POLICY ISSUE

(Information)

September 22, 2006 SECY-06-0201

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations /RA/

SUBJECT: PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS FROM 

JUNE 1, 2005, THROUGH MAY 31, 2006

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Commission with a periodic assessment of

the activities of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR or the Committee). 

This paper does not address any new commitments or resource implications.

BACKGROUND:

The CRGR consists of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) senior managers from the

Offices of the General Counsel (OGC), Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Nuclear Reactor

Regulation (NRR), Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Nuclear Security and

Incident Response (NSIR), and one of the regional offices on a rotating basis, currently

Region IV. The CRGR reports to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO), who appoints

the Committee chairman and members. The CRGR conducts its activities in accordance with

the Committee’s charter, Revision 7, dated November 7, 1999, which describes the

Committee’s mission, scope of activities, and operating procedures. RES provides technical

and administrative support to the Committee.

CONTACT: Sher Bahadur, RES

301-415-6289
The Commissioners -2-

The CRGR mission is to ensure that proposed new or revised generic requirements applicable

to agency-licensed power reactor and nuclear materials licensees are appropriately justified

based on the backfit provisions of the applicable NRC regulations, the Commission’s backfit

guidance, and pertinent policy.

The primary responsibilities of the CRGR are to recommend to the EDO either approval or

disapproval of the staff’s proposed generic actions and to assist the NRC program offices in

ensuring consistency with the implementation of the Commission’s backfit regulations,

directives, and guidance. In addition, the CRGR participates in periodic meetings with

stakeholders as part of its responsibility for monitoring the overall effectiveness of NRC’s

generic backfit management process. As part of its responsibility for regulatory effectiveness,

the CRGR may conduct periodic audits of NRC’s administrative controls for facility-specific

backfitting to assess their effectiveness.

In response to the Commission’s direction, the CRGR proposed a process and criteria for

periodic assessment of the Committee’s activities in SECY-97-052, “Committee to Review

Generic Requirement Scope of Review and Periodic Review of Activities,” dated

February 27, 1997. The Commission approved the recommended process and criteria in a

staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated April 18, 1997. Accordingly, since 1997, the

CRGR has been evaluating its activities and reporting annually to the Commission.

DISCUSSION:

During this 12-month assessment period, from June 21, 2005, through May 31, 2006,

the CRGR reviewed proposed new or revised generic actions and evaluated their potential for

improper or unjustified backfits consistent with the Committee’s charter. In doing so, the CRGR

also identified pertinent technical, procedural, policy, and legal issues and continued to support

NRC’s move to less prescriptive and more performance-based and risk-informed regulations.

CRGR Activities

The CRGR held eight meetings during this assessment period to review 12 proposed generic

actions, including 1 rulemaking, 5 generic letters, 4 regulatory guides (RGs), 1 interim staff

guidance, and 1 regulatory issue summary (RIS). Of these, NRR sponsored eight actions, and

RES sponsored four. A list of the proposed topics is provided in Enclosure 1.

To gain efficiency in the review process, the CRGR chairman conducted a limited review of

several RISs and RGs to screen out any potential backfit. This limited review was conducted to

ensure that only a RIS or RG that had backfit potential or dealt with key issues was presented

to the Committee. The remaining RISs and RGs which did not have any of these concerns

were given either a deferral or a waiver from a formal CRGR review. A deferral from a CRGR

review required that the staff issued the document for public comment and later resubmitted for

CRGR consideration after addressing all the public comments. A document waived from a

formal review was issued final by the staff without further CRGR reviews. During this

assessment period, the CRGR chairman conducted 45 informal reviews. A list of the topics

reviewed is provided in Enclosure 2.
The Commissioners -3-

Stakeholder Feedback

As part of its efforts to meet the strategic goals of openness and effectiveness, the CRGR

meets periodically with licensees and other stakeholders. Through these interactions, the

CRGR has received feedback from stakeholders regarding a concern that generic

communications and certain guidance documents are being used to establish new staff

positions. In November 2005, the CRGR chairman and another CRGR member participated in

the “Generic Communications and Backfitting” session at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

Licensing Forum held in Baltimore, Maryland. In a panel discussion during this session the

CRGR chairman made a presentation on the Committee activities, solicited feedback from the

Forum participants on NRC’s generic backfit process, and addressed questions posed by

audience members. Stakeholder comments mostly addressed the appropriateness of using

generic communications, specifically RISs, to establish new staff requirements. 

