CONTACT: Hector Rodriguez-Luccioni, RES/DE 

 301-251-7685 

POLICY ISSUE

(Information) 

March 28, 2013 SECY-13-0031

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 annual 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-12-0049 dated March 30, 2012 (U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Agencywide Documents Access and Management 

System Accession No. ML120200045). This paper contains no new commitments. 

BACKGROUND:

Prior to the commencement of the RG update program in June 2006, 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the RGs became outdated, resulting in decreased public confidence in the RGs and the 

increased potential for RGs to contain 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revision of the outdated RGs also resulted in some program offices developing alternate means 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. 

In response to industry plans to submit a number of new applications, the staff initiated a 

Regulatory Guide Update Program so that new license applications could reflect the latest staff 

guidance. As part of the Regulatory Guide Update Program, the staff is reviewing the outdated 

RGs and, when practical, incorporating the guidance from various sources including NUREGs, 

ISGs, BTPs, RISs, and Codes and Standards. 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. 
The Commissioners - 2 - 

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

update the RGs. The plan emphasized updating those RGs that directly impacted the support 

of new reactor applications (ADAMS Accession No. ML062120378). 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 longest were typically those 

RGs that required significant 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. Since the initial plan was developed, the agency has continued 

to update the RGs considering their priority and available agency resources. 

Purpose of RGs 

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

certificate holders of 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 

reviewing a license application or a license amendment. 

Regulatory Guides 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 or sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information. 

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 a RG is normally the 

development of the technical basis by the responsible staff office. 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 and OGC. Once the internal review is 

completed, the draft RG is made publicly available in the 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 staff receives public comments 

that warrant substantial changes in the original draft RG, the RG 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 draft RG undergoes a second review by the authoring 

program office, the ACRS, and OGC. When this is completed, the Regulatory Guide is 

finalized, and 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, the ACRS has the opportunity to 

review draft guides before they are issued 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 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

Committee for Review of Generic Requirements (CRGR) is consulted for potential backfit 

concerns if necessary. 

DISCUSSION: 

In the annual status report in SECY-08-0105 dated July 17, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. 

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 RES continues to work with the other 

program offices to review and update the RGs as quickly as possible. Table 1 summarizes the 

progress made by the staff in reviewing and completing the RGs originally identified to the 

Commission in 2006. As of December 2012, about 67 percent (284) of the total 426 RGs that 

were active at the start of the update program has been completed. 

TABLE 1: Status of Regulatory Guides 

Category RGs Completed in 2012 RGs to date 

 

RGs Completed 

- RGs revised and issued 14 91 

- RGs found to be acceptable as written 20 110 

- RGs issued new 1 19 

- RGs canceled1 19 19 

- RGs withdrawn2 5 45 

 Subtotal 59 284 

 

RGs in active review or development 

- RGs in progress3 - 40 

- RGs under development4 - 11 

- RGs deferred5 - 25 

 Subtotal 76 

RGs delayed6 - 66 

 

Total RGs in 2006 original program - 426 

Progress has been steady; averaging about 20 revised and issued guides (including new 

guides) per year since the start of the program. The number of “acceptable as written” guides 

 

1

 RGs “Canceled” was proposed guidance from when the RG update program was initiated. Upon re-evaluation it was 

determined that they were not needed and ultimately were not issued. 

2

 RGs “Withdrawn” do not include 66 RGs that were withdrawn prior to the start of the RG update program in 2006. 

3

 RGs “In Progress” are draft guides that have been delivered by the technical leads in NRC offices to RGDB for formal 

review by the program offices, OGC, and ACRS, and publication for public comment. 

4

 RGs “Under Development” are draft guides that are under active development by the technical leads in NRC offices and 

are expected to be delivered to RGDB in the near-term. . 

5

 RGs “Deferred” are draft guides that are tied to separate processes that are actively developing issues related to the RG. 

These activities include rulemaking, technical basis development by a contractor, or codes or standards under near-term 

development by standards development organizations. 

6

 RGs “Delayed” are guides that have not been reviewed for an update since 2006 because of insufficient resources and/or 

low priority. 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

has increased through the years due to implementation of the 5-year periodic review of RGs 

starting in 2012. As a result of higher-priority tasks, the agency has delayed completion of 66 

RGs. Prioritization considers the needs of the stakeholders, the time and effort required to 

develop a technical basis for a revised guide, the availability of technical staff to prepare the 

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

development). 

