CONTACT: Mark Orr, RES/DE 

 301-251-7495 

POLICY ISSUE 

INFORMATION 

March 30, 2012 SECY-12-0049

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: Brian W. Sheron, Director 

 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 

SUBJECT: STATUS OF REGULATORY GUIDE UPDATE PROGRAM 

PURPOSE: 

This paper provides the Commission with the status of the Regulatory Guide (RG) update 

program as directed in a memorandum from Chairman Diaz entitled, “Chairman Approval of an 

Acquisition for the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), ‘Technical Support for 

Revision of Regulatory Guides’,” dated June 15, 2006. This paper updates the previous annual 

status report to the Commission in SECY-11-0046 dated March 31, 2011 (ML103430552). This 

paper contains no new commitments. 

BACKGROUND: 

Prior to the RG update program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviewed 

RGs on an infrequent basis and revised them as resources were available. Consequently, 

many of the RGs became outdated, resulting in decreased public confidence in the RGs and 

increased potential of RGs containing inadequate or incomplete guidance. The infrequent 

revision of the outdated RGs also resulted in some program offices developing alternate means 

of providing current guidance to licensees, certificate holders, applicants, and staff. These 

alternate means included NUREGs, Interim Staff Guidance (ISG), Branch Technical Positions 

(BTPs), Regulatory Issue Summaries (RISs), and similar documents. As part of the RG update 

program, the staff is reviewing the outdated RGs and, when practical, incorporating the 

guidance from various sources including NUREGs, ISGs, BTPs, and RISs. In addition to 

determining the usefulness of existing RGs and withdrawing RGs that are no longer relevant, 

the staff is addressing gaps in existing regulatory guidance by authoring new RGs to meet 

licensing and oversight needs in areas that have not previously been addressed. 

In a memorandum to the Chairman dated July 31, 2006, the staff outlined a plan to update the 

RGs within 3 years. The plan emphasized updating those RGs that directly impacted the 

support of new reactor applications (ML062120378). 
The Commissioners - 2 - 

In the initial RG update plan, the library of RGs was divided into groups based on priority and 

available resources. The highest priority RGs were those needed to support new plant 

licensing; these were completed by March 31, 2007. The remaining RGs were prioritized based 

on the complexity of the update and the anticipated availability of technical staff. These RGs 

were scheduled to be completed between mid-2007 and the end of 2010. The RGs deferred 

the furthest into the future were typically those RGs that required a longer time to develop a 

technical basis, depended on related activities such as rulemaking, or had difficulty, in light of 

competing demands, making technical staff available to revise them sooner. 

Purpose of RGs 

NRC uses RGs to inform the public and provide guidance to applicants, licensees, and 

certificate holders on acceptable methods for complying with the Commission’s rules and 

regulations. In addition, some RGs identify acceptable techniques to be used to evaluate 

specific problems or postulated accidents while others provide standard formats that applicants 

and licensees can follow when submitting documents to the Commission. The use of the 

methods, processes, and formats identified in RGs can substantially reduce the time spent on a 

regulatory activity of interest to either NRC staff or licensees. 

RGs are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required. Licensees, 

certificate holders, and applicants may propose alternate approaches; however, additional staff 

time may be required to review an alternate methodology. Most RGs are publicly available, but 

certain security RGs may be restricted if they contain safeguards information (SGI) or sensitive 

unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI). 

Summary of RG Development Process 

The RG update program is an agencywide process involving the program offices, the Office of 

the General Counsel (OGC), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), and the 

Office of Administration (ADM). The first step in the creation or revision of an RG is normally 

the development of the technical basis by the responsible staff office or a contractor. The staff 

uses the technical basis to develop a draft RG (also known as a draft regulatory guide or DG) 

for internal review and concurrence by the appropriate program offices. Once the internal 

review is completed, the draft RG is made publicly available in the Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System (ADAMS), and a notice is published in the Federal Register

announcing the availability of the document and requesting public comments. The public 

comment period is typically 60 days. If, in response to the comments received, the original draft 

RG is substantially changed, it receives a second round of internal review and concurrence, and 

may be re-issued for public comment. If little or no change is made in response to comments, 

the RG undergoes a second review by the authoring program office, the ACRS, and OGC. 

