ML19233A198

Letter to the Honorable John Barrasso Et Al., from Chairman Svinicki, Submits the 32nd Monthly Status Report on the Licensing Activities and Regulatory Duties of the NRC (for the Reporting Period Through July 2019) Enclosure

ML19233A198
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/09/2019
From:	Kristine Svinicki NRC/Chairman
To:	Barrasso J, Braun M, Pallone F US Congress, US HR (House of Representatives), US SEN (Senate)
Roger Rihm, 415-1717
References
Corr-19-0091
Download: ML19233A198 (117)

Text

STATUS REPORT ON THE LICENSING ACTIVITIES AND REGULATORY DUTIES OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION For the Reporting Period through July 2019 Enclosure

Table of Contents RESOURCES

1. Status of Project Aim and additional activities 1

2. Incorporation of five-year workload planning into policies and procedures 3

3. Staffing 3

4. Actions taken or planned to reduce corporate support costs, including efforts to 17 reduce office space

5. Status of efforts to provide greater transparency, timeliness, and itemization in 19 invoices to applicants and licensees, including any progress toward electronic invoicing and payment

6. Research activities initiated during the reporting period 20 URANIUM RECOVERY

7. Information regarding major uranium recovery licensing application reviews 20

8. Status of major uranium recovery licensing actions 21

9. Status of minor uranium recovery licensing actions 22

10. Status of Wyoming Agreement State application 23

11. Specific actions planned to improve the efficiency of reviews conducted 23 for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

12. Progress of the pilot project on flat fees for uranium recovery licensees 25 LICENSING

13. Information regarding license amendment reviews for operating reactors, 26 new reactors, and uranium recovery licensees

14. Information regarding decommissioning transition reviews 33

15. List of Technical Specifications Task Force travelers under review 33

16. Actions planned and/or taken to ensure that the Technical Specifications 34 Task Force traveler process achieves the regulatory efficiencies that were initially projected

17. Information regarding license renewal review applications 35

18. Status of ongoing license renewal reviews 35 i

19. Status of NRCs readiness to review applications for subsequent license 35 renewal (SLR)

20. Status of SLR reviews 36

21. Information regarding power uprate application reviews 41

22. Status of power uprate application reviews 42

23. Information regarding requests for additional information (RAIs) issued 43 by various offices/programs

24. Status of specific actions taken or planned to ensure greater discipline, 48 management oversight, and transparency in the RAI process

25. Actions taken to enhance the integration of risk information across the 51 agencys activities to improve the technical basis for regulatory activities, to increase efficiency, and to improve effectiveness

26. Status of power reactor transition from analog to digital instrumentation 55

27. Actions taken and planned to prepare to review industry requests to use 59 accident tolerant fuel in existing reactors

28. Actions taken and planned to improve the quality of cost benefit analyses 60 conducted in association with new requirements, backfit analyses, or rulemaking

29. Status of the revised guidance to clarify the use of qualitative factors 62

30. List of all final generic regulatory actions issued in the last three years 63

31. List and brief description of all facility-specific backfits issued during 71 the reporting period

32. Twelve-month and three-year rolling averages for Committee to Review 71 Generic Requirements (CRGR) formal and informal reviews

33. Status of the application of the backfit rule in licensing and inspection 72 programs across the agency

34. Actions taken and planned to address recommendations made by the 74 CRGR in its report U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Implementation of Backfitting and Issue Finality Requirements REACTOR INSPECTION

35. Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) findings for year-to-date and three-year 76 rolling metrics ii

36. Percentage of Final Significance Determinations made within 90 days for all 77 potentially greater-than-green findings, monthly for one-year rolling metrics and annually for the past 10 years

37. Instances where Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 609, Appendix M, Significance 77 Determination Process Using Qualitative Criteria, has been applied in the ROP Significance Determination Process

38. Status of potential changes to the ROP and identification 77 of any changes that may require Commission approval prior to implementation

39. Progress toward utilizing an industry consensus document as a means of 78 accomplishing predictability and consistency in operability determinations

40. Information regarding Design Basis Assurance Inspections completed in the 78 last three years

41. Status of the holistic review of engineering inspection procedures and any 84 actions taken and/or planned because of the review NEW REACTORS

42. Funds budgeted, resources spent, and total Part 170 fees billed each year 85 for the past ten years for the Office of New Reactors (NRO)

43. Information regarding each design certification, combined license, and early 85 site permit application reviewed since 2007

44. Summary of the status of ongoing design certification, combined license, 93 and early site permit application reviews

45. Information on Test Analyses and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) reviews for reactors under construction 95

46. License amendments for reactors under construction 99

47. Budgeted resources and actual expenditures each month for the past 99 24 months for reactors under construction

48. Summary of the status of licensing and inspection for Vogtle Units 3 and 4 100

49. Actions taken in the past three years or planned to improve the efficiency 101 of new plant reviews

50. Unresolved policy issues regarding the licensing of small modular 101 light-water reactors (LWRs)

51. Unresolved policy issues regarding the licensing of advanced LWRs 108

52. Status of preparations to review non-light water reactor (non-LWR) applications 108 iii

RESOURCES

1. Will Project Aim 2020 conclude in early 2018, or will it continue pursuing additional improvements? If Project Aim will continue, please describe any new or additional actions taken or planned, including milestones for completion of such actions.

In the June 8, 2015, staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-15-0015, Project Aim 2020 Report and Recommendations, the Commission approved 19 separate tasks to address the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) need to improve effectiveness and efficiency, as well as to adjust the workforce to match the workload and skills necessary to accomplish its mission. The NRC staff continues to provide a quarterly Project Aim status report, which will be transmitted with this report each quarter.

The Project Aim effort led to several follow-on activities that are still underway. One such initiative is the enhanced Strategic Workforce Planning (SWP) process (described in response to Question 2 below). This activity is structured to better integrate the agencys workload projections, skills identification, human capital management, employee development, and workforce management activities. SWP reflects efforts in the above areas using a 5-year planning horizon. Another initiative outside the scope of the Project Aim efforts was the creation of a task force to identify process efficiencies to yield savings through the standardization or centralization of specific mission support functions. This task force identified 21 project areas for consideration and developed timelines for implementation for each project area. Some of these implementation plans have been successfully completed while others are underway.

Most recently the NRC has undertaken an initiative to identify potential activities that would transform the NRC regulatory framework, culture, and infrastructure. The initial efforts identified over 700 diverse ideas from external stakeholders, regional, and headquarters staff. A subset has been recommended to the Commission. The NRC continues to seek opportunities for innovation and efficiency improvement in its regulatory functions while it institutionalizes the actions related to Project Aim. The table below describes an activity that continues the objectives of Project Aim and demonstrates the NRCs continued commitment to effectiveness and efficiency.

Initiative Milestones Notes Merge the Offices of Nuclear Major NRR restructure October Completed Reactor Regulation (NRR) 2017 and NRO to achieve efficiency gains, improve Minor NRO restructure April 2018 Completed supervisory ratios, and provide greater flexibility and Proposed organizational structure Completed improved agility to manage a submitted to the Commission for dynamic workload consideration December 2018 Develop Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 staffing plan with pre-merger consolidations Q4 of FY 2019 Implement at least one pre- Completed merger consolidation by 10/01/19 Complete the merger late-2019 1

Initiative Milestones Notes

2. Consistent with the workload forecast done under Project Aim 2020, to what extent has the NRC incorporated five-year workload planning into its policies and procedures, e.g.,

strategic planning and budget formulation? Please describe the actions taken or planned.1 On July 19, 2017, the NRCs Executive Director for Operations (EDO) formed a working group to develop a comprehensive, integrated, and systematic SWP with the primary objective to enhance the existing SWP to better integrate the agencys workload projections, skills identification, human capital management, and workforce management activities with NRCs strategic planning and budget formulation process. As a part of this effort, a three-office pilot of the enhanced SWP process was performed, incorporating a 5-year workload planning horizon.