Further, on August 9, 2006, the staff obtained comments, of a similar nature, on CRGR

activities from Exelon through a slide presentation given at the 2006 Utility Working Conference

held in Amelia Island, Florida. CRGR plans to review these comments at an upcoming

committee meeting to determine if any action is warranted. 

Periodic Assessment of CRGR Performance

The CRGR conducts a periodic assessment of the value added by its reviews of the proposed

new or revised generic actions based on a self-assessment of its activities and feedback from

the program offices as described below. 

Self-Assessment 

The CRGR assesses its value added in terms of the effectiveness in fulfilling the following three

categories of chartered responsibilities:

(1) Identify improper, unjustified, or implicit backfits.

The CRGR primary mission is to ensure that no inadvertent backfits are either imposed

or implied by the proposed new or revised generic requirements for NRC-licensed power

reactors and nuclear materials facilities and that staff-proposed actions are appropriately

justified as required by NRC’s regulations and Commission guidance and directives, as

well as applicable legislative acts and executive orders. Appendices C and D to the

CRGR charter require that the packages submitted for the Committee’s review and

endorsement include detailed backfit and regulatory analyses, as appropriate. During

this assessment period, the NRC staff ensured that the proposals were consistent with

the backfit provisions of applicable regulations and that any impact of these proposals

on NRC and licensees were assessed and explained. The staff followed CRGR

guidance as outlined in the CRGR charter and the associated regulatory requirements. 

The staff appropriately identified justifiable backfits and provided the required supporting

documents for the CRGR reviews. Consequently, no additional backfits were identified

by the Committee.
The Commissioners -4-

(2) Identify technical, procedural, or legal deficiencies or flaws with respect to backfit

policy presented to the CRGR.

In addition to technical expertise from the program offices and field experience from the

regions, the CRGR membership includes a senior OGC manager to identify legal

deficiencies or flaws in proposed staff actions with respect to the Commission’s backfit

rules, guidance, policies, and directives. The committee notes that the staff improved its

proposals and benefitted from the CRGR reviews because CRGR members provided

recommendations from a process perspective and ensured consistency with the

Commission’s backfit regulations, directives, and guidance.

(3) Consider the significance of the issues raised by the CRGR as compared to the impact

on schedules and resources expended to address those issues.

The CRGR continued to provide guidance and consultation to the NRC staff, when

needed, to eliminate implications of potential backfits in proposed documents before

they were issued for public comment and a formal CRGR review. To prevent

unnecessary delays, the CRGR expeditiously scheduled the Committee meetings as

requested by the NRC staff. The CRGR scheduled special meetings to meet the

schedule demands and provided necessary assistance to the staff before the formal

CRGR review. When necessary to expedite the endorsement process, the CRGR staff

assisted the sponsoring office staff in satisfactorily resolving the Committee’s

comments. As a result, the sponsoring office staff generally required minimal effort to

respond to the CRGR comments and recommendations. 

The results of its self-assessment revealed that CRGR reviews were timely, focused on the

priority issues, and beneficial to the NRC staff. Interactions with the NRC staff have been

positive and professional, resulting in constructive feedback and useful insights to ensure

product completeness.

Feedback from NRC Program Offices 

The CRGR continues to seek feedback from the sponsoring offices on the value added by the

Committee’s reviews. The CRGR solicited feedback from sponsoring offices, NRR and RES, in

a memorandum dated June 14, 2005, (ADAMS Accession No. ML061650302) regarding (1) the

value that the CRGR reviews added to the quality of the product, (2) staff efforts expended to

address CRGR comments and recommendations, (3) impact on the staff’s schedules, and

(4) significance of the issues and associated costs in terms of overall impact on schedules and

resources. The Committee did not receive any proposals for review from NMSS and NSIR

during this assessment period. 