When this is completed, the final document is released to the public, announced in the Federal 

Register, and sent to Congress. 

With the exception of some security-related regulatory guides, both the ACRS and OGC have 

two opportunities to review new or revised RGs, once before being issued as a draft for public 

comment and again before being issued as a final guide. Regulatory guides applicable to 

medical licensees are provided to the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes for 

their review and comment. In addition, the Committee for Review of Generic Requirements 

(CRGR) is consulted for potential backfit concerns as necessary. 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

DISCUSSION: 

In the annual status report in SECY 08-0105 dated July 17, 2008 (ML073340245), the staff 

informed the Commission of delays in the RG update program and the reasons for the delays, 

including changing priorities and revisions in staff resource allocations. The Regulatory Guide 

Development Branch (RGDB) in the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) continues to 

work with the other program offices to address any delays as quickly as possible. 

The following table (Table 1) summarizes the progress made by the staff in reviewing and 

revising the RGs originally identified to the Commission in 2006. The table does not include 

new guides or guides that were revised multiple times since the start of the Regulatory Guide 

Update Project. 

TABLE 1: ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 2011 

Category RGs in 2011 RGs to date

RGs revised and issued 24 104 

RGs found to be acceptable as written 38 53 

RGs withdrawn* 2 40* 

RGs in-process or deferred - 182** 

Total RGs (approximate)*** - 379*** 

* Withdrawn RGs does not include 66 RGs withdrawn prior to the start of the update program. 

** Regulatory guides may be categorized as deferred if tied to an active rulemaking, the technical 

basis is under development, or for harmonization with codes or standards from external 

organizations. 

*** Total does not include new RGs or RGs that have been revised multiple times since the start of the 

update program. 

As of December 2011, a total of 197 of the original RGs have been revised, found to be 

acceptable-as-written, or withdrawn. This is approximately 52% of the total 379 RGs that were 

active at the start of the update program. Changes in staff assignments to support higherpriority tasks and a reprioritization of staff resources away from the regulatory guide update 

project have resulted in the deferral of 146 RGs. Completion dates for the deferred RGs are 

being scheduled according to the level of interest from stakeholders, the time required to 

develop and properly document the revised technical basis, the availability of technical staff to 

prepare the revision, and coordination with related activities (e.g., rulemaking or consensus 

standards development). The deferral of these RGs caused the completion of the regulatory 

guide update project to extend beyond the originally anticipated time frame. 

Members of the RGDB periodically meet with key members of each program office to reassess 

the remaining RGs and develop a prioritized schedule based on the technical and regulatory 

issues to be addressed, the impact on stakeholders, and the availability of resources. Each 

program office has identified specific individuals to serve as the point-of-contact and to assist 

with the RG update process. The points-of-contact for the Offices of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation (NRR) and New Reactors (NRO) routinely participate in the RGDB weekly staff 

meeting which helps resolve any issues or concerns in a timely manner. The RGDB staff works 

with the program offices to review and update the deferred RGs. If suitable, the guides are 

declared “Acceptable-As-Written” and entered into the continuous maintenance program. 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

Continuous Maintenance Program 

The staff is working to complete the updating of all of the RGs identified in the RES 

memorandum to the Chairman dated June 1, 2006, and to finalize all of the new RGs identified 

since the initiation of this project. In addition to completing the RGs under the original program, 

the RGDB staff has instituted a continuous maintenance review program for RGs that have 

been revised or found to be acceptable-as-written. This program provides for periodic review of 

all RGs to ensure they continue to provide updated and acceptable guidance and accurate 

information. Most of the RGs in the continuous maintenance program are scheduled to be 

reviewed every 5 years. Some RGs, such as those that address American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers Code Cases, are updated more frequently. Progress on this effort will be 

included in the annual RG status update provided to the Commission. 