The pilot demonstrated that the enhanced SWP framework and process, when fully implemented, can identify short- and long-term strategies and action plans that are comprehensive and provide important insights into training needs to address gaps and overages in workforce needs. These outcomes will improve the agencys human capital management activities, help identify employee opportunities for career growth, and provide for a greater understanding of the future workload of the NRC. On June 8, 2018, the pilot implementation team proposed proceeding with all the recommendations in the Enhanced Strategic Workforce Planning Lessons-Learned Pilot Report, including implementing Phase II of the enhanced SWP process. Phase II includes the five major program offices, two corporate offices, and the four regional offices, which accounts for approximately 79 percent of the workforce. The actions planned for SWP Phase II are outlined in the table in the response to Question 1, above. The enhanced SWP process is designed to be implemented on an annual cycle to develop strategies to address workforce needs in both budget execution year + 1 year and budget execution year + 5 years. Phase II ended in June 2019. The Office of the Executive Director for Operations (OEDO) and the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) will next determine the extent to which the remaining agency offices should be included. When fully implemented, SWP will result in a 5-year workload projection that can be used to better inform the budget formulation process.

3. Please provide the total number of staff and corporate support staff full-time equivalent (FTE), budgeted vs actual, for the agency and in each of the following offices: NRR, NRO, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Uranium Recovery, Decommissioning, and each regional office. Please provide this information for the current month, each of the previous eleven months, and projections for each of the twelve months going forward.

Please do not divide by twelve.

1 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

2

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Level FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 232.2 2840.5 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 231.0 3071.5 3195 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 230.0 230.0 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 229.5 459.5 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 229.1 688.6 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 226.7 915.3 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 225.5 1140.8 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 224.3 1365.1 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 223.5 1588.6 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 222.7 1811.3 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 223.8 2035.1 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 223.7 2258.8 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 222.9 2481.7 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 219.8 2701.5 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 218.2 2919.7 3114 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 218.4 218.4 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 218.3 436.7 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 218.2 654.9 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 218.2 873.1 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 218.1 1091.2 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 218.1 1309.3 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 218.0 1527.3 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 218.0 1745.3 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 218.0 1963.3 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 218.0 2181.3 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 217.9 2399.2 2993 FY 2020 Notes 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes staff in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

5 Includes reimbursable FTE for work performed for other Federal agencies and non-Federal organizations.

3

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for FTE Budget the Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 33.7 412.3 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 33.6 445.9 451 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 33.5 33.5 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 34.3 67.8 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 34.4 102.2 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 33.9 136.1 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 33.6 169.7 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 33.4 203.1 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 33.6 236.7 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 34.9 271.6 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 36.0 307.6 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 35.7 343.3 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 35.9 379.2 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 35.3 414.5 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 35.1 449.6 445 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 35.0 35.0 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 35.1 70.1 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 35.1 105.2 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 35.1 140.3 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 35.1 175.4 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 35.1 210.5 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 35.1 245.6 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 35.1 280.7 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 35.2 315.9 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 35.2 351.1 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 35.2 386.3 432 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in NRR.

5 Includes reimbursable FTE for work performed for other Federal agencies and non-Federal organizations.

6 FY 2019 NRR resources decrease from FY 2018 Enacted primarily as a result of NRR/NRO pre-merger consolidation activities transitioning to OCIO. FY 2019 FTE projections currently exclude FY 2019 budget approved FTE realignments. Projections will be updated upon completion of personnel actions.

4

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of New Reactors FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 19.4 247.2 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 19.2 266.4 275 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 18.9 18.9 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 18.2 37.1 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 18.0 55.1 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 17.6 72.7 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 16.8 89.5 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 16.1 105.6 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 15.6 121.2 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 14.3 135.5 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 13.3 148.8 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 13.4 162.2 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 13.3 175.5 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 13.3 188.8 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 13.2 202.0 250 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 13.1 13.1 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 13.1 26.2 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 13.1 39.3 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 13.1 52.4 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 13.1 65.5 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 13.1 78.6 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 13.1 91.7 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 13.2 104.9 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 13.2 118.1 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 13.2 131.3 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 13.2 144.5 212 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in NRO.

5 Includes reimbursable FTE for work performed for other Federal agencies and non-Federal organizations.

6 FY 2019 NRO resources decrease from FY 2018 Enacted primarily as a result of NRR/NRO pre-merger consolidation activities transitioning to OCIO. FY 2019 FTE projections shown here do not include approved FTE realignments. Projections will be updated upon completion of the related personnel actions.

5

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 22.2 272.9 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 22.4 295.3 312 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 22.1 22.1 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 22.0 44.1 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 22.0 66.1 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 22.0 88.1 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 21.8 109.9 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 21.6 131.5 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 21.7 153.2 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 21.5 174.7 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 21.7 196.4 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 21.6 218.0 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 21.3 239.3 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 21.0 260.3 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 20.9 281.2 285 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 21.0 21.0 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 20.9 41.9 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 21.0 62.9 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 21.0 83.9 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 21.1 105.0 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 21.1 126.1 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 21.1 147.2 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 21.1 168.3 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 21.1 189.4 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 21.1 210.5 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 21.1 231.6 276 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Provides all staff in NMSS, including FTE for Uranium Recovery and Reactor Decommissioning.

5 Includes reimbursable FTE for work performed for other Federal agencies and non-Federal organizations.

6

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 15.4 184.5 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 15.3 199.8 201 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 15.4 15.4 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 15.4 30.8 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 15.3 46.1 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 15.1 61.2 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 14.9 76.1 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 15.0 91.1 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 15.0 106.1 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 15.0 121.1 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 15.2 136.3 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 15.3 151.6 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 15.2 166.8 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 14.9 181.7 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 14.7 196.4 208 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 14.7 14.7 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 14.7 29.4 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 14.7 44.1 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 14.7 58.8 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 14.7 73.5 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 14.7 88.2 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 14.7 102.9 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 14.7 117.6 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 14.7 132.3 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 14.7 147.0 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 14.7 161.7 205 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in RES.

5 Includes reimbursable FTE for work performed for other Federal agencies and non-Federal organizations.

7

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 12.8 155.2 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 12.6 167.8 176 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 12.5 12.5 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 12.5 25.0 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 12.3 37.3 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 12.4 49.7 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 12.5 62.2 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 12.5 74.7 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 12.5 87.2 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 12.4 99.6 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 12.3 111.9 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 12.5 124.4 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 12.4 136.8 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 12.1 148.9 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 12.1 161.0 165 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 12.0 12.0 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 11.9 23.9 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 11.8 35.7 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 11.8 47.5 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 11.8 59.3 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 11.8 71.1 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 11.8 82.9 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 11.8 94.7 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 11.8 106.5 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 11.8 118.3 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 11.8 130.1 158 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in NSIR.