Regarding the value added, the program offices indicated that in most cases the independent

reviews by CRGR were good, helpful and beneficial. The CRGR comments and

recommendations helped improve the overall quality and completeness of the final products. 

The CRGR reviews helped focus the backfit section of the generic communications and assist

in maintaining consistency with commission policies, rules and regulations, directives, and

guidance. At least in two instances, the CRGR reviews were significant and resulted in more

refined and much improved generic letters issued by the staff. In one case, the staff said that
The Commissioners -5-

only a little value was added by the CRGR review as the product was a very routine rulemaking

involving incorporation of ASME Code Cases by reference.

The program offices stated that the staff efforts in responding to the CRGR’s comments and

recommendations were minimal, with no significant impact on the staff's schedule or resources. 

The offices also noted that the CRGR’s comments were almost always focused and

constructive and as such did not pose an undue burden to the staff. Both the CRGR staff and

the Committee members were very responsive to the requests by the program offices staff

when the staff needed the CRGR to clarify comments or recommendations. Furthermore, the

staff said it could utilize a good part of the CRGR presentations when briefing another advisory

committee (e.g., the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)), thereby gaining

efficiencies in preparing the briefing material for ACRS.

The program offices reported that there was no significant impact on the staff’s schedule or

resources. In one instance, the Committee averted an adverse impact on the staff’s schedule

by agreeing to review the staff’s product after (rather than before) the completion of the ACRS

review, thereby avoiding several months of delay in the staff’s schedule. In another instance,

the publication of a rule was delayed as the CRGR process required an office-level concurrence

on the review package which took longer that usual, and an ad-hoc CRGR meeting could not

be scheduled because of insufficient quorum.

The program offices indicated that the CRGR identified issues that did not significantly impact

the associated costs in terms of overall schedule and resources. The program offices stated

that the time required for CRGR reviews in most cases were already considered and factored in

the schedule in planning stage. There were no associated costs in terms of overall schedule

and resources other than those already expended in preparing the package for the CRGR

review.

CONCLUSION:

The CRGR believes that it has successfully contributed the necessary staff and industry

awareness of the applicable NRC regulations and Commission policy regarding backfits. The

self-assessment and the program offices’ feedback indicate that the Committee has provided its

review and evaluation in an efficient and effective manner, added value to the regulatory

process, and contributed to the accomplishment of NRC’s mission by identifying technical,

procedural, and legal issues. The Committee will continue to seek improvements in its

workings.

/RA by Martin J. Virgilio Acting For/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director 

 for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Topics Reviewed by the CRGR between 

June 1, 2005, and May 31, 2006

2. Topics Reviewed by the CRGR Chairman 

between June 1, 2005, and May 31, 2006
The Commissioners -5-

only a little value was added by the CRGR review as the product was a very routine rulemaking involving

incorporation of ASME Code Cases by reference.

The program offices stated that the staff efforts in responding to the CRGR’s comments and

recommendations were minimal, with no significant impact on the staff's schedule or resources. The

offices also noted that the CRGR’s comments were almost always focused and constructive and as such

did not pose an undue burden to the staff. Both the CRGR staff and the Committee members were very

responsive to the requests by the program offices staff when the staff needed the CRGR to clarify

comments or recommendations. Furthermore, the staff said it could utilize a good part of the CRGR

presentations when briefing another advisory committee (e.g., the Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards (ACRS)), thereby gaining efficiencies in preparing the briefing material for ACRS.

The program offices reported that there was no significant impact on the staff’s schedule or resources. 

In one instance, the Committee averted an adverse impact on the staff’s schedule by agreeing to review

the staff’s product after (rather than before) the completion of the ACRS review, thereby avoiding several

months of delay in the staff’s schedule. In another instance, the publication of a rule was delayed as the

CRGR process required an office-level concurrence on the review package which took longer that usual,

and an ad-hoc CRGR meeting could not be scheduled because of insufficient quorum.

