SECRETARY 

UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

February 3, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. Mccree 

Executive Director for Operations 

FROM: Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RAJ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-15-0129 - COMMISSION 

INVOLVEMENT IN EARLY STAGES OF RULEMAKING 

The Commission commends the staff for providing a timely and thorough response to the 

Commission's direction to provide a proposed plan for enhanced Commission involvement in 

the early stages of agency rulemaking. The Commission has approved the staff's specific 

recommendations that were summarized on page 10 of SECY-15-0129, with the exception of 

recommendation 8, and subject to the changes and comments below. With respect to 

recommendation 8, the Commission has neither approved nor disapproved reaffirming the 

current role of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). 

During the pendency of the Commission's deliberations on SECY-15-0129, Congress passed 

and the President signed Public Law 114-113, including Division D, "Energy and Water 

Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016." The Joint Explanatory 

Statement accompanying the Act stipulates that a rulemaking plan be prepared for all 

rulemakings except those exempted by the Commission and directs the minimum content of a 

rulemaking plan. Consistent with this, and upon its own deliberation, the Commission modifies 

the template and process proposed by the staff in SECY-15-0129, as follows. 

Recommendation 1: 

The new rulemaking plan requirement should apply to all rulemaking that is not already explicitly 

delegated to the staff as a staff delegated rulemaking (the modifier "nonroutine" should not be 

used). 

The staff should make the following revisions to the streamlined rulemaking plan template: 

a. In addition to listing a preliminary priority, a brief discussion regarding the basis 

for the preliminary priority should also be provided. 

b. The "Description and Scope" section of the template should define the regulatory 

issue, describe the existing regulatory framework, identify regulatory options and 

alternatives to rulemaking, and affie discuss why rulemaking is preferable to 

these other alternatives. 

c. Include, as an enclosure a summary OGC analysis of legal matters. 

d. Include a section containing a preliminary backfit analysis. 

Enclosure 1 
e. Include a preliminary assessment of the cumulative effects of regulations (CER), 

to the extent known, including a description of any early stakeholder engagement 

upon which this assessment is based. 

f. Include a section on Agreement State considerations . 

g. Include an explicit question to the Commission, and recommendation if desired, 

on whether ACRS review of the proposed rule is warranted. 

The staff should provide draft and final regulatory bases to the Commission for all rulemaking 

that is not already explicitly delegated to the staff via Commissioners Assistants Notes no less 

than 10 business days before publication to ensure the Commission is provided an opportunity 

to assess whether additional involvement is warranted. Consistent with the Joint Explanatory 

Statement accompanying P.L. 114-113, the staff must obtain prior Commission approval if it 

wishes to prepare a regulatory basis document before the Commission has approved a 

rulemaking plan. 

Recommendation 2: 

The staff should explore ways to minimize the resources necessary to discontinue rulemaking, 

such as not completing a full regulatory analysis once enough information is gained that a costbenefit test would not be passed. 

Recommendations 7 & 8: 

The staff should provide the Commission the criteria and guidance it develops for triggering a 

Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) review of a proposed rule. 

The staff should inform the Commission if it determines that further process enhancements 

regarding CRGR would be beneficial after it has been able to assess lessons-learned and 

feedback from the use of the new guidance and criteria. 

Additional 

The rulemaking process should include explicit guidance for the staff to raise potential policy 

issues to the Commission as early as practicable in the rulemaking process, especially in those 

instances where leadership is not able to resolve significant differences in approach. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

Commissioner Svinicki 

Commissioner Ostendorff 

Commissioner Baran 

OGC 

CFO 

OCA 

OPA 

ODs, RAs, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

PDR 
October 19, 2015 

FOR: 

FROM: 

POLICY ISSUE 

Notation Vote 

The Commissioners 

Victor M. Mccree 

Executive Director for Operations 

SECY-15-0129 

SUBJECT: COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT IN EARLY STAGES OF RULEMAKING 

PURPOSE: 

This paper responds to Commission direction in Staff Requirements Memorandum 

(SRM)-COMSGB-15-0003, "Commission Involvement in Early Stages of Rulemaking ," dated 

August 14, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML 15226A355). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is 

requesting Commission approval of its proposed plan to increase the Commission's involvement 

in the rulemaking process with the objective of ensuring early Commission engagement before 

expending significant NRC staff resources. 

SUMMARY: 

In response to SRM-COMSGB-15-0003, this paper provides the Commission with a proposed 

plan that supports the Commission's policymaking and oversight roles in the rulemaking 

process. While many changes introduced since 2006 have made the process more efficient 

and transparent, a number of steps in the rulemaking process can be better defined to enhance 

the Commission's role in initiating and approving the development of rules. 

This paper contains a background and the current status of the NRC's rulemaking program and 

includes descriptions of past and current Commission direction concerning rulemakings. The 

paper also includes a description and assessment of requirements, such as the Committee to 

Review Generic Requirements' (CRGR) and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards' 

(ACRS) review of rules. Furthermore, the paper contains a discussion of the staffs eight 

· recommendations for Commission involvement in the early stages of rulemaking. 

CONTACT: Theresa Barczy, ADM/DAS 

301-415-347 4 
The Commissioners - 2 -

BACKGROUND: 

Commission Direction in SRM-COMSGB-15-0003 

In SRM-COMSGB-15-0003, the Commission directed the NRC staff to provide a proposed plan 

for increasing the Commission's involvement in the rulemaking process. The Commission 

directed that the proposed plan include, at a minimum, the following: 

• an assessment of (and a means of addressing) any lessons learned from past changes 

to Commission engagement in the rulemaking process; 

• a recommendation for possibly reintroducing Commission approval of the Rulemaking 

Activity Plan; 

• a recommendation for reconsideration of the Commission's 2006 direction with respect 

to the approval of rulemaking plans; and 

• a recommendation for reconsideration of the Commission's 2006 direction with respect 

to the reviews of proposed rules by the CRGR and the ACRS. 

The Commission also directed the NRC staff to: 

• Analyze whether amendments to the CRGR charter to alter its role in the agency's 

rulemaking process have the potential to better inform the agency's allocation of 

resources and prioritization of activities; and 

• Consider the option of requiring the submission of a brief notation vote paper to the 

Commission seeking authorization to initiate any nonroutine rulemaking. 

Rulemaking Coordinating Committee Action 

Since 1998, the Rulemaking Coordinating Committee (RCC), comprised of members from the 

NRC's lead rulemaking offices1 and chaired by the Office of Administration (ADM), has ensured 

that the method used to develop and issue rules has been consistent throughout the agency. 

Periodically, the NRC has initiated a review of the rulemaking process and has implemented 

changes to streamline it. Under the auspices of the RCC, the NRC formed an interoffice 

working group to respond to Commission direction in SRM-COMSGB-15-0003. The working 

group also includes participants from ACRS and CRGR. 

Rulemaking Plans 

The NRC began using rulemaking plans in 1995 as part of its effort to shorten rulemaking 

schedules, improve coordination among offices on rulemaking development, and use resources 

more efficiently. A rulemaking plan is not required by the Administrative Procedure Act; 

however, the NRC staff used rulemaking plans as a means to document the NRC staff's 

definition of the regulatory issue, identify why NRC rulemaking action is necessary, outline 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Office 

of New Reactors (NRO), and the Office of General Counsel (OGC). Representatives from the following also 

attend monthly RCC meetings: Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, the Office of Information 

Services, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, the Office of International Programs, and the Office of 

the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). 
The Commissioners - 3 -

alternatives to rulemaking , obtain management consensus on the direction of the rulemaking, 

provide the results of early stakeholder engagement, and estimate resource requirements. In 

the early 2000s, an internal report found that the development of a rulemaking plan added a 

significant amount of time to the overall rulemaking process, and did not shorten the time 

needed to develop a proposed rule. 