5 Includes reimbursable FTE for work performed for other Federal agencies and non-Federal organizations.

8

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Uranium Recovery FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 1.3 15.6 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 1.3 16.9 30 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 0.7 0.7 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 0.7 1.4 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 0.6 2.0 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 0.6 2.6 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 0.6 3.2 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 0.6 3.8 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 0.6 4.4 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 0.6 5.0 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 0.6 5.6 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 0.6 6.2 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 0.6 6.8 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 0.6 7.4 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 0.6 8.0 15 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 0.6 0.6 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 0.6 1.2 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 0.6 1.8 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 0.6 2.4 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 0.6 3.0 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 0.6 3.6 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 0.6 4.2 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 0.6 4.8 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 0.6 5.4 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 0.6 6.0 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 0.6 6.6 8 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in the Uranium Recovery Branch of NMSS, and relevant staff in the following:

Environmental Review Branch, NMSS; Division of Materials Safety, Security, State, and Tribal Programs, NMSS; Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Region IV (R-IV); Office of the General Counsel (OGC);

and Atomic Safety Licensing Board Panel.

9

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Decommissioning FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 3.0 37.7 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 3.0 40.7 37 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 3.2 3.2 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 3.1 6.3 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 2.2 8.5 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 2.3 10.8 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 2.3 13.1 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 2.3 15.4 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 2.2 17.6 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 2.2 19.8 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 2.2 22.0 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 2.2 24.2 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 2.3 26.5 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 2.3 28.8 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 2.3 31.1 35 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 2.3 2.3 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 2.3 4.6 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 2.3 6.9 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 2.3 9.2 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 2.3 11.5 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 2.3 13.8 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 2.3 16.1 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 2.3 18.4 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 2.3 20.7 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 2.3 23.0 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 2.3 25.3 34 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in the Reactor and Materials Decommissioning Branches of NMSS, plus relevant contributions from staff in OGC, Region I (R-1), and Region III (R-III). No mission support staff, second level and above supervisory staff, or staff support from other offices is included.

10

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 14.8 180.3 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 14.7 195.0 198 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 14.6 14.6 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 14.5 29.1 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 14.4 43.5 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 14.2 57.7 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 14.2 71.9 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 14.2 86.1 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 14.1 100.2 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 13.9 114.1 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 13.9 128.0 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 13.9 141.9 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 13.7 155.6 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 13.6 169.2 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 13.3 182.5 195 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 13.5 13.5 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 13.5 27.0 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 13.4 40.4 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 13.4 53.8 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 13.4 67.2 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 13.4 80.6 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 13.4 94.0 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 13.4 107.4 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 13.4 120.8 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 13.4 134.2 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 13.4 147.6 183 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in R-I.

11

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 18.3 229.5 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 18.1 247.6 253 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 17.8 17.8 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 17.8 35.6 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 18.0 53.6 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 17.9 71.5 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 17.7 89.2 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 17.6 106.8 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 17.6 124.4 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 17.6 142.0 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 17.6 159.6 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 17.4 177.0 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 17.4 194.4 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 17.0 211.4 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 17.0 228.4 245 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 17.0 17.0 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 17.0 34.0 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 17.0 51.0 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 17.0 68.0 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 17.0 85.0 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 17.0 102.0 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 17.0 119.0 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 17.0 136.0 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 17.0 153.0 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 17.0 170.0 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 17.0 187.0 239 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in Region II (R-II).

12

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 13.7 167.7 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 13.8 181.5 188 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 13.8 13.8 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 13.7 27.5 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 13.8 41.3 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 13.6 54.9 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 13.3 68.2 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 13.3 81.5 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 13.3 94.8 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 13.1 107.9 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 13.2 121.1 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 13.4 134.5 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 13.3 147.8 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 13.2 161.0 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 13.1 174.1 184 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 13.1 13.1 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 13.1 26.2 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 13.1 39.3 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 13.1 52.4 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 13.1 65.5 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 13.1 78.6 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 13.1 91.7 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 13.1 104.8 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 13.1 117.9 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 13.1 131.0 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 13.1 144.1 180 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in R-III.

13

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Annual Period FTE for the FTE Budget Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 12.9 153.8 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 12.9 166.7 175 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 12.8 12.8 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 12.7 25.5 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 12.6 38.1 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 12.5 50.6 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 12.4 63.0 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 12.3 75.3 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 12.2 87.5 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 12.3 99.8 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 12.4 112.2 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 12.2 124.4 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 12.3 136.7 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 12.5 149.2 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 12.6 161.8 169 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 12.7 12.7 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 12.7 25.4 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 12.7 38.1 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 12.7 50.8 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 12.7 63.5 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 12.7 76.2 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 12.7 88.9 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 12.7 101.6 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 12.7 114.3 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 12.7 127.0 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 12.7 139.7 167 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in R-IV.

14

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Corporate Support Functions FTE Actuals and Projections 11 Months Prior and 12 Months Future Data as of 8/3/2019 Actual/

Projected FY to Date Period FTE for the FTE Period 08/05/2018 - 09/01/2018 34.8 422.7 09/02/2018 - 09/29/2018 34.5 457.2 510 FY 2018 09/30/2018 - 10/27/2018 34.6 34.6 10/28/2018 - 11/24/2018 34.6 69.2 11/25/2018 - 12/22/2018 34.7 103.9 12/23/2018 - 01/19/2019 34.5 138.4 01/20/2019 - 02/16/2019 34.9 173.3 02/17/2019 - 03/16/2019 35.0 208.3 03/17/2019 - 04/13/2019 34.8 243.1 04/14/2019 - 05/11/2019 34.8 277.9 05/12/2019 - 06/08/2019 34.8 312.7 06/09/2019 - 07/06/2019 34.9 347.6 07/07/2019 - 08/03/2019 34.8 382.4 08/04/2019 - 08/31/2019 34.5 416.9 09/01/2019 - 09/28/2019 34.1 451.0 515 FY 2019 09/29/2019 - 10/26/2019 34.1 34.1 10/27/2019 - 11/23/2019 34.1 68.2 11/24/2019 - 12/21/2019 34.1 102.3 12/22/2019 - 01/18/2020 34.1 136.4 01/19/2020 - 02/15/2020 34.0 170.4 02/16/2020 - 03/14/2020 34.0 204.4 03/15/2020 - 04/11/2020 34.0 238.4 04/12/2020 - 05/09/2020 33.9 272.3 05/10/2020 - 06/06/2020 33.8 306.1 06/07/2020 - 07/04/2020 33.8 339.9 07/05/2020 - 08/01/2020 33.8 373.7 511 FY 2020 Notes: 1 Data are reported in two-pay-period groups because of the biweekly payroll cycle.

2 Actual/projected FTE for the period reflects FTE utilization (or projected utilization).

3 Projection is approximately 1/12th of total year FTE expenditures, adjusted for known future gains and losses through the end of the FY.

4 Includes all staff in the following corporate support offices: Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO),

OCIO, Office of Administration, Office of Small Business and Civil Rights, and OCHCO.

5 Includes reimbursable FTE for work performed for other Federal agencies and non-Federal organizations.

FY 2019 Corporate Support Functions resources increase from FY 2018 Enacted primarily as a result of NRR/NRO pre-merger consolidation activities transitioning to OCIO. FY 2019 FTE projections currently exclude FY 2019 budget approved FTE realignments. Projections will be updated upon completion of personnel actions.

15

4. Please describe the status of actions taken or planned to reduce corporate support costs, including efforts to reduce office space in the Three White Flint North (3WFN) building and in the regional offices. Please include goals for space reductions and cost savings, as well as the estimated date to achieve those goals.