Improving the Agency Regulatory Guidance Infrastructure 

The staff has instituted several activities to further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of 

the RG program infrastructure. The staff has instituted an ongoing review program for RGs to 

help the agency to maintain its infrastructure. As reflected in Management Directive (MD) 6.6, 

“Regulatory Guides,” this program requires a periodic review of all RGs (typically every 5 years) 

to ensure that the RGs continue to provide up-to-date information and guidance. Based on the 

results of the review, each program office decides whether or not to revise a RG. Many RGs 

are considered to be acceptable as-written based on the review. However, some higher-priority 

RGs, such as those that address American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Cases, are 

updated more frequently than every 5 years. Each program office has identified points-ofcontact to facilitate the RG review and update process with the RGDB. The RGDB conducts 

regular meetings with the program office contacts to coordinate reviews of RGs and to resolve 

issues in a timely manner. 

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 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110190027), the staff has revised the RG update 

process to improve collaboration among the program offices and to develop RGs and other 

supporting documentation in parallel with new and revised rulemaking activities. This 

coordination of effort helps to ensure that regulatory guidance accompanies the proposed rule in 

cases that a RG has been determined to be the appropriate regulatory guidance tool. 

 

The RGDB staff is developing a process to collaborate with NRO (Standard Review Plan lead) 

to link the Standard Review Plan update program with the RG update program. This allows for 

updates to both regulatory documents at the same time, which results in resource savings and 

facilitates technical consistency across agency offices. The RGDB staff also participates in 

activities such as Fukushima Near-Term Task Force efforts and rulemakings for § 50.55a of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Codes and standards,” to incorporate emerging 

guidance into its regulatory infrastructure where possible. 

The staff is enhancing stakeholder involvement in its processes. For example, the staff is 

adding older versions of RGs on the external website for stakeholders that still reference them. 

A total of 173 documents have been profiled and put on the external website since mid-2012 

(135 RGs and 38 DGs). In addition, external stakeholders are encouraged to provide input to 

the staff for consideration during its periodic review of RGs. To facilitate this input, the RGDB 

has established a new Web comment form7

, available from the public NRC Library Web site. 

This input helps the agency prioritize its future updates to its regulatory infrastructure. The Web 

comment form supplements the normal agency process of publishing a notice in the Federal 

Register seeking comments on draft RGs, which are staff-proposed revisions to RGs. Links to 

all draft RGs that are open for comment are available from a “Documents for Comment” Web 

page. 

 

7

 Web comment form link http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/contactus.html 
The Commissioners - 5 - 

The NRC agreed with recommendations from the 2010 Integrated Regulatory Review Service 

Mission to further harmonize guidance in the NRC’s Operating Reactor program with 

International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Safety Standards. The NRC is actively working to 

implement these recommendations as NRC regulations and RGs come up for periodic review. 

The NRC has established policy guidance in MD 6.6, which directs the staff to consider IAEA 

standards as a point of reference when drafting or revising regulatory documents and to 

consider direct endorsement of the IAEA standards where appropriate. As a result of this 

directive, NRC has published 13 new or revised RGs and issued for public comment 10 draft 

Regulatory Guides that harmonize with or reference IAEA safety standards that have been 

issued in the past 2 years. 

The NRC staff has continued to refine language that clarifies the intent and use of the RGs. In a 

letter to OGC dated June 4, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. 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. The NRC responded in a letter dated July 14, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML101960180), stating, in part, that OGC and NRC staff would examine the current backfit 

language accompanying the issuance of RGs and provide clarification as needed. The RGDB 

staff and OGC developed a set of templates to address backfit issues generically in the 

“Implementation” section of the RGs to address the comments. The NEI has provided further 

comments on the backfit language for specific RGs, and OGC and RES have continued to 

refine the “Implementation” language in response. The revised language has been incorporated 

into all appropriate documents associated with the RGs revision process. 

Ongoing Reviews and Updates of Regulatory Guides 

The RGDB coordinates the regulatory guide program agency wide. However, the priority for 

updating RGs is determined by the various NRC program offices based on assessment of the 

needs of their stakeholders and available staff resources. Staff in the program offices and RES 

serve as the technical leads for their respective guides and are responsible for developing the 

technical content and basis for the RGs. 