In subsequent years, the NRC employed enhancements to the rulemaking process that made 

rulemaking plans less important. In particular, initiatives to mitigate the cumulative effects of 

regulation , the Common Prioritization of Rulemaking (CPR), and the requirement to develop a 

regulatory basis prior to the development of a proposed rule addressed issues more effectively. 

In 2006, the Commission granted a delegation of authority to the Director of NRR, allowing the 

NRR Director discretion to waive the development and submission of rulemaking plans in 

consultation with the General Counsel. 2 In that delegation, the Commission instructed that the 

staff "consider options to develop additional efficiencies, such as making the rulemaking plan 

more concise (perhaps no more than a few pages), or providing a rulemaking plan through 

informal mechanisms such as Commission technical assistant briefings."

3 In 2007, the 

Commission delegated this same waiver authority to the Director of the Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME). 4 The NRC staff continued 

to submit rulemaking plans for Commission review and approval, when appropriate. 5 In 2013, 

Management Directive (MD) 6.3, 'The Rulemaking Process," was updated to document the 

authority for lead rulemaking offices to waive the preparation of rulemaking plans.

6 

Requirements that the ACRS and CRGR Review Rules 

In 2006, the Commission approved the waivers of ACRS review at the proposed rule stage and 

CRGR review of rulemaking packages, as part of its effort to improve the rulemaking process.

7 

However, these waivers did not alter the ability of ACRS and CRGR to submit comments to the 

Commission and the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) at any time during the rulemaking 

process. In granting the waivers, the Commission instructed the NRC staff that "due 

consideration should be given to the merits of earlier engagement with one or both committees, 

if the staff determines that such engagement will result in a more efficient and effective process 

for a particular rulemaking ."8 The Commission further instructed the NRC staff that, when the 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

8 

SRM on COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006, "Streamlining the NRR Rulemaking Process ," dated 

May 31, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061510316). 

Ibid. 

SRM on SECY-07-0134, "Evaluation of the Overall Effectiveness of the Rulemaking Process Improvement 

Implementation Plan," dated October 25, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072980427). FSME is now 

NMSS. 

SECY-07-0203, "Rulemaking Plan: 10 CFR Part 110, 'Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and 

Material; Updates and Clarifications,'" dated November 20, 2007 (ADAMS Access No. ML071440394). 

SRM on SECY-07-0203, "Staff Requirements - SECY-07-0203, "Rulemaking Plan: 10 CFR Part 110, 

'Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material; Updates and Clarifications,"' dated December 17, 

2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML073511433). SECY-08-0059, "Rulemaking Plan: Part 74 - Material 

Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material," dated April 25, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML080580273). SRM on SECY-08-0059, "Rulemaking Plan: Part 74 - Material Control and Accounting of 

Special Nuclear Material ,'' dated February 5, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML090360473). 

MD 6.3, "The Rulemaking Process,'' dated July 22, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 13205A400). 

SRM on COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061510316). 

Ibid. 
The Commissioners - 4 -

committee reviews are waived, both committees should continue to be provided copies of the 

proposed rules and supporting documentation to keep them informed.

9 

In May 2006 the Commission directed the staff to evaluate the effectiveness of improvements 

made to the agency's rulemaking process.

10 Accordingly, in 2007 the NRC staff provided the 

Commission with an assessment of the impact of the changes resulting from the rulemaking 

process improvements.

11 The NRC staff found that "deferring the ACRS and CRGR review until 

the final rulemaking effectively and efficiently accelerates the proposed rulemaking schedule 

provided that there are not significant technical or backfit issues."12 The NRC staff explained 

that "[i]n the case of CRGR, the working group believes that it is not as important to interact with 

the committee at the proposed rule stage primarily because external stakeholder comments are 

used by the CRGR to assess backfit questions at the final rule stage."13 Furthermore, the NRC 

staff found that CRGR review of rulemaking packages was duplicative, because rulemaking 

packages had already gone through each of the individual offices for concurrence before CRGR 

review. Rulemaking packages include a regulatory analysis of the rulemaking and 

consideration of backfit issues. Therefore, the NRC staff found that this "thorough vetting of the 

product significantly diminishes the opportunity for CRGR to add value; the same cannot be said 

for any other products that CRGR reviews."14 

In 2007 the NRC staff recommended that ACRS review at the proposed rule stage be 

eliminated for rulemakings that do not contain significant or controversial technical issues. 15 For 

routine rulemakings, the NRC staff recommended that it send ACRS the rulemaking package for 

informational purposes, optimally when the proposed rule is issued for public comment. ACRS 

would review and comment on the proposed rule at its discretion and, if necessary, request a 

briefing. ACRS would continue its practice of reviewing the draft final rule package on 

significant or controversial issues before its submittal for Commission review and approval. 16 

In October 2007 the Commission approved the removal of the requirement for CRGR review of 

current and future rulemaking packages involving significant or controversial technical issues 

and directed the NRC staff to provide to CRGR a copy of the draft final rule for informational 

purposes.

17 In addition, the Commission approved "providing proposed rule packages to the 

ACRS for comment," adding that "ACRS will be briefed on proposed rules only as a result of an 

ACRS request" and that "the ACRS should continue its practice of reviewing the [final] rule 

package before its submittal for Commission review and approval."18 Also, because ACRS 

continues to receive a monthly list of items coming to the Commission, ACRS is well positioned 

to determine which rule packages it should review. 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Ibid. 

SRM on COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061510316). 

SECY-07-0134 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071780648). 

Ibid . 

Ibid. 

Ibid . 

Ibid. 

Ibid. 

SRM on SECY-07-0134 (ADAMS Accession No. ML ML072980427). 

Ibid . 
The Commissioners - 5 -

Rulemakinq Activity Plan 

Review and approval of rulemaking plans was not the only method of keeping the Commission 

informed and involved in the use of agency resources for rulemaking activities. In 1995 the 

Commission also directed the NRC staff to (1) "establish a process to review and prioritize 

rulemaking efforts on a continuing basis," (2) "identify all proposed rules currently under 

development or being contemplated," and (3) "submit this information for Commission review."19 

Consequently, the NRC staff began submitting to the Commission an annual negative consent 

SECY paper and Rulemaking Activity Plan (RAP) summarizing the NRC's proposed rulemaking 

activities. In 2001 the RAP changed from a planning and decision paper (i.e., negative consent 

paper) to an information paper. 

Reassessment of the Commission's Role in Early Stages of Rulemaking 

In response to the direction in SRM-COMSGB-15-0003, the NRC staff has reassessed the 

Commission's role in the rulemaking process and sets forth its recommendations and the basis 

for them . If the Commission approves the recommended process changes, the NRC staff will 

memorialize these processes in the appropriate policy and guidance documents. The NRC staff 

recommends that the following process changes be applied to the fiscal year (FY) 2017-2018 

planning period, based on the assumption that, absent Commission direction, the rules that are 

now in the CPR report remain approved. The staff is aware that, concurrent with the 

development of this paper, the staff is also developing recommendations under Project AIM 

related to centers of expertise and re-baselining activities. The staff will evaluate the impact of 

Commission direction on this paper with regard to those activities. 

DISCUSSION: 

This section provides the NRC staff's basis for the recommendations in its proposed plan. The 

proposed plan uses lessons-learned from recent changes to the rulemaking process and will 

standardize the documentation for rule initiation, improve the timing and amount of rulemaking 

information submitted to the Commission, and enhance communication between NRC staff and 

ACRS and CRGR. 