The program offices indicated that the CRGR identified issues that did not significantly impact the

associated costs in terms of overall schedule and resources. The program offices stated that the time

required for CRGR reviews in most cases were already considered and factored in the schedule in

planning stage. There were no associated costs in terms of overall schedule and resources other than

those already expended in preparing the package for the CRGR review.

CONCLUSION:

The CRGR believes that it has successfully contributed the necessary staff and industry awareness of

the applicable NRC regulations and Commission policy regarding backfits. The self-assessment and the

program offices’ feedback indicate that the Committee has provided its review and evaluation in an

efficient and effective manner, added value to the regulatory process, and contributed to the

accomplishment of NRC’s mission by identifying technical, procedural, and legal issues. The Committee

will continue to seek improvements in its workings.

/RA by Martin J. Virgilio Acting For/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director 

 for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Topics Reviewed by the CRGR between 

June 1, 2005, and May 31, 2006

2. Topics Reviewed by the CRGR Chairman 

between June 1, 2005, and May 31, 2006

WITS No. 199700390

E:\Filenet\ML062410524.wpd

OAR in ADAMS? (Y or N) Y ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML062410524 TEMPLATE NO.SECY-012 

Publicly Available? (Y or N) Y DATE OF RELEASE TO PUBLIC: Norm SENSITIVE? N 

OFFICE CRGR Tech Editor CRGR EDO

NAME LCupidon HChang SBahadur LAReyes MJV for

DATE 8/29/06 08/04/06 8/29/06 09/22 /06
Enclosure 1

TOPICS REVIEWED BY THE 

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS

BETWEEN JUNE 1, 2005, AND MAY 31, 2006

(CRGR Meeting Nos. 402–409)

CRGR Meeting No. 402 (June 14, 2005)

David B. Matthews

(NRR/ADRA/DNRL)

Mark A. Cunningham (RES/DFERR)

Proposed Final Rule, “Amendment to 10 CFR

50.55a, ‘Codes and Standards’ Incorporation by

Reference of ASME BPV Code Cases and the

associated regulatory guides; RG 1.84, “Design,

Fabrication, and Materials Code Case

Acceptability, ASME Section III,” issued August

2005; RG 1.147, “Inservice Inspection Code Case

Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,” issued

August 2005; RG 1.193, “ASME Code Cases Not

Approved for Use,” issued August 2005 (ADAMS

Accession No. ML051320111)

Presenters: Harry S. Tovmassian (NRR), Wallace

E. Norris (RES)

CRGR Meeting No. 403 (September 13, 2005)

Frank P. Gilepsie (NRR/ADRO/DRL) Proposed interim staff guidance process for

license renewal (ADAMS Accession No.

ML052310174)

Presenters: Stephen T. Hoffman (NRR), Linh N.

Tran (NRR)

CRGR Meeting No. 404 (September 27, 2005)

John A. Grobe (NRR/ADES/DCI) Proposed generic letter, “Steam Generator Tube

Integrity and Associated Technical Specifications”

(ADAMS Accession No. ML050840367) 

Presenter: Kenneth J. Karwoski, (NRR)
-2-

CRGR Meeting No. 405 (November 8, 2005)

Michael E. Mayfield

(NRR/ADES/DE)

Proposed generic letter , “Grid Reliability and the

Impact on Plant Risk and the Operability of Offsite

Power” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052440389) 

Presenters: Ronaldo V. Jenkins (NRR), Amritpal

(Paul) S. Gill (NRR)

CRGR Meeting No. 406 (November 29, 2005)

James E. Lyons (NRR/ADRA/DRA) Proposed generic letter, “Generic Letter on Impact

of Potentially Degraded Hemyc and MT Fire

Barriers on Compliance with Approved Fire

Protection Programs” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML052840172) 

Presenters: Angela P. Lavretta (NRR), Daniel M.