The NRC remains committed to identifying and achieving efficiencies in the corporate support area, including office space reductions and the related cost savings. The staff is in the process of re-baselining the agencys workloadfocusing on statutory mandates, as well as work pertaining to the agencys safety and security mission. In addition, in SECY-16-0035, Additional Re-baselining Products, the NRC staff identified other actions that could provide additional efficiencies in the long-term. For example, the agency plans to award a new contract under the Small Business Administrations 8(a) program to provide the agencys printing and reproduction services off-site beginning January 1, 2020. This initiative is expected to save the agency a significant amount of contract funding as compared to onsite contractor staff for these same services, as well as equipment leases and maintenance agreements. In addition to reexamining the printing process, the agency is also exploring options to potentially outsource the mailroom screening with the intent to reduce both real property and contract costs. Planned corporate support reductions are shown in the table below, which will be updated in future reports as the reductions are achieved and as new initiatives are evaluated.

Product Line Total $

Description FTE Status FY (M)*

Additional Re-baselining Products (SECY-16-0035)

Administrative Reduce Office Space in Headquarters** -5.8 0 In process FY 2019 -

Services FY 2020 Administrative Reduce Office Space in the Regions*** -2.5 0 In process FY 2019 -

Services FY 2022 Administrative Reduce Contract Costs for Printing and -0.3 0 In progress FY2020 Services Reproduction Services Administrative Space Design Criteria Based on Workstation TBD TBD In process FY 2019 Services and Efficiencies Information Technology (IT)

Subtotal - Additional Re-baselining Reductions -$8.6 0.0 Other Corporate Support Reductions IT IT Infrastructure Support - the agency expects to -3.6 0 In process FY 2018 -

realize a 10 to 15 percent drop in contract FY 2019 expenses resulting from a new acquisition strategy.

Administrative Utility Savings - Reduction in annual electrical -0.7 0 In process FY 2019 Services consumption and the related annual cost.

Administrative Printed Material Savings - Reduction in the -0.1 0 In process FY 2019 -

Services amount of printed materials produced for NRC FY 2020 personnel and external stakeholders, both on-site and procured with the Government Publishing Office.

Subtotal - Other Corporate Support -$4.4 0.0 Total -$13.0 0.0

• Total includes any FTE cost.

• • Includes 3WFN and warehouse space reductions.

• • • Includes plan to convert R-Is office space to an open floor plan in FY 2022 16

Reduction of Office and Warehouse Space NRC office space is currently comprised of a Headquarters Campus in Rockville, MD (One White Flint North (OWFN), Two White Flint North (TWFN), and partial space in 3WFN), a warehouse, four regional office buildings, and a technical training center. As of July 31, 2019, the agencys headquarters space portfolio consists of OWFN; TWFN; and three floors, lobby level conference room space, and the B1 level of 3WFN; and a warehouse.

The NRC plans to relinquish a total of 196,000 usable square feet (USF) from FY 2019 through FY 2023 by consolidating office space at headquarters and releasing space in each regional office location. This represents an increase of 15,000 USF to be released as compared to previous reports due to a change in the space reduction strategy for the R-I location in King of Prussia, PA. R-I will increase the amount of space to be released from 15,000 USF to a total of 30,000 USF by exercising termination rights within the existing lease (effective April 2022) and procuring a new lease, through General Services Administration, for less space utilizing an open floor plan. The total annual savings for the planned release of the 196,000 USF by the end of FY 2023 is anticipated to be $7.4 million in rent savings and $0.9 million in security savings as compared to FY 2018 baseline costs, for a total annual savings of $8.3 million.

The NRCs updated agency-wide space below includes the release of the additional 15,000 USF in FY 2022 for a total of 30,000 USF.

NRC Square Footage (SF) Reduction Goal FY 2019 - FY 2023 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Office Target (Net USF 55,000 75,000 21,000 30,000 15,000 Reduction)

Reduction in IT Infrastructure Support Costs To date, the NRC has realized more than 60 percent of the expected $3.6 million in cost reductions through contract modifications; transitions to government-wide acquisition vehicles and more cost-effective competitive contract awards; transfer of leased end-user and infrastructure assets to NRC ownership; revised eligibility for Government-Furnished Equipment; and award of the Security Operations Center, Mobility, and End User Computing Call Orders under the new Global Infrastructure and Development Acquisition (GLINDA) Blanket Purchase Agreements. The balance of the expected cost reductions will be realized in FY 2019 and beyond through transition to the GLINDA Systems, Network, and Cross-Cutting Services Call Order.

5. Please describe the status of efforts to provide greater transparency, timeliness, and itemization in invoices to applicants and licensees, including any progress toward electronic invoicing (eBilling) and payment. Please include near-term (within 6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months), and long-term (greater than 12 months) milestones.

Progress towards eBilling and payment.

The NRC is in the development phase of the eBilling project. Near-term and medium-term tasks include the following:

17

Near-Term:

• Obtain NRC Authorization Official full approval to operate the system (in progress).

• Build the eBilling solution tool (in progress).

• Conduct eBilling pilot 2 session with internal and external stakeholders (completed).

• Conduct eBilling Market/Rollout Strategy (in progress).

• Deploy the phased approach of the eBilling solution tool on or about October 2019.

• Provide the nine participating eBilling pilot project licensees with status of eBilling project monthly (in progress).

Medium-Term:

• Provide stakeholders with status of eBilling project on a bimonthly basis (in progress)

6. Please provide a list of all new research initiated during the reporting period. For each new project, please provide the estimated timeframe and resources necessary for completion, and a description of the safety significance of the research.

During the month of July 2019, the RES initiated research on or substantially revised the following research:

Estimated Estimated Safety Significance of Name of New or Revised Project Completion Resources Research Activity Regulatory Research Supporting 3 FTE and Dry Cask Storage Thermal FY 2022 Medium

$200K Performance Comments:

The table above provides information about projects that were reviewed and approved during the monthly reporting period that exceed 300 staff hours or $500K of program support.

URANIUM RECOVERY

7. For major uranium recovery licensing actions, please provide a table including the date the application was filed, the duration of the application review, the originally forecasted completion date, the currently forecasted completion date, and the total current amount of fees billed to the licensee/applicant for the review.2 2

No new information was added to this section since the last report.

18

Major Uranium Recovery Licensing Actions (1)

The State of Wyoming assumed regulatory responsibilities for uranium recovery activities within their state on September 30, 2018. The NRC does not currently have any major uranium recovery actions under active review. See item #8 below for other actions still pending before the agency.

Originally Currently Licensing Duration of Site/Facility Date of Forecasted Forecasted Total Current Licensee Action Review (2)

Name Submittal Completion Completion Fees Billed (4)

Type (months)

Date Date(3)

No Major Uranium Recovery Licensing actions currently under active review.

Notes:

1. NRC staff completed a self-assessment of the uranium recovery licensing process in 2017. The review compared the uranium recovery licensing process to other licensing groups within the NRC to identify best practices. The review identified several recommendations for improvements to the uranium recovery licensing process. A number of these recommendations, such as the use of schedule letters to communicate changes in review schedules and developing tools to better track project status, have already been implemented. In addition, in 2016, the uranium recovery program established an agency metric that tracks the percentage of major milestones completed on schedule. The uranium recovery staff anticipates that implementing these changes will result in future efficiencies in the uranium recovery licensing process.

2. The duration of review is the total amount of time the application has been under consideration, starting when the application was accepted for review by the NRC staff.