Distribution of Regulatory Guides 

The priority for updated RGs is determined by the needs of internal and external stakeholders in 

various areas of the nuclear industry. While the RGDB coordinates the overall regulatory guide 

update program, the various NRC program offices assess the needs of stakeholders on an 

ongoing basis, and serve as the technical leads for their respective guides. 

The following table (Table 2) shows the status of all guides in the regulatory guide update 

program (both original and maintenance programs) as of December 2011. Table 2 includes 

new guides and guides that have been revised multiple times since the start of the Regulatory 

Guide Update Project but it does not include RG withdrawn prior to the start of the project. 

TABLE 2: STATUS BY LEAD PROGRAM OFFICE 

Program Office Completed In-Process Deferred Total

ADM - 1 - 1 

FSME 31 3 5 39 

NMSS 28 4 58 90 

NRO 10 8 7 25 

NRR 46 6 23 75 

NSIR 29 10 1 40 

RES 80 30 52 162 

TOTAL* 224* 62* 146 432* 

Completed – RGs that are new, updated, withdrawn, or found to be acceptable-as-written 

In-Process – RGs currently being revised or reviewed by the RGDB, program office, ACRS, or OGC 

Deferred – RGs not being worked on for a variety of reasons 

* Total includes all RGs identified at the start of the Update Project as well as new RGs and RGs that 

have been revised multiple times during the life of the project. 

Improvements to the RG Program 

The RG update process averages about 11 months from development of the technical basis to 

release of the final guide. In an effort to streamline this process, the ACRS has agreed to focus 

on draft guides that are either new guides or tied to an active rulemaking, and allow draft guides 

that are revisions to existing RGs to be issued for public comment without formal review from 

the ACRS. This improvement should reduce the time required to update a RG by 6 weeks or 

more. The RGDB staff continues to work with other review groups to expedite the internal RG 

review and concurrence process. 
The Commissioners - 5 - 

In response to Commission direction in the Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-11-

0032, “Consideration of the Cumulative Effects of Regulation in the Rulemaking Process” dated 

March 2, 2011 (ML110190027), the staff has revised the RG update process to improve 

collaboration among the program offices to develop RGs and other supporting documentation in 

parallel with new and revised rulemaking activities. This coordination of effort helps ensure that 

internal reviewers as well as external stakeholders will be able to review the proposed rule and 

the regulatory guidance at the same time. 

Harmonizing Codes and Standards 

The staff is working to improve its process for harmonizing RGs with consensus standards and 

international standards. This is consistent with the findings of the International Atomic Energy 

Agency (IAEA) Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission to the U.S. in October 

2010. Harmonization is being implemented in three ways. First, the staff issued Management 

Directive (MD) 6.6, “Regulatory Guides” in April 2011 to describe the need for harmonization 

with international standards and promote better understanding and consistency of the RG 

development process. Second, MD 6.5, “NRC Participation in the Development and Use of 

Consensus Standards” was revised and issued in December 2011 to better describe the staff’s 

participation in the development of consensus standards, as well as NRC use of consensus 

standards. And third, the staff is a key participant in the Nuclear Energy Standards 

Coordination Collaborative (NESCC), a joint initiative of the NRC, American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of 

Energy (DOE), to facilitate and coordinate standards to meet the needs of the nuclear industry. 

As part of the NESCC, the NRC is supporting the development of a database that will show the 

interconnection of NRC regulations and guidance documents with national and international 

standards developed by ANSI, NIST, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and similar national and international organizations. This 

multi-organizational database will be usable by both NRC and industry and should improve the 

NRC staff’s ability to identify applicable consensus and international standards. 