Frumkin (NRR)

James E. Lyons (NRR/ADRA/DRA) Proposed RIS 2005-30, “Clarification of Post Fire

Safe Shutdown Circuit Regulatory Requirements”

(ADAMS Accession No. ML052770154)

Presenter: Robert F. Radlinski (NRR)

CRGR Meeting No. 407 (December 13, 2005)

Mark A. Cunningham (RES/DFERR) Proposed RG 1.152, Revision 2, “Criteria for Use

of Computers in Safety Systems of Nuclear Power

Plants” (ADAMS Accession No. ML051920407)

Presenter: Satish K. Aggarwal (RES)

CRGR Meeting No. 408 (April 25, 2006)

James E. Lyons (NRR/ADRA/DRA) Proposed generic letter, “Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown

Circuit Analysis Spurious Actuations” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML060800076)

Presenter: Robert J. Wolfgang (NRR)
-3-

CRGR Meeting No. 409 (May 9, 2006)

Michael E. Mayfield

(NRR/ADES/DE)

Proposed generic letter, “Inaccessible or

Underground Cable Failures that Disable Accident

Mitigation Systems” (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML534103430)

Presenter: Thomas Koshy (NRR)
Enclosure 2

TOPICS REVIEWED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS

BETWEEN JUNE 1, 2005, AND MAY 31, 2006

Document

Type Topic Decision on FormalCRGR Review

RIS RIS 2005-17 (Draft), “Clarification of Requirements

for Application of the ASME Code Symbol Stamp

on Safety-related Components” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML051160005)

Waived

June 24, 2005

RIS RIS 2005-13, “NRC Incident Response and the

National Response Plan” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML051590482) 

Waived

June 30, 2005

RIS RIS 2005-XX, “NRC Staff Position on the

Requirements of 10 CFR 50.36, ‘Technical

Specifications,’ With Respect to Limiting Safety

System Settings (LSSS) During Periodic Testing

and Calibration of Instrument Channels” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML051810077)

Waived

July 25, 2005

RIS RIS 2005-20 (Draft), “Revision to Guidance

Formerly Contained in Generic Letter 91-18,

‘Information to Licensees Regarding Two NRC

Inspection Manual Sections on Resolution of

Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions and on

Operability’” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML052020424)

Waived

July 27, 2005

RIS RIS 2002-15, Revision 1, “NRC Approval of

Commercial Data Encryption Systems for the

Electronic Transmission of Safeguards

Information” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML050460031) 

Waived

August 24, 2005

RIS RIS 2005-19, “Preparation and Scheduling of

Operator Licensing Examinations” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML052080128)

Waived

August 25, 2005

RIS RIS 2005-16, “Issuance of NRC Management

Directive 8.17, ‘Licensee Complaints Against NRC

Employees’” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML050100329)

Waived

August 25, 2005

RIS RIS 2005-29, “Anticipated Transients That Could

Develop Into More Serious Events” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML051890212)

Waived

September 2, 2005
Document

Type Topic Decision on FormalCRGR Review

-2-

RIS RIS 2005-26, “Control of Sensitive Unclassified

Nonsafeguards Information Related to Nuclear

Power Reactors” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML051430228)

Waived

September 2, 2005

RIS RIS 2005-28, “Scope of For-Cause Fitness-ForDuty Testing Required by 10 CFR 26.24(a)(3)”

(ADAMS Accession No. ML052230003)

Waived

September 2, 2005

RIS RIS 2006-02, “Good Practices for Licensee

Performance During Emergency Preparedness

Component of Force-on-Force Exercises” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML052970294)

Waived

October 3, 2005

RIS Revised RIS 2005-28, “Scope of For-Cause

Fitness-For-Duty Testing Required by 10 CFR

26.24(a)(3)” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML052230003)

Waived

October 3, 2005

RIS RIS 2005-XX, “Endorsement of Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI) Guidance ‘Enhancements to

Emergency Preparedness Programs Hostile

Action Related Events’” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML053290370)

Waived

December 21, 2005

RIS RIS 2006-03, “Guidance on Requesting an

Exemption from Biennial Emergency

Preparedness Exercise Requirements” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML053390039)