TABLE 2: RG Progress by Lead Office 

Program 

Offices 

Completed 

2012 

Active 

Review 

Delayed 

Guides 

Completed 

to Date 

Guides 

Assigned 

ADM - 1 - - 1 

FSME 4 2 - 38 40 

NMSS 8 7 47 35 89 

NRO 6 11 1 21 33 

NRR 8 10 9 53 73 

NSIR 2 13 - 33 41 

RES 14 59 10 94 163 

TOTAL8 42 103 67 274 440 

Table 2 shows the status of all guides in the Regulatory Guide Update Program as of December 

2012. It includes new guides (not part of the original program) and guides that have been 

revised multiple times since the start of the Regulatory Guide Update Program, but it does not 

 

8

 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. 
The Commissioners - 6 - 

include RGs withdrawn prior to the start of the program. Table 2 includes RGs that have been 

completed in 2012 (revised, declared acceptable as written, withdrawn, or issued new); RGs 

that are in the review process (in progress, under development, or deferred); delayed guides 

completed to date; and the total number of guides that are assigned per office. 

The number of delayed RGs decreased from 146 guides in 2011 to 67 guides in 2012. A 

significant number (27) of the current delayed guides are related to material control and 

accounting systems (MC&A). The NMSS staff plans to rewrite and consolidate these guides 

into eight RGs, and a number of contractors completed the draft technical basis. The NMSS 

staff has initiated significant efforts to complete the technical basis and deliver the draft RGs to 

RGDB by the end of 2013. In addition, 19 guides are related to reprocessing facilities. These 

documents were developed in 1970s. Review of these documents is being delayed until 

resources are budgeted. 

RESOURCES: 

No additional budgetary resources are requested to complete this report. 

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

performs the updates to RGs, with contractor support used where needed for technical basis 

development. Resources are already included in the fiscal year (FY) 2013 and FY 2014 

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. In addition, the RG update program has budgeted $340,000 in the FY 2013 Current 

Estimate and $340,000 in the FY 2014 President’s Budget in the Operating Reactor business 

line for contractor support. Resources for FY 2015 and beyond will be addressed in the 

Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management process. 

COORDINATION: 

This Commission paper was reviewed by OGC and they have 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.: ML13063A051 WITS 200800100 

OFFICE RES/DE/RGDB RES/DE/RGDB RES/DE TECH EDITOR ADMIN/DAS/RADB FSME NRR 

NAME H. RodriguezLuccioni T. Boyce 

C. Moyer for 

M. Case J. Zabel C. Bladey M. Satorius E. Leeds 

DATE 3/07/2013 3 /07 /2013 3/12/2013 3/11/2013 3/15 /2013 3/22/2013 3/21/2013 

OFFICE NRO NSIR NMSS CFO OGC RES 

NAME G. Tracy J. Wiggins C. Haney J. Dyer M. Zobler B. Sheron 

DATE 3/21/2013 3/ 20 /2013 3/25/2013 3 /26/2013 3 /25 /2013 3/28/2013 

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 

include RGs withdrawn prior to the start of the program. Table 2 includes RGs that have been 

completed in 2012 (revised, declared acceptable as written, withdrawn, or issued new); RGs 

that are in the review process (in progress, under development, or deferred); delayed guides 

completed to date; and the total number of guides that are assigned per office. 

The number of delayed RGs decreased from 146 guides in 2011 to 67 guides in 2012. A 

significant number (27) of the current delayed guides are related to material control and 

accounting systems (MC&A). The NMSS staff plans to rewrite and consolidate these guides 

into eight RGs, and a number of contractors completed the draft technical basis. The NMSS 

staff has initiated significant efforts to complete the technical basis and deliver the draft RGs to 

RGDB by the end of 2013. In addition, 19 guides are related to reprocessing facilities. These 

documents were developed in 1970s. Review of these documents is being delayed until 

resources are budgeted. 

RESOURCES: 

No additional budgetary resources are requested to complete this report. 

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

performs the updates to RGs, with contractor support used where needed for technical basis 

development. Resources are already included in the fiscal year (FY) 2013 and FY 2014 

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. In addition, the RG update program has budgeted $340,000 in the FY 2013 Current 

Estimate and $340,000 in the FY 2014 President’s Budget in the Operating Reactor business 

line for contractor support. Resources for FY 2015 and beyond will be addressed in the 

Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management process. 

COORDINATION: 

This Commission paper was reviewed by OGC and they have 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