, with conditions Industry: (all provisions)

$0.65 million using a 7% discount rate

$0.72 million using a 3% discount rate NRC: (all provisions)

($44,000) using a 7% discount rate

($10,000) using a 3% discount rate Net Benefit (Cost): (all provisions)

$0.61 million using a 7% discount rate

$0.71 million using a 3% discount rate Benefits:

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

Public Health (Accident): May incrementally reduce the likelihood of a radiological accident in a positive, but not easily quantifiable, manner. Pursuing Alternative 2 would still meet the NRC goal of maintaining safety by continuing to provide NRC approval of the use of later editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes 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, clearly focused alternative to specific ASME Code provisions. Improvements in ISI and IST may also lead to the earlier identification of material degradation that, if undetected, could result in further degradation that eventually causes a plant transient. Thus, Alternative 2 would maintain the same level of safety or would provide an incremental improvement in safety when compared to the regulatory baseline, which may result in an incremental decrease in public health radiation exposures.

Occupational Health (Accident): The use of later editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes may reduce post-accident occupational radiation exposures in a positive, but not easily quantifiable, manner.

The advances in ISI and IST may lead to an incremental decrease in the likelihood of an accident resulting in worker exposure when compared to the regulatory baseline.

Improvements in ISI and IST Knowledge:

The staff would gain experience with new technology and ISI and IST advances.

28 Net Monetary Savings or (Costs)

Total Present Value Nonquantified Benefits or (Costs)

Alternative 2 (continued)

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 overestimated the number or the complexity of these eliminated submittals, then the averted costs would decrease proportionally, causing the quantified net costs of Alternative 2 to increase.

The industry and the NRC would benefit from Alternative 2 because of the following cost savings:

Costs will be averted by licensees because of reduced ASME Code alternative requests on a plant-specific basis under 10 CFR 50.55a(z).

Alternative 2 would also have the qualitative benefit of meeting the NRCs goal of ensuring the protection of public health and safety and the environment through the agencys approval of the use of later editions of and addenda to the ASME Codes. It would also allow for the use of the most current methods and technology. Alternative 2 would support the NRCs goal of maintaining an open regulatory process because approving ASME Code editions would demonstrate the agencys commitment to participating in the national consensus standards process and continue 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 parts of editions of and addenda to these ASME Codes in 10 CFR 50.55a through the rulemaking process of IBR. 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 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 adequately protect the public. In this regard, these ASME Codes are voluntary consensus standards developed by participants with broad and varied interests, and the codes have already had extensive external review before undergoing NRC review. 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 (i.e., Federal agency-developed) standards, unless inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

29 Based solely on quantified costs and benefits, this regulatory analysis shows that the rulemaking is justified because the total quantified benefits of the regulatory action would exceed the costs of the action at a 7 percent discount rate. The uncertainty analysis shows a net benefit (averted cost) for all simulations, with a range of averted cost from $0.61 million to

$0.71 million (using a 7 percent NPV).

7. Schedule The proposed rule will be available for public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The NRC plans to issue the final rule in 2025.

30

8. References Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2003. Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, October 2003. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/10/09/03-25606/circular-a-4-regulatory-analysis.

OMB, 2016. Circular 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.

Public Law 104-113, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, as amended. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ113/pdf/PLAW-104publ113.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2021. NAICS Code: North American Industry Classification System Code, U.S. Department of Labor, May 2021. Available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics5_221113.htm; last accessed on January 31, 2023.

BLS, 2022. Historical CPI-U, December 2022, January 2023. Available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/home.htm; last accessed on January 31, 2023.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Part 50, Chapter 1, Title 10, Energy.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants. Part 52, Chapter 1, Title 10, Energy.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended. Part 170, Chapter 1, Title 10, Energy.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1983. NUREG/CR-3568, A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment, December 1983 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML062830096).

NRC, 2004. Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-12, Clarification on Use of Later Editions and Addenda to the ASME OM Code and Section XI, July 28, 2004 (ML042090436).

NRC, 2018. Charter: Committee to Review Generic Requirements, Revision 9, June 2018 (ML17355A532).

NRC, 2020. NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Final Revision 5, January 28, 2020 (ML19261A277).

NRC, 2021. NUREG-1350, Volume 33, 2021-2022 Information Digest, October 2021 (ML21300A280).

A-1 Appendix A Major Assumptions and Input Data Data Elements Mean Estimate Distribution Low Estimate Best Estimate High Estimate Source or Basis of Estimate General Base year 2022 NRC input Final rule effective 2025 NRC input Primary discount rate 7%

Secondary discount rate 3%

Rule applicability period (years) 3 The NRC estimates that the final rule will be published in the Federal Register at the beginning of 2025 and applied for 2025, 2026, and 2027.

Number of operating units 94 This is based on the list of operating reactors on the NRC public website and includes Alvin W.

Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, which are assumed to begin operations in 2023 and 2024.

Number of sites 57 This is based on the list of number of sites on the NRC public website and excludes Perry Nuclear Power Plant, as its license is assumed to expire in 2026.

Labor Rates Industry labor multiplier 2.4 Industry weighted rate

$136 NRC weighted rate

$143 Averted Alternative Request Number of alternative requests averted 17 PERT 17 17 18 NRC estimate based on the historical number of ASME Code relief or alternative requests received annually Industry hours to produce alternative request 124 PERT 24 123 230 NRC estimate based on the historical number of ASME Code relief or alternative requests received annually NRC hours to evaluate alternative request 62 PERT 12 61.5 115 NRC estimate Public Meetings Number of NRC meeting attendees 22 PERT 20 0

24 NRC estimate based on the previously held ASME Editions rule meeting Industry employees and experts that attended 55 PERT 50 0

60

A-2 Data Elements Mean Estimate Distribution Low Estimate Best Estimate High Estimate Source or Basis of Estimate Meeting duration (hours) 2 PERT 1.5 2.0 3.0 Number of meetings 1

Review Published Rule Sites review final rule 57 NRC estimate based on the number of sites Industry reviews final rule and guidance (hours) 5 PERT 2

4 8

NRC estimates assuming that each site would have personnel read the final rule and guidance NRC Develops and Issues Final Rule (Excluding Guidance)

Hours to develop 1,500 PERT 680 1,359 2,718 NRC estimate Number of years 2

2 2

2 NRC estimate

PKG: ML23032A295; RA: ML23032A316 via email* via e-concurrence**

OFFICE NMSS/REFS/RASB QTE NMSS/REFS/R ASB/RAT NMSS/REFS/RASB/BC NMSS/REFS/RRPB/BC NAME AOrozco**

JDougherty**

FSchofer**

CBladey**

IBerrios**

DATE 2/16/2023 2/28/2023 2/16/2023 3/7/2023 3/10/23 OFFICE NMSS/REFS/D**

OGC**

NRR/D NAME CRegan (TInverso for)

SClark AVeil DATE 3/27/2023 6/12/2023 7/5/2023