Backfit and Regulatory Guidance 

The NRC staff is working to develop language that clarifies the intent and use of the RGs. In a 

letter to OGC dated June 4, 2010 (ML101970353), the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) presented 

the opinion that publication of RGs does not comply with the agency’s stated backfit policy 

because NRC does not provide backfit analyses when issuing interpretive guidance. NRC 

responded in a letter dated July 14, 2010 (ML101960180), stating, in part, that OGC and NRC 

staff would examine the current backfitting language accompanying the issuance of RGs and 

provide clarification as needed. The RGDB staff and OGC worked for several months to revise 

the “Implementation” section of the RGs to resolve the issue. The CRGR reviewed and 

approved new text for the standard backfit language to be included in the “Implementation” 

section of revised RGs during a June 2011 meeting. NEI provided further comments on the 

revised language as it applied to new plants and, in response, OGC and RES are jointly 

evaluating the desirability of additional changes to the “Implementation” language. In addition, 

OGC believes that backfitting and issue finality matters associated with issuance of the RGs 

should be provided in the Federal Register notices announcing the draft RGs for comment, and 

in final form for use. The OGC is currently determining the best approach for developing that 

language. 
The Commissioners - 6 - 

RESOURCES: 

This paper contains no new commitments and requests no additional resources. The staff 

performs most of the updates to RGs with contractor support used where needed for technical 

basis development. Resources are already included in the fiscal year (FY) 2012 and FY 2013 

budgets, primarily in the Operating Reactor and New Reactor business lines. Staff efforts are 

estimated to be 19 full-time equivalents (FTEs) per year in the Operating Reactor business line, 

4 FTEs in the New Reactor business line, and 3 FTEs spread across the remaining business 

lines. Additionally, the RG update program has budgeted $266,000 in the FY 2012 Current 

Estimate and $275,000 in the FY 2013 President’s Budget in the Operating Reactor business 

line for contractor support. Resources for FY 2014 and beyond will be addressed in the 

Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management process. 

COORDINATION: 

OGC reviewed this Commission paper and has no legal objection. The Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections. 

 /RA/ 

Brian W. Sheron, Director 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research 
The Commissioners - 6 - 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML120200045 WITS 200800100/EDATS:SECY-2011-0187 

OFFICE RES/DE/RGDB RES/DE/RGDB RES/DE TECH EDITOR FSME NRR 

NAME M. Orr T. Boyce M. Case J. Zabel J. Jessie for 

M. Satorius 

T. McGinty for 

E. Leeds 

DATE 1/20/2012 1/20/2012 1/31/2012 01/05/2012 02/15/2012 2/8/2012 

OFFICE NRO NSIR NMSS CFO OGC RES 

NAME M. Mayfield for 

M. Johnson 

A Shropshire for 

J. Wiggins 

J. Rand for 

C. Haney 

D. Pelton for 

J. Dyer 

T. Stokes for 

B. Jones 

B. Sheron 

DATE 2/29/2012 2/16/2012 3/5/2012 02/28/2012 3/15/2012 3/30/12 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 

RESOURCES: 

This paper contains no new commitments and requests no additional resources. The staff 

performs most of the updates to RGs with contractor support used where needed for technical 

basis development. Resources are already included in the fiscal year (FY) 2012 and FY 2013 

budgets, primarily in the Operating Reactor and New Reactor business lines. Staff efforts are 

estimated to be 19 full-time equivalents (FTEs) per year in the Operating Reactor business line, 

4 FTEs in the New Reactor business line, and 3 FTEs spread across the remaining business 

lines. Additionally, the RG update program has budgeted $266,000 in the FY 2012 Current 

Estimate and $275,000 in the FY 2013 President’s Budget in the Operating Reactor business 

line for contractor support. Resources for FY 2014 and beyond will be addressed in the 

Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management process. 

COORDINATION:

OGC reviewed this Commission paper and has no legal objection. The Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections. 

 /RA/

Brian W. Sheron, Director 

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research