Commission Involvement in the Early Stages of Rulemaking 

Institution of a Streamlined Rulemaking Plan Requirement. The NRC staff reviewed the 47 

rules that were prioritized as "high" on the annotated FY 2016-2017 CPR Report 

(Enclosure 1 ). 20 Thirty-two of these rules had SRMs containing Commission direction. Nine of 

the rules were either approved by the Commission during the budgeting process or had an SRM 

19 

20 

SRM-M950328, "Briefing on Status of Reactor Regulatory Reform Initiatives," dated April 7, 1995 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML003757293). 

The offices of NRR, NRO, and NMSS are process owners for managing the NRC's rulemakings. These 

three offices coordinate with each other and the partner offices through a subcommittee of the RCC to 

produce an annual rule prioritization report through the CPR process. 
The Commissioners - 6 -

forthcoming . The remaining six rules were considered "routine"

21 and, therefore, did not warrant 

a SECY paper and SRM, absent significant policy issues. The NRC staff's analysis shows that 

these SECY papers have become the primary vehicle used to engage the Commission early in 

the rulemaking process. During the same time period, in its efforts to address the cumulative 

effects of regulation, staff has increased its use of shorter, focused documents (e.g., regulatory 

basis document, preliminary draft rule text) to gain early stakeholder input or to support a public 

meeting. 

Recognizing the importance of Commission involvement and oversight in the rulemaking 

process, the NRC staff recommends that the Commission require submittal of a streamlined 

rulemaking plan in the form of a template-based, brief notation vote paper to the Commission 

seeking approval to initiate any nonroutine, nondelegated rulemaking. The SECY paper 

process is familiar to the NRC staff and the public, and SECY papers (and their corresponding 

SRMs) are normally publicly available. Therefore, the use of a new streamlined rulemaking plan 

would promote transparency. If the Commission approves this recommendation, then it should 

also rescind its direction in two previous SRMs: (1) the 2006 delegation of authority to the 

Director of NRR that gave the Director discretion to waive (in consultation with the General 

Counsel) the development and submission of rulemaking plans; 22 and (2) the 2007 delegation of 

this same authority to the Director of FSME.

23 

During discussions about whether to recommend that rulemaking plans be required again, the 

NRC staff considered the agency's past experiences. Previously, rulemaking plans gave the 

Commission an early opportunity to review the preliminary outline of the scope and impact of a 

contemplated action and to vote to commence development of a potential rulemaking package 

prior to significant resource expenditure. The previous rulemaking plans also provided a 

framework for completing the contemplated action and a mechanism for obtaining early 

substantive input from the Agreement States. On the other hand, in the past, rulemaking plans 

became very time-consuming and resource-intensive. Many of the elements traditionally 

addressed in a rulemaking plan are now contained in the regulatory basis document. Based on 

this past experience, the NRC staff believes that the desired, meaningful Commission 

involvement could be achieved by staff's use of a streamlined rulemaking plan. 

The NRC staff would format the streamlined rulemaking plan using a SECY paper template, so 

that consistent information is provided to the Commission (Enclosure 2). The rulemaking plan 

paper would contain the key information that the Commission would presumably need to make 

21 

22 

23 

Routine rulemakings fall under (1) the Commission-delegated authority to the EDO to issue rules of a minor, 

corrective, or nonpolicy nature that do not substantially modify existing precedent; and (2) the Commissiondelegated authority to the CFO to develop and issue a rule that is necessary to carry out the CFO's 

responsibilities. This includes any revision of the annual fee regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Parts 170, "Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other 

Regulatory Services under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As Amended" and 171 , "Annual Fees for Reactor 

Licenses and Fuel Cycle Licenses and Materials Licenses, including Holders of Certificates of Compliance, 

Registrations, and Quality Assurance Program Approvals and Government Agencies Licensed by the NRC," 

unless the rule involves a significant question of policy. Routine rulemakings include certificates of 

compliance, Section 50.55a ASME Code updates, the CFO's revision of the annual fee regulations, and 

rules that make corrections or administrative changes. 

SRM on COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061510316). 

SRM on SECY-07-0134, "Evaluation of the Overall Effectiveness of the Rulemaking Process Improvement 

Implementation Plan," dated October 25, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072980427). 
The Commissioners - 7 -

a decision as to whether rulemaking is warranted. However, the rulemaking plan paper would 

be less detailed than many of the rulemaking plans that had been submitted prior to the 

Commission's 2006 decision that eliminated the need for mandatory submission of rulemaking 

plans. Under this proposed process, communication between the staff and the Commission 

would be expedited, and no nonroutine, nondelegated new rulemakings would be budgeted and 

added to the CPR report without prior Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking.

24 The NRC 

staff has enclosed a sample SECY paper prepared using the draft rulemaking plan template that 

further illustrates the level of detail that the NRC staff proposes to provide to the Commission. 

Commission Approval Required to Terminate a Rulemaking. To ensure smooth and 

consistent communication and Commission oversight of the rulemaking process, the NRC staff 

will submit a SECY paper for Commission approval before terminating a rulemaking. The SECY 

paper would use a slightly modified version of the rulemaking plan template used to propose 

initiation of new rulemakings. The SECY paper will discuss why the rulemaking is no longer 

needed and summarize any public comments received on the rulemaking. The NRC staff 

follows this process now, but this recommendation would formalize the process as a 

requirement. 

Commission Approval Required for Petitions for Rulemaking that Recommend 

Rulemaking. Currently, all proposed denials of petitions for rulemaking (PRM) are submitted to 

the Commission for review and approval. The NRC staff recommends that it also submit for 

Commission approval, through a SECY paper, any recommendation to grant a PRM and 

develop a proposed rule for public comment. When developing this SECY paper, the NRC staff 

would use a slightly modified version of the same template that staff would use in the 

rulemaking plans discussed above. Experience has shown that most PRM issues with technical 

merit result in a rulemaking with a priority ranking of medium or low. This process change will 

allow the NRC staff to engage the Commission early in the decision making process and 

Commission oversight. 

Updates to RAP Format, Content, and Schedule. The RAP is submitted to the Commission 

annually and, for each active rulemaking, provides (1) a summary of the objective of the 

rulemaking, (2) highlights of recent progress toward completing the rulemaking, (3) the 

rulemaking's priority and justification, and (4) resource estimates. In addition, the RAP reports 

on the completed rulemaking actions since the last RAP was submitted to the Commission. The 

NRC staff's assessment is that the RAP, in its current format and on its current production 

schedule, may be insufficient to meet the information needs of the Commission. The RAP 

report currently is redundant, resource-intensive to produce, and includes stale data by the time 

it reaches the Commission. Accordingly, the NRC staff recommends the future submission of 

the RAP, through a Commissioners' Assistants (CA) note, in May - June of each year to support 

Commission review of proposed agency budgets. 

The NRC staff would submit the RAP at the same time that the CPR report is provided to 

OCFO. CPR is used to develop program budget estimates and to determine the relative priority 

of NRC rulemaking activities. The RAP would continue to include abstracts, justifications, 

resources, target dates, and milestones. However, the RAP format and content would be 

24 If the Commission approves this recommendation, then the CPR report will no longer include potential rules 

that are being considered for the next 8 years. 
The Commissioners - 8 -

updated to ensure that the Commission is receiving up-to-date information, including actions 

that have occurred since the last report (e.g., Commission direction to discontinue a rule, etc.) 