The NRCs goal is to complete major reviews within 36 months from acceptance of the application. The duration of review includes periods of delay that could be attributed to the NRC staff, the licensee, or both.

3. Completed actions will remain in the table for this report until the final fees under 10 CFR Part 170 can be included in the Total Current Fees Billed column.

4. Fees for license-specific services under 10 CFR Part 170 are billed quarterly.

8. For major uranium recovery licensing actions, please provide a brief description of the status of each review, including projected budget and timeline for both the environmental impact statement (EIS) and the safety evaluation report (SER). 3 The table below provides the status of major uranium recovery licensing actions pending before the agency, the timeline for completing the associated EISs and SERs, and the total projected budget per project. As noted above, the NRC does not currently have any major uranium recovery licensing actions under review.

The NRC does not formulate its budget at the project level. The budget for the Uranium Recovery Program is formulated at a higher-level using budget models for the number, type, and complexity of reviews anticipated. The projected budget information reported below includes the program staff and contract support resource estimates to perform the safety and environmental reviews from submittal to licensing decision, excluding resources for OGCs reviews, hearings, mission support, supervisory support, travel, and allocated agency corporate support resources. The estimates are based on budget models for different types (such as 3

No new information was added to this section since the last report.

19

expansions, renewals, and new licenses) and complexities of major licensing action reviews.

The NRC staffs goal is to complete the review of major licensing actions within 3 years; however, the staff estimates that smaller, less complex applications may be reviewed in 2 years, while larger, more complex, applications may require up to 4 years to review.

Uranium Application Review Status and Projected Budget Recovery Accepted Applicant for Review Cameco North 08/28/07 The SER for the North Trend expansion was completed in Trend July 2013. On December 16, 2015, the licensee Expansion(1) requested the NRC staff to stop its review of the North (NE) Trend application and to instead focus its efforts on the review of the Marsland expansion. The NRC staff has suspended its work related to the development of the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and conduct of Section 106 consultations pursuant to the NHPA. In addition, the hearing to address contentions related to groundwater is on hold, pending completion of the NRC staffs environmental review. By letter dated April 4, 2018, Cameco reiterated its request that the staff continue to hold its review in abeyance.

The projected total budget to conduct the review is 3.0 FTE and $600K.

Hydro 06/24/13 The sites, located very close to Navajo Nation lands, were Resources, licensed in 1998. Construction has not yet commenced.

Inc. (HRI) The license renewal review was placed in abeyance on License November 13, 2014, while HRI continues its work with the Renewal Navajo Nation Council. In March 2016, the NRC (NM) approved the transfer of control of the license from the HRI parent company, Uranium Resources, Inc., to Laramide Resources. The parties finalized the transaction in January 2017. The schedule for remaining milestones associated with the licensing review is to be determined.

The projected total budget to conduct the review is 2.6 FTE.

Note (1) On February 9, 2018, Cameco announced that it is ceasing U.S. operations due to an expectation of prolonged poor uranium market conditions. At the request of the licensee, the NRC staff has placed its licensing reviews on hold while seeking further information from Cameco regarding its licensing plans.

9. For minor uranium recovery licensing actions, please provide the following information each reporting period, including any months previously reported, in this format:

a. Size of inventory;

b. Number of acceptance reviews completed on time;

c. The number of items completed in the period being reported; and

d. Of the items completed in the reporting period, the number completed within the forecasted schedule.

e. Please identify any unusually complex items omitted from the inventory and provide the age of the item, a brief description of the item, the justification for omitting it from the inventory size, and an explanation for any review exceeding its original schedule by 125 percent.

20

Number of Unusually Number of Number of Items Complex Acceptance Items Completed Items Reviews Completed Within Omitted Size of Completed During Forecasted from Month/Year Inventory on Time(1) Month Schedule(2) Inventory Nov-2017 21 NA 2 1 0 Dec-2017 21 1 0 0 0 Jan-2018 21(3) 1 1 1 0 Feb-2018 19 2 2 2 0 Mar-2018 11 NA 8 8 0 Apr-2018 10 3 2 2 0 May-2018 9 NA 1 1 0 June-2018 8 NA 1 1 0 July-2018 9(4) 3(4) 1 1 0 Aug-2018 7(4) NA 2 2 0 Sept-2018 1(5) NA 3 3 0 Oct-2018 1 0 0 0 0 Nov-2018 2 1 0 0 0 Dec-2018 1 NA 1 1 0 Jan-2019 1 NA 0 0 0 Feb-2019 1 NA 0 0 0 Mar-2019 0 NA 1 1 0 Apr-2019 0 NA 0 0 0 May-2019 1 1 0 0 0 June-2019 1 NA 0 0 0 July-2019 0 NA 1 1 0 Notes:

1. NA means not applicable - no acceptance reviews were due in the corresponding month.

2. This column represents the total number of minor licensing actions completed within the staffs forecasted schedule in a particular month. At times, the uranium recovery staff has to divert resources from minor licensing actions to address oversight of operating sites, emergent issues, and major licensing actions. When this occurs, the NRC staff tries to accommodate the licensees priorities for completion of minor licensing actions.

However, this has impacted the staffs ability to complete minor licensing actions within the forecasted schedule.

3. The size of the inventory for January has been decreased to account for the completion of a licensing action on January 31, 2018.

4. The size of the inventory for July and August has been increased to account for an additional action that was under review by the NRC staff.

5. On September 30, 2018, the NRC relinquished its oversight responsibilities for uranium recovery facilities to the State of Wyoming under the NRCs Agreement State program.

Three of the minor licensing actions completed in September were completed within the forecasted schedule. The remaining three licensing actions were transferred to the State of Wyoming for completion.

21

10. Please provide a concise summary of the status of the process for the State of Wyoming to become an Agreement State.4 On September 10, 2018, the Commission approved the proposed Agreement and on September 25, 2018, Chairman Svinicki and Governor Mead of Wyoming signed the Agreement, with an effective date of September 30, 2018.

11. Please provide a concise summary of the specific actions planned to improve the efficiency of reviews conducted for compliance with the NHPA, including implementation dates for completion. Please describe any progress made during the reporting period.

The Section 106 process under the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. Based on lessons learned in the uranium recovery licensing functional area, the NRC has taken a number of actions to facilitate and enhance its Section 106 reviews. Because each licensing or regulatory action differs in scope, the specific activities identified to carry out NRCs obligations under NHPA differ from one licensing or regulatory action to another. The following specific actions have been identified and are being carried out to improve and facilitate compliance with the NHPA Section 106 process.

For efficiency, the NRC conducts the Section 106 process in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. To the extent possible, the NRCs completion date for its NHPA Section 106 review for a specific licensing action aligns with the date for publishing the final NEPA environmental review document.

In FY 2013, the NRC entered into an interagency agreement with the ACHP, under which the ACHP established a dedicated liaison to provide the NRC with technical assistance with Section 106 reviews of specific licensing actions, as well as relevant training and guidance. In FY 2018, ACHP provided the following webinars to NRC staff on the Section 106 process of the NHPA to continue to improve the efficiency of the reviews:

• Planning to Involve the Public in Section 106 (Completed on April 26, 2018)

• Defining the Area of Potential Effect (Completed on May 17, 2018)

• Reasonable and Good Faith Effort (Completed on June 12, 2018)

• Confidentiality & Section 304 (Completed on July 10, 2018)

• Innovative Mitigation (Completed on August 14, 2018)

• Planning for Successful Agreements (Completed on September 11, 2018)

Additionally, the NRC is planning to publish an Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) for conducting the Section 106 process specific to uranium recovery licensing actions, Guidance for Conducting the Section 106 Process of the National Historic Preservation Act for Uranium Recovery Licensing Actions, in 2019.