Waived

January 24, 2006

RIS RIS 2004-15, “Supplement 1 Emergency

Preparedness Issues: POST-9/11” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML053000046)

Waived

February 6, 2006

RIS RIS 2006-04, “Experience with Implementation of

Alternative Source Terms” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML053460347)

Waived

February 8, 2006

RIS Updated RIS 2004-15, “Supplement 1 Emergency

Preparedness Issues: POST-9/11” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML053000046)

Waived

March 10, 2006

RIS RIS 2006-XX, “Revised Review and Transmittal

Process for Accident Sequence Precursor

Analyses” (ADAMS Accession No. ML060900007)

Waived

May 16, 2006
Document

Type Topic Decision on FormalCRGR Review

-3-

RIS RIS 2006-07, “Changes to the Safety System

Unavailability Performance Indicators” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML060170470)

Waived

May 30, 2006

Draft Generic

Letter

Proposed GL 2005-03, “Impact of Potentially

Degraded HEMYC/MT Fire Barrier Materials on

Compliance with Approved Fire Protection

Programs” (ADAMS Accession No. ML051440863)

Deferred

June 14, 2005

Draft Generic

Letter

Proposed GL 2005-XX, “Inaccessible or

Underground Cable Failures that Disable Accident

Mitigation Systems” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML050910342)

Deferred 

June 14, 2005

Draft Generic

Letter

Proposed GL 2005-XX, “Post-Fire Safe-Shutdown

Circuit Analysis Spurious Actuations” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML051590473)

Deferred 

July 13, 2005

Draft

Revision to

Standard

Review Plan

Section

Proposed Revision to SRP Section 6.5.2,

“Containment Spray as a Fission Product Cleanup

System” (ADAMS Accession No. ML050980288)

Waived 

July 25, 2005

Draft

Regulatory

Guide 

Proposed DG-1128, “Criteria for Accident

Monitoring Instrumentation for Nuclear Power

Plants” (Proposed Revision 4 of RG 1.97) (ADAMS

Accession No. ML051870354)

Deferred

July 27, 2005

Draft

Revisions to

Regulatory

Guides and

Standard

Review Plan

Section

Proposed Revision 3 of RG 1.82, “Water Sources

for Long-Term Recirculation Cooling Following a

Loss-of-Coolant Accident,” and RG 1.1, “Net

Positive Suction Head for Emergency Core

Cooling and Containment Heat Removal Pumps

(November 1970),”and Proposed Revision 4 of

SRP Section 6.2.2, “Containment Heat

Removal”(ADAMS Accession No. ML051610471) 

Deferred

July 28, 2005

Draft

Revision to

Standard

Review Plan

Section

Proposed Revision to SRP Section 6.2.1.3, “Mass

and Energy Release Analysis for Postulated

Loss-of-Coolant Accidents” (ADAMS Accession

No. ML051540304) 

Waived 

August 8, 2005

Draft

Regulatory

Guide 

Proposed DG-8028, “Control of Access to High

and Very High Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power

Plants” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052140607)

Waived

August 11, 2005
Document

Type Topic Decision on FormalCRGR Review

-4-

Final Revision

to Regulatory

Guide

Proposed Revision 1 of RG 3.71, “Nuclear

Criticality Safety Standards for Fuels and Materials

Facilities” (ADAMS Accession No. ML051990087) 

Waived

September 6, 2005

Final

Regulatory

Guide

Proposed Final RG 1.204, “Guidelines for

Lightning Protection for Nuclear Power Plants”

(ADAMS Accession No. ML052350680)

Waived

September 6, 2005

Draft Rule Proposed Rule, “Clarification of NRC Civil Penalty

Authority Over Contractors and Subcontractors

Who Discriminate Against Employees for

Engaging in Protected Activities” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML052910071)

Deferred

October 25, 2005

Draft

Regulatory

Guide and

Standard

Review Plan

Section

Proposed DG-1120, “Transient and Accident

Analysis Methods,” and SRP Chapter 15, Section

15.0.2, “Review of Transients and Accident

Methods” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052930162)

Waived

October 26, 2005

Draft

Standard

Review Plan

Section

Proposed SRP Section 14.2.1, “Generic

Guidelines for Extended Power Uprate Testing

Programs” (ADAMS Accession No. ML052790180) 

Waived

November 2, 2005

Draft

Regulatory

Guide

Proposed RG 1.201, “Guidelines for Categorizing

Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear

Power Plants According to Their Safety

Significance” (for trial use) (ADAMS Accession No.