(see Enclosure 3 for a sample rule entry). ACRS and CRGR will receive a copy of the RAP. 

Updating the format, content, and schedule of the RAP would mean fewer review cycles and 

would result in a single, internal rulemaking report with up-to-date information. The RAP would 

be generated from the data in the CPR report; therefore, the RAP would not require a 

Commission vote, because any nonroutine, nondelegated rule included in the RAP would have 

already been approved through the streamlined rulemaking plan process described above (see 

the proposed timeline in Enclosure 4 ). 

Independent Committee Review of Rulemaking 

Reaffirmation of the Commission's 2006 Direction25 with Respect to CRGR and ACRS 

Review of Proposed Rules. In 2006, after the Commission approved the waiver of CRGR 

review of proposed rulemaking packages, the charter was revised to eliminate the requirement 

that CRGR review proposed rulemaking packages. However, the revised (current) charter still 

allows an office director or the EDO to request CRGR review of a proposed rule. As a result of 

the discussions with CRGR leadership and an assessment of the role of that committee in 

reviewing proposed rules, the NRC staff does not propose expanding the role of CRGR to 

include the mandatory review of all proposed rules. Conversely, and as explained below, the 

staff would plan to work with the CRGR to develop criteria for triggering CRGR review of a 

proposed rule. 

The NRC staff also examined whether ACRS review of proposed rulemaking packages would 

provide substantial benefits. As a result, the NRC staff and ACRS determined that there is no 

need to change the ACRS review requirement during the proposed rule stage. The ACRS 

focuses on the significant proposed and final rules that address technical issues. Currently, 

rulemaking packages in the earliest stage of development come to ACRS under three 

circumstances: (1) ACRS review is required by law (e.g., reactor design certification rules); (2) 

the Commission directs the review; or (3) the committee uses its own discretion to direct the 

review. In consultation with the ACRS, the staff did not identify any instances since 2006 where 

the ACRS did not review a significant rule that fell within its purview. Consequently, the NRC 

staff and ACRS leadership have concluded that the existing approach for ACRS review of 

rulemaking packages is effective and efficient. Therefore, the NRC staff does not recommend 

expanding the role of ACRS. 

Involving the CRGR in Resource Allocation and Rule Prioritization Would Duplicate 

Efforts Undertaken by the Rulemaking Coordinating Committee. The NRC staff analyzed 

whether the CRGR charter should be amended to alter its role in the agency's rulemaking 

process and thereby potentially better inform the agency's allocation of resources and 

prioritization of activities. 

Currently, the RCC, under the direction of the Office of the Executive Director for Operations, 

coordinates the process by which office directors, through their RCC representatives, allocate 

rulemaking resources and prioritize rulemaking activities by business lines. The RCC, chaired 

by ADM, consists of representatives from the primary offices involved in rulemaking. During the 

25 SRM on COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-0006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061510316). 
The Commissioners - 9 -

annual prioritization process, the RCC considers many aspects, including risk insights (where 

available) and other information obtained through consultation with subject matter experts. 

Because many rulemaking requests (such as design and cask certifications) come from the 

regulated community, the NRC staff also evaluates these requests in setting its rulemaking 

priorities and allocating its resources. The RCC will continue to use the management review 

process to ensure that the CPR report provided to the Commission reflects agency priorities and 

results in an efficient rulemaking process. 

Office directors and the EDO are briefed semiannually by the RCC about the allocation of 

rulemaking resources and rulemaking prioritizations before the budget request is submitted to 

OCFO. Members of the CRGR are also represented on the RCC. Therefore, the NRC staff 

believes that CRGR involvement in the agency's allocation of rulemaking resources and 

prioritization of rulemaking activities would result in minimal benefits. CRGR involvement would 

be duplicative, could result in unnecessary delays, and is unlikely to affect the allo.cation of 

resources and prioritization of rulemaking activities. Therefore, the NRC staff does not 

recommend expanding the role of CRGR to involve it in resource allocation or rule prioritization. 

Pending Improvements to CRGR Process for Reviewing Rulemakings. Although the 

current CRGR charter does not require CRGR review of proposed rulemaking packages, it 

allows the office director or the EDO to request CRGR review of a proposed rule. As an 

independent, collegial body, CRGR could potentially add value to the rulemaking process by 

focusing on the staff practices for facility-specific backfitting management and assesses the 

adequacy of management direction, programmatic and administrative controls, interoffice 

coordination for processing backfits, and staff guidance and training. 

Since October 2007, subsequent to the Commission's approval of the removal of CRGR from 

the review of rulemaking packages, the NRC staff has not requested CRGR review of any 

proposed rule packages. This may have been caused in part by a lack of guidance or criteria 

available to assist the EDO or office directors in deciding when to request CRGR review or 

involvement in a particular proposed rulemaking. 

The NRC staff is not aware of instances in which CRGR review would have resulted in different 

outcomes. However, given the agency's greater focus on ensuring backfitting and regulatory 

analysis reviews are conducted appropriately and in light of the recent Commission direction on 

qualitative factors, CRGR review of certain rulemaking packages could be beneficial. 

Consequently, the CRGR has begun addressing this gap in its operating procedures and the 

NRC staff's implementing procedures by developing appropriate criteria and guidance. The 

criteria will provide clarity on when the NRC staff would request CRGR review of proposed 

rules. 

The CRGR anticipates providing the guidance and criteria to the staff within 4 months after the 

issuance of the SRM to this paper. Staff will examine the need for further process 

enhancements regarding CRGR after it has been able to assess lessons-learned and feedback 

from implementation and use of the new guidance and criteria. The development of new CRGR 

criteria is presented here for information and requires no Commission action. 

ACRS and CRGR Will Receive Copies of updated RAP. The NRC staff will include ACRS 

and CRGR on the distribution for the CA note submitting the RAP to the Commission. This will 
The Commissioners - 10 -

give ACRS and the CRGR the opportunity to request briefings early in the rulemaking process. 

It will also provide the office directors and the EDO an opportunity to request CRGR review of 

the individual proposed rulemaking packages early in the process. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

The NRC staff recommends that the Commission approve the following : 

1. Approve the institution of a streamlined rulemaking plan requirement in the form of a 

SECY paper that would request Commission approval to initiate any nonroutine, 

nondelegated rulemaking. 

a. Approve the template for the streamlined rulemaking plan. 

b. Rescind the delegation of authority in the SRM on COMNJD-06-0004/COMEXM-06-

0006, "Streamlining the NRR Rulemaking Process," dated May 31, 2006 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML061510316), that gave the Director of NRR the discretion to 

waive (in consultation with the General Counsel) the development and submission 

of rulemaking plans. 

c. Rescind the delegation of authority in the SRM on SECY-07-0134, "Evaluation of 

the Overall Effectiveness of the Rulemaking Process Improvement Implementation 

Plan," dated October 25, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072980427), that gave 

the Director of FSME (now merged with NMSS) the discretion to waive (in 

consultation with the General Counsel) the development and submission of 

rulemaking plans. 

2. Approve the requirement that staff submit a SECY paper to request Commission 

approval to discontinue any rulemaking. 

3. Approve the requirement that staff submit to the Commission for approval any PRM 

determination that recommends rulemaking. 

4. Approve submittal of the updated RAP as an enclosure to a CA note (W201100275) and 

move the due date for the annual submission of the RAP to May - June (W199500048). 

5. Approve the inclusion of ACRS and CRGR on the distribution for the CA note submitting 

the RAP to the Commission. 

6. Move the due date for the annual submission of the CPR process to the CFO in May -

June, along with a CA Note to the Commission. 