To further improve the agencys NHPA and NEPA processes for licensing activities, the NRC has updated several documents regarding tribal consultation. The NRC published the final Tribal Policy Statement in the Federal Register (FR) on January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2402), and revised its Tribal Protocol Manual. The Tribal Protocol Manual is intended to facilitate effective consultations and interactions between the NRC and Tribes.

4 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

22

Consistent with NRCs memoranda of understanding (MOU) with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the NRC staff coordinates with BLM the performance of NEPA and NHPA Section 106 reviews related to facilities that require an NRC license to possess and use source and byproduct materials, on public lands under BLMs regulatory authority. The goal of the MOU is to limit, to the extent possible, duplication of consultation, review, and evaluation efforts on a project.

Activities implemented over the past several years have enhanced and facilitated NRCs Section 106 reviews for uranium recovery licensing actions. For example, the NRC staff continues to proactively reach out and interact with Tribes as early as possible to share information and explain the scope of the licensing actions via letters, e-mails, teleconference calls, and webinars prior to potential tribal site visits. The NRC staff will continue to evaluate its approach to the Section 106 process to identify additional activities that could be taken to better facilitate the process.

12. Please provide a concise summary of the progress of the pilot project to establish flat fees for uranium recovery licensees, including specific near-term (6 months), medium-term (6 - 12 months), and long-term (greater than 10 months) milestones necessary to complete the pilot program.

As required by the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) and directed by the Commission, the NRC staff is in the process of conducting a flat fee pilot initiative for routine uranium recovery licensing actions. As described in the staff paper SECY-16-0097, Fee Setting Improvements and Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Fee Rule, this pilot will involve evaluation of data to collect a representative sample of the costs for various licensing reviews. The staff believes that using data from the previous data recording structure that had less granularity could result in a proposed flat fee that is skewed either high or low for the work delivered. Collecting representative samples of data under the new data recording structure will allow the NRC to make a determination about flat fees for uranium recovery licensees.

The agency completed development of a new data recording structure on June 30, 2017. By September 30, 2017, the NRC trained staff to record the data using the new structure. The new data structure was deployed on October 1, 2017. During FY 2018, the NRC staff recorded time and attendance and began analysis of the data, which indicated the hours spent on specific work products, using the new data structure. The NRC staff reached out to the affected stakeholder in December 2018 to get feedback on the results of the preliminary data. In addition, the staff has conducted outreach to Agreement States with uranium recovery licensees to understand their fee schedule development process.

On January 14, 2019, NEIMA was signed into law. This law requires the NRC to complete the flat fee pilot initiative and provide a report describing the results to the appropriate congressional committees no later than January 14, 2020.

Near-Term:

• The analysis and draft recommendations have been completed. The NRC staff provided options to the Commission for its consideration on August 26, 2019.

23

Medium-Term:

• The Commission will provide the report to Congress as required by NEIMA. The FY 2020 proposed fee rule is expected to be published for public comment in January 2020.

Long-Term:

• The FY 2020 final fee rule is scheduled to be published by May 2020.

24

LICENSING

13. For operating reactors, new reactors, and uranium recovery licensees, please provide the following information regarding license amendment reviews:

13.a Please provide the following information for the current reporting period, including any information previously reported in the last six months:

i. Size of inventory; ii. The number of items completed in the period being reported; iii. Percentage of acceptance reviews completed on time; iv. The percentage of these items completed within the forecasted schedule;

v. The percentage of these items completed within 125 percent of the forecasted schedule; vi. The percentage of items completed within ten months; vii. The average age for items completed during the month being reported; viii. The ages of the quickest three items completed; and ix. The ages of the slowest three items completed.

Operating Reactors Percentage Percentage Average No. of Percentage of Items of Items Percentage Age for Ages of the Ages of the Size of Items of Completed Completed of Items Items Quickest Slowest Month/Year Inventory Completed Acceptance within the within 125% Completed Completed Three Items Three Items (Note 1) in the Reviews Forecasted of within 10 During Completed Completed Report Completed Schedule Forecasted Months Report (months) (months)

Period on Time (Note 2) Schedule Period (Note 3) (months)

Jan-2019 550 74 100% 91% 93% 82% 8.0 <1 1 3 14 15 15 Feb-2019 593 45 100% 95% 100% 77% 7.7 <1 1< 2 12 12 12 Mar-2019 603 57 97% 95% 95% 57% 11.8 3 3 4 30 30 30 Apr-2019 599 79 100% 91% 90% 81% 7.53 2 2 2 17 17 12 May-2019 600 37 91% 88% 92% 40% 9.84 <1 1 2 12 22 22 June-2019 640 69 85% 88% 94% 80% 7.96 <1 1 1 14 14 14 July-2019 634 86 100% 97% 98% 45% 8.66 <1 <1 1 12 12 12 25

Note 1: Similar to the licensing actions reported in the yearly Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ), the inventory does not include unusually complex or Fukushima related licensing actions.

Note 2: Internal processes track licensing action completions within forecasted scheduled (+ 1 month) [this percentage does not include unusually complex or Fukushima related licensing actions].

Note 3: Internal processes track licensing action completions within 125 percent of the forecasted schedule [this percentage does not include unusually complex or Fukushima related licensing actions].

New Reactors Average Percentage No. of Percentage Percentage Age for of Items Percentage Items of of Items Items Ages of the Ages of the Completed of Items Size of Completed Acceptance Completed Completed Quickest Three Slowest Three Month/Year within Completed Inventory in the Reviews within the During Items Completed Items Completed 125% of within 10 Report Completed Forecasted Report (months) (months)

Forecasted Months Period on Time Schedule Period Schedule (months)

Jan-2019 13 4 100% 100% 100% 100% 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 Feb-2019 11 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 5 5 5 N/A 5 5 N/A Mar-2019 13 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 5 5 N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A Apr-2019 9 4 100% 100% 100% 100% 6 4 4 6 8 6 4 May-2019 9 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 6 6 N/A N/A 6 N/A N/A June-2019 7 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 5 5 N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A July-2019 11 0 100% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26

Uranium Recovery Average Percentage Number of Percentage Percentage Age for of Items Percentage Items of of Items Items Ages of the Ages of the Completed of Items Size of Completed Acceptance Completed Completed Quickest Three Slowest Three Month/Year within Completed Inventory in the Reviews within During Items Completed Items Completed 125% of within 10 Report Completed Forecasted Report (months) (months)

Forecasted Months Period on Time Schedule Period Schedule (months)(1)

Jan-2019 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Feb-2019 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mar-2019 0 1 N/A 100% 100% 100% 4.6 4.6 N/A N/A 4.6 N/A N/A Apr-2019 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A May-2019 1 0 100% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A June-2019 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A July-2019 0 1 N/A 100% 100% 100% 2.1 2.1 N/A N/A 2.1 N/A N/A Note 1: The uranium recovery staffs goal is to complete major licensing actions within 36 months of acceptance and minor licensing actions within 12 months of acceptance. At times, the uranium recovery staff has to divert resources from minor licensing actions to address oversight of operating sites, emergent issues, and major licensing actions. When this occurs, the NRC staff tries to accommodate the licensees priorities when determining which minor licensing actions to complete first.

