1

NRC Endorsement of Standards

Tom BoyceChief, Regulatory Guide Branch

NRC Office of Researchtom.boyce@nrc.gov

NESCC Meeting

November 29, 2012

2

NRC’s Policies on Consensus Codes and Standards

• Consensus codes and standards have been integral to the regulatory process for 3 decades

• Codes and standards promote safe operation of nuclear power plants, improve effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory oversight

• Federal law requires Government staff to use consensus standards where possible– National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

of 1995– OMB Circular A-119

NRC Formal Endorsement Processes

• Rules / Regulations (10 CFR)– Part 20: Standards for Protection Against Radiation– Part 50: Domestic Licensing of Production and

Utilization Facilities– Part 52: Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for

Nuclear Power Plants

• Regulatory Guides (RGs)• Standard Review Plans (SRPs)

3

NRC Other Endorsement Processes

• Safety Evaluation Reports (SERs)• Licenses (FSARs and DCDs)• Inspection Procedures• Letters & Memoranda• Generic Communications/Regulatory

Issue Summaries (RIS)• Technical Reports (NUREGs)

4

Shortcomings of other Processes

• Incomplete treatment of the standard• Bypasses key agency checks and

balances• Difficulty in establishing the staff position• Difficult to find in the regulatory record• Lack of “durable” guidance• Does not facilitate regulatory predictability

& stability5

NRC Endorsement Process: Rulemaking

• Most formal of NRC endorsement processes– About 1% of cited standards

• Standards endorsed in rulemaking process become licensee requirements

• Backfit Rule considered• Includes public comment and rigorous reviews• Takes 2-3 years to complete

6

FinishStart

Stable & PredictableRegulatory

BasisProposed

RuleFinalRule

Implementation

2 yearsCompanion Regulatory Guidance

Special Rulemaking: 10 CFR § 50.55a• Incorporates by reference and requires use of ASME

Codes:• ASME BPV Code, Section III for design• ASME BPV Code, Section XI for in-service inspection• ASME OM Code for in-service testing

• Approves, conditions, or disapproves use of ASME Code Cases, via 3 referenced Regulatory Guides• Regulatory Guide 1.84 (Section III) • Regulatory Guide 1.147 (Section XI)• Regulatory Guide 1.192 (OM Code)

• Incorporates by reference two IEEE Standards for Nuclear Power Generating Stations: IEEE-279, -603

7

Regulatory Guides & SRPs• Regulatory Guides

– Guidance to applicants - describes methods that the staff considers acceptable for use in implementing regulations

– Not substitutes for regulations; compliance is not required– Typically have forward-fit applicability; not a backfit– Program managed by NRC Reg Guide branch– Includes ACRS, CRGR, OGC reviews and public comments– Nominally 11 months to revise or issue a RG– Large percentage of standards cited by NRC in RGs– Best repository of the current staff positions & standards

• SRPs– Guidance to NRC staff (not an endorsement, per se)– Only updated intermittently, as determined by NRC offices

8

How to get NRC to review your std?• One process

– Send a letter to the NRC Standards Executive (Mike Case); Reg Guide branch coordinates response across NRC offices

– Issues: Reviewing is separate from endorsing; based on review, need NRC technical lead to initiate RG update; SRP only updated intermittently

• Better process– Get an NRC representative to participate in developing the

standard– Get an informal commitment from the NRC representative to

consider the standard in a RG or SRP– Send a letter to the NRC Standards Executive– Issue: More likely to get NRC tech lead to initiate RG update

9

How to get NRC to review your std?• Another process

• Reg Guide branch established a web site for feedback on RGs in October 2012 at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/contactus.html

• Reg Guide branch initiated a system of periodic (5-year) reviews of RGs (~450 RGs) in May 2012

• Comments reviewed upon receipt, but will be fully evaluated during the next periodic review of the affected guides

• Issues: Delayed feedback on acceptability of standard; no direct feedback if NRC decides not to update the RG

10

FAQs• It’s newer! Why doesn’t NRC review & endorse it?

– Has NRC been asked? How?– Resource decision (Value = Benefits vs. costs)

• What are the new technical or regulatory issues that are addressed?

• How significant are they?• Who do the issues affect and to what extent (license

applications or NRC inspections)?• What are the NRC resources needed to review and

update?– Are there relaxations/degradation of safety margins?

• Why does NRC stay with older standards?– Adequate for safety, consistent with NRC mission– Little or no demand from end users (license applications)– Limited resources to review and update

11

How to get NRC to review your std?• Make it worth it for NRC to review & endorse!• Qs to address in letter or comment on NRC web site:

– What rules and regulations does this standard support (e.g., 10 CFR 5.XX)?

– What NRC guidance currently endorses the standard (e.g., RG X.XX and SRP Section X.X.X)?

– What were the significant technical changes in the standard?– What NRC regulatory gaps does the standard address?– What applicants/licensees are affected by the standard?– Were any NRC representatives involved?

12

How to get NRC to review your std?• Good example in ANS letter to NRC on 11/6/2012 (ADAMS

ML123130021). From the foreword of ANSI/ANS-2.21-2012, “Criteria for Assessing Atmospheric Effects on the Ultimate Heat Sink”:

10 CFR 50, Appendix A, GDC 2, “Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena” requires…..

Existing regulatory guidance (i.e., Regulatory Guide 1.27, “Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants”) is dated (1970s vintage) and does not provide guidance on how to calculate effects to ultimate heat sinks using atmospheric parameters.

This standard establishes criteria for use of meteorological data collected at nuclear facilities to evaluate the atmospheric effects from meteorological parameters [e.g., dry-bulb temperature/wet-bulb temperature differential, precipitation, wind speed, short wave radiation, incoming solar (i.e., short wave) radiation, surface water temperature, and atmospheric pressure] on ultimate heat sinks.

13

FAQs• Why does NRC take so long to endorse a std?

– Technical basis development needed for anything? (1-2 years)– Draft Guide (DG) developed (5 months)

• Multiple NRC offices commit resources & agree on positions• RG branch QA & regulatory review• ACRS screening review• OGC review

– Public comment period (2 months)– Final RG developed (4 months)

• Multiple NRC offices commit resources & address comments• RG branch QA & regulatory review• ACRS review• OGC review

• Longer time than informal process, but higher quality, durable, more stable. Analogous to consensus stds?

• RGs supporting a rule use the rulemaking process14

NRC participation in SDOs• Do NRC representatives participate in your SDO?• Individual NRC offices (NRR, NRO, NMSS, FSME,

RES) determine participation by their staffs• Recent initiatives by Reg Guide branch:

– Develop and maintain lists of NRC participants in various SDOs

– More consistent letters nominating NRC participants in SDOs– Coordination meetings between offices on issues– Assessing value of “Top 10” lists or prioritization of issues

• Assessing value added of NRC participation– Results in standards that NRC endorses– Leads to NRC awareness/training of contemporary issues

15

Items for Discussion• What are the SDOs doing to get NRC participation?• What are SDOs doing to let NRC know plans for

developing standards?• Do SDOs systematically look at addressing NRC

exceptions to standards in SRPs and RGs?• What more should we be doing?• ANS meeting with NRC on 11/30

– One WFN, Rm O-4B06, 8-12:00 AM– Purpose is to assess whether ANS (and other SDOs) can

contribute to NRC Tier 3 Fukushima response

16