7. Reaffirm the Commission's 2006 Direction that CRGR and ACRS not expand their roles 

to routinely review proposed rules. 

8. Determine that the CRGR not expand its role to become involved in resource allocation 

and rule prioritization. 
The Commissioners - 11 -

COORDINATION: 

This action has been coordinated with members of the RCC and participants from ACRS and 

CRGR. The OCFO has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections. 

The OGC has no legal objection to this paper. 

RESOURCES: 

No additional resources are required to implement the recommendations. 

Enclosures: 

1. Annotated FY2016-2017 CPR report 

2. Template for streamlined rulemaking plan 

(based on a SECY template) and sample 

3. Sample rule entry for the updated RAP 

4. Timeline showing the submission of 

the updated RAP 

/RA/ 

Victor M. Mccree 

Executive Director 

for Operations 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

This document has been redacted. 

- 1 -

American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2009-

2013 Code Edition and Addenda Incorporation by 

Reference 

Defense against Common Mode Failures in Digital 

l&C S stems 

Fitness for Duty: 2016/17 Health and Human 

Services HHS Guidelines U date 

Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background 

Checks, and Securit Event Notifications 

Fitness-for-Duty: 2008 Health and Human 

Services HHS Guidelines Dru Panel U date 

Incorporate by Reference IEEE 603-2009, 

Standard Criteria for Safety Systems for Nuclear 

Power Generatin Stations 

Incorporation by Reference of Revisions of ASME 

Regulatory Guides (RG 1.84, Rev 37, and RG 

1.147, Rev 18, and 1.192, Rev. 2 

Mitigation Strategies for Beyond Design Basis 

Events 

Part 50.55a - IBR of 2014 Edition ASME 

0 erations and Maintenance Code 

Part 50.55a - IBR of 2015 Edition ASME Boiler & 

Pressure Vessel Code 

Part 50.55a - IBR of 2016 ASME Operations and 

Maintenance Code Edition 

Part 50.55a - IBR of 2017 ASME Boiler Pressure 

Vessel Code Edition 

SRM-SECY-00-0011 

No SRM . Reprioritized as a high-priority 

rulemaking activity at the OEDO's request. 

Commission approval obtained through the 

bud etin rocess . 

No SRM . High-priority rulemaking activity. 

Commission approval previously has been 

obtained through the budgeting process. 

SRM-SECY-12-0125 

No SRM . High-priority rulemaking activity. 

Rulemaking would align the NRC's 

regulations with other Federal agencies 

(U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services). Commission approval previously 

has been obtained through the budgeting 

rocess, 

SRM-SECY-00-0011 

SRM-SECY-00-0011 

SRM-SECY-11-0137 

SRM-SECY-00-0011 

SRM-SECY-00-0011 

SRM-SECY-00-0011 

SRM-SECY-00-0011 

Enclosure 1 
This document has been redacted. 

- 2 -

13 Part 50.55a - IBR of Code Case Regulatory Guides SRM-SECY-00-0011 

- RG 1.84, Rev 39, and RG 1.147, Rev 20, and 

1.192, Rev. 4 

14 Part 50.55a - IBR of Code Case Regulatory Guides SRM-SECY-00-0011 

- RG 1.84, Revision 38; RG 1.147, Revision 19; 

and RG 1.192, Revision 3 

15 Performance-Based Emergency Core Cooling SRM-SECY-02-0057 

System Acceptance Criteria 

16 Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors SRM-SECY-14-0118 

Transitioninq to Decommissioninq 

17 Risk-Informed Changes to Loss-of-Coolant SRM-SECY-02-0057 and 

Accident Technical Requirements SRM-SECY-04-0037 

New Reactors 

18 Subpart B, "Standard Design Certifications," 

of 10 CFR 52, "Licenses, Certifications, and 

Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants," lays 

out the requirements for the Commission to 

Advanced Power Reactor (APR)-1400 (KEPCO) issue rules granting standard design 

Design Certification certifications. 

19 No SRM. Staff informed the Commission of 

its plans to start rulemaking in SECY-11 -

0135. This SECY documented two OIG 

audits that recommended 10 CFR 

part 21 rulemaking . This rulemaking affects 

all program offices of NRO, NMSS, and 

NRR. Commission approval previously has 

Clarifying Requirements in Part 21 , Reporting of been obtained through the budgeting 

Defects and Noncompliance process. 

Materials Users 

Fuel Facilities 

20 Cyber Security for Fuel Facilities SRM-SECY-14-0147 

21 Enhanced Weapons -- Section 161A authority SRM-SECY-08-0050A; SRM-SECY-12-0125 

22 Physical Protection for Category I, 11, and 111 SRM-SECYSpecial Nuclear Material 09-0123 

Spent Fuel and Transportation 

23 SRM-SECY-98-188 

Amendments to List of Approved Spent Fuel SECY-99-069 

Storage Cask (1) [This is a placeholder for an SECY-00-0018 

annual recurring rule. The NRC publishes a varying SECY-01-0177 

number of these rules each year.l SECY-01-0226 

24 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation SRM-SECY-07-0148 

Security Requirements for Radioloqical Sabotaqe 
This document has been redacted. 

25 

- 3 -

Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for FY 

2016 

Decommissionin & Low-Level Waste 

26 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Dis osal 

Medium 

27 

New Reactors 

Non-discretionary and routine. The 

rulemaking must be issued every year to 

satisfy the requirements of OBRA-90 

regarding fee collection. The staff submits 

each ear a olic a er to the Commission. 

SRM-SECY-08-014 7 

SRM-SECY-09-0095, SRMM09-

0811 , and SRMSECY08-161 

29 Dose Assessments for Radioactive Effluents SRM-SECY-12-0064 

30 Financial Qualifications for Reactor Licensin SRM-SECY-13-0124 

31 Emergency Preparedness Requirements for Small SRM-SECY-15-0077 

Modular Reactors 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

Materials Users 

Part 37 Physical Protection of Byproduct Material 

Follow-on Rule 

Polymer (Polycarbonate or Polyester) Track 

Etched PCTE Membranes 

Radiation Protection 

Fuel Facilities 

Amendments to Material Control and Accountin 

No SRM but was included in cyber roadmap 

sent to the Commission. The staff is 

submitting a memo to extend the initial 

scoping memo to fall of 2016. As a medium 

priority rule, staff will only start working on 

this rulemaking after submitting a SECY and 

receivin Commission direction in an SRM. 

No SRM , but this was identified by staff with 

Commission support. As a medium priority 

rule , staff will only start working on this 

rulemaking after submitting a SECY and 

receiving Commission direction in an SRM. 

Staff is currently preparing a COMSECY 

re uestin a roval to initiate rulemakin . 

SRM-SECY-12-0064. A CA note was 

recently sent up in advance of a COMSECY 

that will recommend discontinuing this 

rulemakin . 

SRM-SECY-08-0059 
This document has been redacted. 

-4-

Regulations 

37 Spent Fuel Reprocessinq SRM-SECY-0093 

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation 

38 No SRM. The NRC periodically conducts 

rulemaking to be compatible with IAEA. 

Would be coordinated with DOT so that final 

rule published at same time as DOT final 

rule. As a medium priority rule, staff will only 

start working on this rulemaking after 

Part 71, Compatibility with IAEA Transportation submitting a SECY and receiving 

Standards, SSR-6, 2012 Edition Commission direction in an SRM . 

Corporate Support 

39 10 CFR Part 110, Export and Import of Nuclear No SRM. A SECY paper is being prepared 

Equipment and Material; Updates and for the Commission. 