ML052910106)

Deferred

November 2, 2005

Draft

Revision to

Standard

Review Plan

Section

Proposed Revision of SRP Section 12.5,

“Operational Radiation Protection Program”

(ADAMS Accession No. ML052930073)

Waived 

November 16, 2005

Draft

Revision to

Standard

Review Plan

Sections

Proposed Revision of SRP Sections 13.2.1,

“Reactor Operator Training,” 13.2.2, “Training for

Nonlicensed Plant Staff,” and 13.5.2.1, “Operating

and Emergency Operating Procedures” (ADAMS

Accession No. ML052130417)

Waived

December 15, 2005
Document

Type Topic Decision on FormalCRGR Review

-5-

Draft

Revision to

Standard

Review Plan

Section

Proposed Revision to SRP Section 17.5, “Quality

Assurance Program Description—Design

Certification, Early Site Permit and New License

Applicants” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML053250316) 

Waived

December 15, 2005

Draft Policy

and

Procedure

Letter

Proposed Draft Revision of NMSS Policy and

Procedures Letter, P&P 1-82, “10 CFR Part 70

Backfit Guidance” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML052280047) 

Waived

January 4, 2006

Draft

Procedure

Letter

Procedure for Managing Security-Related Backfits

(ADAMS Accession No. ML053430210) 

Waived

January 30, 2006

Draft

Regulatory

Guide

Proposed DG-1133, “Design, Fabrication,

and Materials Code Case Acceptability, ASME

Section III, Division 1” (Proposed Revision 34 to

RG 1.84) (ADAMS Accession No. ML060090482)

and Proposed DG-1134, “Inservice Inspection

Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI,

Division 1” (Proposed Revision 15 of RG 1.147)

(ADAMS Accession No. ML060090495) (See also

ADAMS Accession No. ML052410257.)

Deferred

February 3, 2006

Draft

Regulatory

Guide

Proposed DG-1135, “ASME Code Cases

Not Approved for Use” (Proposed Revision 2 of

RG 1.193) (ADAMS Accession No. ML060090499)

(See also ADAMS Accession No. ML052410257.)

Waived

February 3, 2006

Draft Rule Proposed Rulemaking to Amend 10 CFR Parts 19,

20, and 50, “Collecting and Reporting

Occupational Dose Records, Labeling Containers,

and Redefining the Quantity Total Effective Dose

Equivalent” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML060090137)

Deferred

March 23, 2006

Final

Regulatory

Guide

Proposed Revision 2 of RG 1.92, “Combining

Modal Responses and Spatial Components

in Seismic Response Analysis”

Waived

April 28, 2006
Document

Type Topic Decision on FormalCRGR Review

Draft

Regulatory

Guide and

Standard

Review Plan

Sections

Proposed Revision of RG 1.76, “Design Basis

Tornado and Tornado Missiles for Nuclear Power

Plants,” and SRP Sections 2.3.1, “Regional

Climatology,” and 3.5.1.4, “Missiles Generated by

Tornado and Extreme Winds” (ADAMS Accession

No. ML053110365)

Deferred

January 18, 2006

Draft

Regulatory

Guide

Proposed DG-1144, “Guidelines for Evaluating

Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the Life Reduction

of Metal Components Due to the Effects of the

Light-Water Reactor Environment for New

Reactors” (ADAMS Accession No. ML053530186)

Deferred

May 30, 2006

Draft

Regulatory

Guide

Proposed Revision 4 of RG 1.97, “Criteria for

Accident Monitoring Instrumentation for Nuclear

Power Plants” (ADAMS Accession No.

ML061360224)

Waived

May 31, 2006