13.b For the reporting period, please also provide the following for license amendment requests (LARs):

i. The number not accepted for review; and ii. A list of the requests that were withdrawn or denied after being accepted for review including the age of the request at the time it was withdrawn or denied.

27

Operating Reactors List the Requests that were No. of LARs Not Age of the Request at the Month/Year Withdrawn or Denied after Accepted for Review Time it was Withdrawn or Being Accepted for Review Denied (months)

July 2019 0 Davis-Besse LAR for Changes 9 to Technical Specifications Administrative Controls for Permanently Defueled Condition Davis-Besse LAR for Post- 6 Shutdown Emergency Plan Davis-Besse LAR for 5 Permanently Defueled Technical Specifications Davis-Besse Request for 2 Partial Exemption from Record Retention Requirements Davis-Besse Revision to 2 Quality Assurance Program for Decommissioning New Reactors List the Requests that were No. of LARs Not Age of the Request at the Month/Year Withdrawn or Denied after Accepted for Review Time it was Withdrawn or Being Accepted for Review Denied (months)

July 2019 0 N/A N/A Uranium Recovery 28

No. of Amendment List of the Requests that were Age of the Request at the Month/Year Requests Not Withdrawn or Denied after Time it was Withdrawn or Accepted for Review being Accepted for Review Denied (months)

July 2019 0 N/A N/A 13.c Please identify items considered unusually complex items (e.g. criticality reviews, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805 reviews) and omitted from the [licensing amendment] inventory including: the age of the item, a brief description of the item, the justification for omitting it from the inventory size and an explanation for any review exceeding its original schedule by 125 percent.

Operating Reactors Note: Unusually complex license amendments are not included in the internal performance measures as they do not lend themselves to realistic forecasted schedule development. Rather, they are given escalated management attention to ensure progress is being made towards resolving outstanding issues and completing the reviews in a timely manner.

29

Age Review Description5 Justification (Months) 2 - Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports Regarding Resolution depended on a topical 83 ic Analysis report issued in March 2019 Generating 2 - Spent Fuel Storage and Criticality Safety First-of-a-kind review 18 pecifications 2 - Adopt 10 CFR 50.69, "Risk-Informed Categorization Risk-informed and first-of-a-kind 17 uctures, Systems and Components [SSCs] for Nuclear review 3 - MELLLA+ Core Flow Operating Range Expansion Dependent on Advisory Committee on 15 Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) review eview Risk-Informed and Voluminous 13 R 50.69, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Risk-informed and tied to the Hatch 12*

wer Reactors NFPA-805 application evision of Analytical Methodologies for small-break loss- Unusually Complex - Multiple Plant 11 SBLOCA) Specific SBLOCA Methodologies 2 - Revision of Analytical Methodologies for SBLOCA Unusually Complex - Multiple Plant 11 Specific SBLOCA Methodologies Framatome High Thermal Performance Fuel - First-of-a-kind review 8 ption RIUM 11 Advanced Fuel Transition First-of-a-kind review 8 Adopt 10 CFR 50.69, Risk-Informed Categorization and First-of-a-kind seismic 6 or Nuclear Power Reactors risk-informed review eviously miscalculated

/usability, the NRC staff has condensed the previously provided narrative discussion into a more concise table format that

any steps taken to provide transparency into the progress of license amendment reviews, such as publicly me tracking of the completion of review schedule milestones. 6 eeting the metrics for the quantity of licensing actions reviewed annually, the percentage of actions completed e percentage of actions completed within two years. The NRC staffs ability to meet these metrics can be safety or security issues, or changes in the licensees plans. The NRC staff has enhanced communications ing metrics. The NRC staff established internal goals to track adherence to initial schedules and resource ed to licensees. In March 2018, the staff began publishing the monthly performance metrics results on the While these metrics do not provide insight into specific licensing reviews, they provide information on the age ry and the number of reviews completed. In addition, information on adherence to initial schedules and urce estimates is also available.

atives underway or completed to enhance the operating reactor licensing program. These initiatives are existing licensing processes and information to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and predictability as a ining a continued strong safety focus and using modern tools to enhance decisionmaking and increase ensing process. NRR has established a working group with representatives from all NRR divisions to focus e examples of focused improvement areas are discussed below:

the staff does consider the current performance metrics appropriate to balance efficiency with safety, NRR has with the OEDO to develop CBJ indicators that show more direct support for each of the safety and security the NRCs Strategic Plan for FY 2018-2022. A pilot is underway to develop new CBJ indicators for several and security strategies. Having high-quality, useful indicators will help improve the effectiveness and f our CBJ in demonstrating and communicating the agencys performance outcomes.

Licensing Actions: The NRC staff has taken a number of actions to enhance the integration of risk information decisionmaking practices and processes to improve the technical basis for regulatory activities, increase improve effectiveness and consistency with established processes. As outlined in SECY-17-0112, five ategies are being used:

e and update risk-informed decisionmaking (RIDM) guidance to foster a collaborative review process and a ned understanding of risk and risk insights.

p a graded approach for using risk information in licensing reviews.

e training requirements related to RIDM for managers and staff.

4. Advance NRC and industry risk-informed initiatives, and

5. Enhance communication on risk-informed activities.

• Technological Resources: NRR is working collaboratively with the OCIO and the OCFO on improving IT tools to make financial and workload information more readily available to staff and increase staffs capability to analyze information to support informed decisionmaking.

New Reactors For NRO license amendment reviews, only the final safety evaluation report (FSER) completion date is tracked as a milestone. In the amendment request, the licensee provides a date by which they request to have the amendment issued to best support their current construction schedule. The staff identifies a date for issuing the FSER that supports the staffs workload, while avoiding impact to the construction schedule, to the extent practicable. The date is then sent to the licensee in a letter accepting the amendment application for review within 30 days of receiving the application (unless the amendment is complex). If complications are encountered during the amendments safety review, the staff and the licensee will discuss, and NRC will document a new date in a subsequent letter to the licensee. All letters containing the date(s) for completion of the staffs review are made publicly available.

In addition to this, if RAIs are needed and the content is not sensitive, these requests are made available to the public. If the licensee has questions for the NRC staff (and the topic is not sensitive), the discussion occurs during one of the regularly scheduled public calls. If an audit is held, both the plan and the summary of the audit are public once they are completed.

Uranium Recovery To ensure transparency in the process of licensing reviews, the NRCs uranium recovery staff provides the status of major licensing actions on the agencys public Web site. For minor licensing actions, staff discusses these schedules during phone calls with licensees. In addition, for major licensing action reviews, the uranium recovery staff issues schedule letters at the beginning of each review and subsequent letters are issued, if the schedule changes.

32

14. For decommissioning transition reviews, please provide the following information for the reporting period, including any months previously reported:

a. Size of inventory;

b. The number of items completed in the reporting period;

c. Of the items completed in the reporting period, the number completed within the originally forecasted schedule;

d. The number of items completed within 125 percent of the forecasted schedule;

e. Please identify any unusually complex items omitted from the inventory including: the age of the item, a brief description of the item, the justification for omitting it from the inventory size and an explanation for any review exceeding its original schedule by 125 percent.