Clarifications 

40 No SRM . This is statutorily requ ired and is a 

Adjustment of Civil Penalties for Inflation (Parts 2 non-discretionary rulemaking activity. 

and 13) 

41 Miscellaneous Administrative Rulemaking [This is a No SRM. Annual administrative rule. 

placeholder for annual recurrinq rule.l 

42 Miscellaneous Technical Correction [This is a No SRM. Annual administrative rule. 

placeholder for annual recurrinq rule.] 

43 No SRM. Administrative rule to align NRC 

acquisitions regulations with 48 CFR 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Acquisition Chapter 20, "Nuclear Regulatory 

Regulation (NRCAR) - 48 CFR Chap. 20 Commission." 

45 Variable Annual Fee Structure for Small and SRM-15-0044 

Medium Sized Reactors 

Decommissioninq & Low-Level Waste 

46 Groundwater Protection In Situ Leach Uranium SRM- CMJSM06-0001 

Recovery Facilities 

Low 

Decommissioning & Low-Level Waste 

47 No SRM . Nondiscretionary. As a low priority 

rule, staff will only start working on this 

rulemaking after submitting a SECY and 

Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 Rulemaking receiving Commission direction in an SRM. 
FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: (INSERT NAME] 

Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: RULEMAKING PLAN ON [INSERT TOPIC] 

In Staff Requirements Memorandum SECY-15-:XXXX, "[insert title]," dated Month XX, 2015, the 

Commission approved the staffs recommendation for a new requirement that the staff must 

develop a streamlined Rulemaking Plan (with a SECY paper format) to initiate a new rulemaking 

and begin expending resources. Accordingly, the staff requests approval to begin work on and 

to budget for a rulemaking about [insert brief topic]. This rulemaking would [insert a brief 

description of the proP.osed change in regulation]. 

Title: 

Regulation: 

Estimated Schedule: 

Preliminary Priority: 

Rulemaking Title 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part X 

Initiate regulatory basis phase-Month, Year 

Complete regulatory basis- Month, Year 

Complete proposed rule- Month, Year 

Complete final rule- Month, Year 

Complete rulemaking action- Month, Year 

[select one:] High/Medium/Low priority rulemaking activity using 

the Common Prioritization of Rulemaking (CPR) prioritization 

methodology. Rule priority can change over time. Common 

reasons for a change in priority are new Commission or senior 

management direction or changes in the rulemaking scope. 

CONTACTS: Name, OFF/DIV 

301-XXX-XXXX 

Enclosure 2 
Background: 

Description and Scope: 

Relationship of the 

Work to the NRC's 

Strategic Plan: 

Costs and Benefits: 

Backfitting and Issue 

Finality: 

Guidance: 

Resources: 

Recommendations 

[summarize (2-3 paragraphs may be sufficient) the reason to 

pursue rulemaking. Describe any internal or external drivers for 

rulemaking.) 

[briefly describe (1-2 paragraphs may be sufficient) the regulatory 

change including: why the current regulation needs to change, 

the number and type of affected regulated entities, CFR parts that 

would change] 

[briefly describe (1-2 paragraphs may be sufficient): the impact on 

the Safety/Security goals, impact on regulatory efficiency; specify 

any new mandate, statute, Executive order, international treaty, 

etc., that is driving the rulemaking] 

During the development of the regulatory basis, the staff will 

evaluate the potential benefits and costs of the proposed change 

in regulation. 

The staff's expectation is that the rule will [select one be 

necessary for adequate protection/ will analyze costs and 

benefits under backfit regulations/ or backfit regulations do 

not apply. [Add a brief explanation if the staff expects an 

adequate protection argument or if backfit regulations do not 

apply.) [NOTE: a backfit evaluation is not required at this 

stage.] 

The staff estimates that X guidance document(s) will be updated 

in parallel with the rulemaking: (list the guidance documents] 

See Enclosure 1 

If the Commission approves initiation ofrulemaking, the staffwill 

add the rule to the CPR during the next budget formulation cycle. 

The staff requests permission to initiate rulemaking and to add the rulemaking to the CPR. 

Coordination 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and 

has no objections. The Office of General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal 

objections. 

Enclosure: 

Resources 

2 

[INSERT NAME] 

Executive Director 

for Operations 

I Com~ent [Guidance : Consider answering 1 these questions as appropnate for the particular 

1 potential rulemaking· 

1.What is the current regulation? 2.What is 

the problem with the current regulation? 

3. What is the high-level aim of the 1 rulemaking/regulatory change? For example, 

I would the rule enhance safety and/or reduce 

, regulatory burden? 

4. What information about the policy issue is 

already available? This might include previous 

Commission direction. statutes. public worl<sho> 

I etc. 

I Comment [Guidance2]: Provide more 

specific description of the regulatory change 

than the background. 

1.What CFR part(s) would change? 

2.Who is affected? 

3. What is the benefit of the regulatory 

1 change? 

4. What is the benefit of using the rulemaking 

process? 

5 If the rule would not reduce burden, what 

types of additional costs might there be? 

Note: Detailed cosVbenefit analysis is not 

expected at this stage. Regulatory Analysis 

will be accomplished during the regulatory basis 

phase. 

Comment [Guidance3): How does the 1 proposed rulemaking relate to the 4 factors in 

the Common Prioritization of Rulemaking 

prioritization method? 

1.How significant of an impact would the regulat 

change have on safety or security? 2.How 

significant of an impact would the regulatory cha 

have on efficient and effective regulation? 

3.Has any ex1emal organization (Congress. the 

White House, other Federal agency. other State 

agency, foreign government, etc.) requested or 

directed the regulatory change? 4.What level an 

, type of public participation is expected? 

This template assumes that new accepted 

petitions for rulemaking are addressed through < 

different process 

Comment [Guidance4]: Specify what the 

expected benefits are expected to be and at what 

cost. 
Background: 

Description and Scope: 

Relationship of the Work 

to the NRC's 

Strategic Plan: 

Costs and Benefits: 

Backfitting and Issue 

Finality: 

Guidance: 

Resources : 

Recommendations 

[summarize (2-3 paragraphs may be sufficient) the reason to pursue 

rulemaking. Describe any internal or external drivers for rulemaking.] 

[briefly describe (1-2 paragraphs may be sufficient) the regulatory 

change including: why the current regulation needs to change, the 

number and type of affected regulated entities, CFR parts that would 

change] 

[briefly describe (1-2 paragraphs may be sufficient): the impact on the 

Safety/Security goals, impact on regulatory efficiency; specify any new 

mandate, statute, Executive order, international treaty, etc., that is driving 

the rulemaking] 

During the development of the regulatory basis, the staff will evaluate the 

potential benefits and costs of the proposed change in regulation. 

The staffs expectation is that the rule will [select one] be 

necessary for adequate protection/ will analyze costs and benefits 

under backfit regulations/ or backfil regulations do not apply. (Add 

a brief explanation if the staff expects an adequate protection 

argument or if backfit regulations do not apply.] [NOTE: a backfit 

evaluation is not required at this stage.] 

The staff estimates that X guidance document(s) will be updated in 

parallel with the rulemaking: [list the guidance documents] 

See Enclosure 1 

If the Commission approves initiation of rulemaking, the staff will add the 

rule to the CPR during the next budget formulation cycle. 

The staff requests permission to initiate rulemaking and to add the rulemaking to the CPR. 

Coordination 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no 

objections. The Office of General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objections. 

Enclosure: 

Resources 

[INSERT NAME] 

Executive Director 

for Operations 

ADAMS Accession Nos.: MLXXXXXXXXX (Package) ML XXXXXXXXX (Memorandum) 

MLXXXXXXXXX (Resource Enclosure) 

OFFICE 

NAME 

DATE 

OFFICE 

NAME 

DATE 

OFFICIAL AGENCY RECORD 

3 

Comment [Guidance!]: Consider 

answering these questions as appropriate for 

the particular potential rulemaking: 

1.What is the current regulation? 

2.What is the problem with the 

current regulation? 

3.What is the high-level aim of the 

rulemaking/regulatory change? For 

example. would the rule enhance safety 

and/or reduce regulatory burden? 

4. What information about the policy issue 

is already available? This might include 

previous Commission direction, statutes. 

public workshops, etc. 

Comment [Guidance2]: Provide more 

specific description of the regulatory 

change than the background. 

1.What CFR part(s) would 

change? 2.Who is affected? 

3.What is the benefit of the 

regulatory change? 

4.What is the benefit of using the 

rulemaking process? 

5.lf the rule would not reduce burden, 

what types of additional costs might 

there be? 

Note: Detailed ccsUbenefit analysis is not 

expected at this stage. Regulatory Analysis 

will be accomplished during the regulatory 

basis phase. 

Comment [Guidance3]: How does the 

proposed rulemaking relate to the 4 factors 

in the Common Prioritization of Rulemaking 

prioritization method? 

1.How significant of an impact would the 

regulatory change have on safety or 

security? 2.How significant of an impact 

would the regulatory change have on 

efficient and effective regulation? 

3.Has any external organization (Congress, 

the White House. other Federal agency, 

other State agency, foreign government. 

etc.) requested or directed the regulatory 

change? 4.What level and/or type of public 

participation is expected? 

This template assumes that new accepted 

petitions for rulemaking are addressed 

through a different process. 

Comment [Guidance4]: Specify what 

the expected benefits are expected to be 

and at what ccst. 
FOR: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

EXAMPLE 

The Commissioners 

Victor M. McCree 

Executive Director for Operations 

RULEMAKING PLAN ON REACTOR VESSEL MATERIAL 

SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS 

In Staff Requirements Memorandum SECY-15-XXXX, "[insert title] ," dated Month XX, 2015, the 

Commission approved the staffs recommendation for a new requirement that the staff must 

develop a streamlined Rulemaking Plan (with a SECY paper format) to initiate a new rulemaking 

and begin expending resources. Accordingly, the staff requests approval to begin work on and 

to budget for a rulemaking about testing standards for power reactors under the material 

surveillance program. This rulemaking would incorporate the latest editions of consensus 

standards to allow licensees to use modern testing standards. 

Title: 

Regulation: 

Estimated Schedule: 

Preliminary Priority: 

Revisions to Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program 

Requirements 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, 

'Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," 

Appendix H, "Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program 

Requirements" 

Initiate regulatory basis phase-December 2015 

Complete regulatory basis-October 2016 

Complete proposed rule--March 2018 

Complete final rule-June 2019 

Complete rulemaking action-November 2019 

Medium priority rulemaking activity using the Common 

Prioritization of Rulemaking (CPR) prioritization methodology. 

Rule priority can change over time. Common reasons for a 

change in priority are new Commission or senior management 

direction or changes in the rulemaking scope. 

CONTACTS: Jane Smith, NRR/DE 

301-415-1111 

4 
Background: 

Description/Scope: 

Appendix H to 10 CFR Part 50 requires licensees to have reactor 

vessel (RV) material surveillance programs to monitor changes in 

fracture toughness properties of the RV materials adjacent to the 

reactor core. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

requires licensees to periodically test irradiated material 

specimens from test capsules in RVs to evaluate changes in RV 

material fracture toughness. 

The current version of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H, requires RV 

surveillance programs to include Charpy impact and tensile test 

specimens from welds, base metal, and the weld heat affected 

one (HAZ) materials. However, the data generated from testing 

HAZ specimens is not useful for predicting RV material 

embrittlement. Through the rulemaking process the NRC staff 

would evaluate eliminating the requirement for testing HAZ 

specimens, which may result in eliminating the unnecessary 

financial and radiation exposure burden associated with this 

testing. 

The rulemaking would also reevaluate the withdrawal schedule for 

design of surveillance programs in new plants whose RVs have 

not yet been procured. The existing requirements are such that 

new reactors must plan on withdrawing and testing a surveillance 

capsule during their first cycle of operation. Testing of specimens 

xposed to such low levels of irradiation does not yield meaningful 

ata and exposes plant workers and material test technicians to 

recordable amounts of unnecessary radiation. During rulemaking, 

the NRC staff would evaluate incorporation of the latest edition of 

International standard ASTM E-185, "Standard Practice for Design 

of Surveillance Programs for Light-Water Moderated Nuclear 

Power Reactor Vessels," which does not require testing until test 

pecimens accumulate one-fourth of the estimated end-of-license 

fluence for the RV 

ffhe major objective of revising 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix H, is to 

·ncorporate the latest edition of both ASTM Standards E-185 and 

E-2215, "Standard Practice for Evaluation of Suveillance Capsules 

from Light-Water Moderated Nuclear Power Reactor Vessels." 

There are a number of optional features in ASTM E-185 that 

would permit future licensees to significantly improve future 

surveillance programs by allowing them to use more advanced 

test specimens. Since ASTM E-185 applies only to program 

design, which occurs before initial plant operation, the proposed 

change would not apply to any currently operating plants' RVs or 

to any RVs for plants currently under construction. For this reason, 

previous versions of E-185 published since E-185-82 (i.e., -98 

or -02) are not required to be incorporated into a revision of 

Appendix H, because they are not applicable to any RVs. ASTM 

E-2215 would be used by all operating plants and would provide 

the most modern testing standards available. 

The benefits of changing the regulation include the following: 

1) Licensees may be able to stop expending resources and 

accumulating dose to generate data that may have little 

engineering or safety nexus; 

5 
Relationship of the Work 

to the NRC's 

Strategic Plan: 

Costs and Benefits 

Guidance 

Resources 

Recommendations 

2) Licensees and NRC staff resources to prepare, submit, and 

review requests for extension of time to submit capsule reP,orts 

may be reduced; 

3) iThe regulation would incorporate the most u12-to-date version 

of referenced consensus standards; 

4) Surveillance program guidance for license renewal and 

subsequent license renewal would be clarified. 

The NRC staff expects that the rulemaking would have a low 

impact on the safety goal of the NRC's Strategic Plan mostly 

because licensees may accumulate lower occupational dose in 

the process of collecting test specimens. The most significant 

impact of the rulemaking would be to enhance regulatory 

effectiveness by reducing the number of requests licensees would 

submit for extensions of time to submit capsule reports. The 

rulemaking would also incorporate the most up-to-date version of 

referenced consensus standards and clarify surveillance program 

guidance for license renewal. This rulemaking is expected to 

receive significant public interest because of its P,Otential to reduce 

regulatory burden . 

During the development of the regulatory basis, the staff will 

evaluate the potential benefits and costs of the proposed change 

in regulation. 

The staff expects that one guidance document will be updated in 

parallel with the rulemaking: Regulatory Guide 1111 , "Fracture 

Toughness Testing of Reactor Vessels." 

See Enclosure 1 

If the Commission approves initiation of rulemaking , the staff will 

add the rule to the CPR during the next budget formulation cycle. 

The staff requests permission to initiate rulemaking and to add the rulemaking to the CPR. 

6 
Coordination 

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and 

concurs. The Office of General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objections. 

Enclosure: 

Resources 

7 

Victor M. McCree 

Executive Director 

for Operations 
Priority Rule Title 

High Mitigation Strategies for Beyond 

Design Basis Events 

This document has been redacted. 

Updated Rulemaking Activity Report (RAP) 

Sample Rule Entry 

-1-

General Rule Information 

CFR Business Rulemaking Docket ID PRM No. Part Line Office 

NRC-2011- PRM-50-96, 

50, 52 Operating Reactors NRR 0189, NRC- PRM-50-97, 

2014-0240 PRM-50-98, 

PRM-50-1 00, 

PRM-50-101 , 

and PRM-50-102 

Status Update Since Last Report 

RIN No. 

AJ49 

Jn SRM-SECY-15-0065, dated August 27, 2015, the Commission approved publication of the draft proposed rule in the Federal Register subject to 

he removal of the proposed requirements for Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMGs)(1 O CFR 50.155(b)(3)) and the proposed design 

requirements for new reactor applicants (1 o CFR 50.155(d)). As a consequence, the estimated budget resources required for this rulemaking 

~ere reduced by I FTE and I Kin FY 17. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on XXIXXJXXXX. 

Jn FY2016 and FY2017 staff will review, analyze, and prepare responses to any comments received on the proposed rule. Based on the staff's 

resolution of public comments, the final rule a will be revised and provided to the Commission in December 2016. 

Last Updated: XXJXX/XXXX 

Abstract 

Budget 

FY16 FY17 

Office 

FTE $K FTE $K 

NRO 1.4 0 

NRR 2.6 325 • • 

NSIR 1 83 • • 

OGC 0 0 • • 

RES 0.4 0 • • 

Total 5.4 408 • • • • 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to enhance mitigation strategies for nuclear power reactors for beyond-design-basis external events. This rulemaking addresses recommendations from the NearTerm Task Force (NTTF) related to station blackout, spent fuel pool long term cooling, and emergency preparedness (NTTF recommendations 4, 7, 8, and portions of 9, 10, and 11 ). In staff 

requirements memorandum (SRM)-SECY-11-0124, the Commission directed the staff to initiate the station blackout rulemaking as a high-priority activity. The staff's proposal is intended to produce 

a more seamless accident response capability that includes emergency operating procedures, the newly imposed strategies and guidelines for beyond-design-basis external events, severe accident 

management guidelines, and the extensive damage mitigation guidelines. In SRM-SECY-14-0046, the Commission approved the consolidation of the rulemaking activities. The rulemaking will 

make generically applicable the requirements in the Mitigation Strategies Order EA-12-049 and Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation Order EA-12-051 from 2012. This rulemaking will partially address 

Petition for Rulemaking (PRM)-50-96 for long-term cooling capabilities in the event of a solar storm. Additionally, this rule fully addresses PRMs 50-97, 50-98, 50-100, 50-101 , and 50-102. 

Priority Justification 

The rule scores 45 points (20, 10, 1 O, 5) because of the following reasons: A) Significant contributor toward the safety goal (strategies 1 and 5); B) Significant contributor toward the regulatory 

effectiveness goal (strategies 1 and 2); C) Commission direction in SRM-SECY-11 -0124, SRM-SECY-11 -0137, and SRM-SECY-14-0046; also a Congressional priority; and D) Partially addresses 

PRM-50-96 and addresses five other PRMs with significant public interest following the Fukushima event. 

Enclosure 3 
Rule Initiation 

12/15/2011 

Milestone Date 

12/15/2011 

03/20/2012 

04/25/2012 

05/04/2012 

01/25/2013 

03/04/2013 

04/10/2013 

05/28/2013 

07/23/2013 

02/21/2014 

07/09/2014 

08/26/2014 

03/16/2015 

04/09/2015 

05/06/2015 

This document has been redacted. 

Updated Rulemaking Activity Report (RAP) 

Sample Rule Entry 

-2-

Target Completion Dates 

Regulatory Basis Proposed Rule to EDO/Commission Final Rule to EDO/Commission Final Rule Published 

107/23/2013 104/30/2015 112/16/2016 11210112017 

Milestones 

Document Milestone 

SRM-SECY-11-0137 The Commission approved beginning activities for rulemaking. 

77 FR 16175 Advance notice of proposed rulemaking published. 

N/A Public meeting held. 

N/A Close of public comment period. 

COMSECY-13-0002 The staff recommended consolidating the NTTF Recommendations 4 and 7 rules into one rulemaking. 

SRM-CMSY13-0002 The Commission approved combining the NTTF Recommendations 4 and 7 rules into one rulemaking. 

78 FR 21275 Draft regulatory bas[s and draft rule concepts issued for public comment. 

N/A Close of public comment period. 

78 FR 44035 Regulatory basis published in the Federal Register (FR). 

NIA Conceptual construct of consolidated preliminary proposed rule language issued. 

SRM-SECY-14-0046 The Commission approved combining the NTTF Recommendations 4 and 7 rulemaking with the Recommendation 8 rulemaking. 

N/A Staff conducted a public meeting to discuss draft proposed rule language. 

N/A Staff met with The Office of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Fukushima subcommittee on the proposed rule. 

N/A Staff met with ACRS full committee on the proposed rule. 

N/A Staff met with ACRS Fukushima subcommittee on the draft guidance. 
06/10/2015 N/A 

04/30/2015 SECY-15-0065 

07/09/2015 N/A 

08/27/2015 SRM-SECY-15-0065 

10/16/2015 NIA 

11/06/2015 N/A 

01/15/2016 N/A 

02/01/2015 N/A 

11/30/2016 N/A 

12/10/2016 N/A 

12/16/2016 NIA 

12101/2017 NIA 

This document has been redacted. 

Updated Rulemaking Activity Report (RAP) 

Sample Rule Entry 

-3-

Staff met with ACRS Fukushima subcommittee on the draft guidance. 

Proposed rule provided to the Commission. 

Staff met with the Commission on the proposed rule and associated guidance. 

The Commission approved publication of the draft proposed rule in the Federal Register subject to the removal of the proposed requirements 

for Severe Accident Management Guidelines (SAMGs)(1 O CFR 50.155(b)(3)) and the proposed design requirements for new reactor 

applicants (1 O CFR 50.155(d)). 

Proposed rule due to SECY for publication. 

Target date to publish proposed rule in the Federal Register. 

Staff plans to hold a public meeting. 

Estimated closure date for public comment period. 

Meeting with ACRS Subcommittee. 

Meeting with ACRS Full Committee .. 

Target date to submit final rule to the Commission. 

Target date to publish final rule in the Federal Register. 
~ . ..... ~.iJ:.- . ;.. ". -~. _ ...4, 

: . . . J' 

Timeline for Proposed Plan to Increase Commission Involvement in the Early Stages of Rulemaking 

Sep - Nov 

Common Prioritization of Rulemaking (CPR) 

Working Group adds rules approved by 

Commission to CPR report 

Aug - Sep 

Staff Prepares 

Fall Unified Agenda December 

CPR Working Group prioritizes 

rules approved by the Commission 

and holds Office Director and Office of 

the Executive Director for 

Operations (OEDO) alignment meetings 

Feb - Apr 

CPR WG adds estimated resources 

to rules approved by the Commission 

and holds Office Director and 

OEDO alignment meetings 

Mar - Apr 

Staff Prepares 

Spring Unified Agenda 

I 

\~ 

May - Jun 

l. Staff submits CPR report to the Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer 

2. Staff submits Rulemaking Activity Plan to Commission 

through Commissioners' Assistants (CA) note 

3. Committee to Review Generic Requirements and Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards on distribution for CA note 

4. Staff updates rulemaking priorities Web page 

Enclosure 4