Decommissioning Transition Open Inventory and Closed Reviews Month Open Inventory Total Closed Reviews Total (Note 1)

November 2017 19 1 December 2017 15 4 January 2018 14 1 February 2018 15 0 March 2018 12 7 April 2018 14 0 May 2018 16 0 June 2018 12 4 July 2018 14 0 August 2018 16 0 September 2018 16 1 October 2018 20 5 November 2018 28 0 December 2018 26 4 January 2019 25 1 February 2019 30 0 March 2019 32 0 April 2019 49* 5 May 2019 48* 1 June 2019 44* 12 July 2019 37 7**

• Seven requests for indirect transfer of the First Entergy Nuclear Operating Company operating licenses were removed from the totals for the months of April through June 2019. The requests were related to the First Entergy Solutions (FES) Corporation decision at that time to shut down the plants but were not specifically related to the transition of the plants to decommissioning.

• • On July 26, 2019, FES withdrew its April 25, 2018, Certification of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), Unit No. 1; the Certification of Permanent Cessation of Power Operations for Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1; and five licensing actions specifically related to the transition of DBNPS to decommissioning due to FES reversing its decision to permanently cease operations at its Ohio facilities. The withdrawn licensing actions are listed in the response to item 13.b.

33

Note 1: The inventory includes licensing actions and other licensing tasks specifically related to an operating reactor plant transitioning into a decommissioning plant.

Information responsive to #14c-e is included in the response to #13 above.

15. Please provide a list of TSTF "travelers" under review, including the date filed, the milestone schedule for completing the review, and the estimated date for final agency action. Please provide an explanation for any review exceeding the original schedule by 125 percent.

Traveler Under Review Date Filed Milestone Schedule Estimated (Draft Safety Date for Evaluation (SE)) Final Agency Action (Final SE)

TSTF-541, Add Exceptions to Revision 2 9/17/2020 2/28/2021 Surveillance Requirements When submitted on the Safety Function is Being 6/18/2019 Performed TSTF-568, "Clarify Applicability of Revision 2 12/31/2019 5/31/2020 BWR/4 TS 3.6.2.5 and TS 3.6.3.2" submitted on 5/21/2019 TSTF-569, Revise Response Time 2/08/2018 Issued on 5/29/2019 10/31/2019 Testing Definition TSTF-554, Revise Reactor Coolant 5/7/2019 TBD* TBD*

Leakage Requirements

• A fee exemption request was approved for TSTF-554 on July 5, 2019. The NRC staff is developing a review schedule.

There were no traveler reviews that exceeded the original schedule by 125 percent.

16. Please describe the actions planned and/or taken to ensure that the TSTF traveler process achieves the regulatory efficiencies that were initially projected. Please include progress reports with regard to any TSTF travelers adopted by the industry.7 The TSTF proposes changes to the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) via a traveler submitted for NRC review and approval. The traveler process was collaboratively developed between NRC and the nuclear industry 20 years ago to revise the STS to gain regulatory efficiencies and enhance safety. Since then, the NRC has approved over 360 travelers, and has a mature process for review and approval of plant-specific LARs to adopt approved STS changes.

Over the last several years NRC introduced two enhancements to the traveler review process:

(1) increased transparency and documentation through publication of SEs; and (2) ensuring that all appropriate technical branches are involved early and working as a team to ensure consistency. More recently, NRC and the TSTF adopted two additional best practices to make reviews more efficient and effective: (1) establishing teams of reviewers who develop expertise on a given traveler; and (2) leveraging the staff expertise on a traveler through timely submission of plant specific requests for adoption. The NRC is seeing early successes from 9

No new information was added to this section since the last report.

34

these enhancements in the reviews of licensees adoption of TSTF-542, Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control. Average review times for recent traveler adoptions have dropped to 10 months, in part because of these above efficiencies.

The NRC will continue working with the TSTF to make improvements to the STS. In recent years, requested changes from industry stakeholders have become more complex (e.g., risk-informed STS changes). To ensure the traveler process achieves the regulatory efficiencies that were initially intended, and to align on priorities, the NRC holds quarterly public meetings and monthly status calls with the TSTF.

The NRC has approved two travelers in 2019. Four travelers are under review. The latest status report of travelers currently under review is publicly available (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML19058A023); this report is updated quarterly.

17. For each ongoing license renewal review, please provide the date each application was filed, the duration of the review, the original milestone schedule based on 22 months for uncontested applications and 30 months for contested applications, the actual completion dates for milestones, and the scheduled date for completion of the review. Please provide an explanation for any review exceeding the original schedule by 125 percent.8 The NRC staff is not reviewing any initial license renewal applications at this time.

18. Please provide the status of ongoing license renewal reviews.9 The NRC staff is not reviewing any initial license renewal applications at this time.

19. Please provide the status of the NRCs readiness to review applications for SLR.10 In August 2014, the Commission affirmed that no revisions to either the safety or environmental regulations are needed to support the assessment of a subsequent license renewal application (SLRA). However, the Commission directed the staff to update license renewal guidance, as needed, to provide additional clarity on the implementation of the license renewal regulatory framework. The main guidance documents for initial license renewal are:

• Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (SRP-LR), Revision 2;

• Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report, Revision 2; and

• Standard Review Plan for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1:

Operating License Renewal (Revision 1).

The guidance in these documents is based on plant operation up to 60 years. The staff evaluated this guidance to determine what, if any, revisions were necessary to address issues for plant operations up to 80 years under SLR. The staff determined that no revisions were needed to the NRC guidance document entitled, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, to support environmental reviews from 60 to 80 years.

8 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

9 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

10 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

35

However, the staff determined that the GALL Report and the SRP-LR should be updated to facilitate more effective and efficient reviews of SLR applications.

On July 14, 2017, the NRC published Generic Aging Lessons Learned for Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Report (NUREG-2191, Volumes 1 and 2), and Standard Review Plan for Review of Subsequent License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (SRP-SLR)

(NUREG-2192). On December 29, 2017, the NRC staff published NUREG-2221, Technical Bases for Changes in the Subsequent License Renewal Guidance Documents NUREG-2191 and NUREG-2192, and NUREG-2222, Disposition of Public Comments on the Draft Subsequent License Renewal Guidance Documents NUREG-2191 and NUREG-2192.

On November 6, 2015, Dominion Virginia Power notified the NRC of its intent to submit an SLR application in the first quarter of 2019 for the Surry Power Station. On November 9, 2017, Dominion Energy Virginia notified the NRC of its intent to pursue SLR for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, in the 4th quarter of 2020. On January 30, 2018, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) submitted the first SLR application for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4. On July 10, 2018, the NRC received Exelons application for SLR for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3. In addition, on October 15, 2018, the NRC received Dominions application for SLR for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2.

On December 20, 2017, the staff issued a letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) providing interim approval for use of guidance documents NEI 17-01, Industry Guideline for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 54 for Subsequent License Renewal [SLR], and NEI 17-04, Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach for SAMA, Revision 0. These documents will provide interim guidance to licensees that have notified the NRC of their intent to submit SLR applications while formal NRC endorsement of the NEI guidance document is considered. The NRC expects that issuance of formal revisions to Regulatory Guides (RGs) 1.188, Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, and 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, by the end of FY 2020, will supersede the interim guidance.

On March 28, 2019, the NRC held a public meeting on lessons learned for SLRAs. A meeting summary was issued and may be found at ADAMS Accession No. ML19112A206. Lessons learned thus far from the review of the first three SLRAs were provided by the NRC staff and representatives from the SLR applicant organizations. In general, the meeting participants agreed that the SLR review process was going well, consistent with the 18-month review schedules, and that the interactions between the NRC and applicants were productive.

Efficiencies in the process were noted as well as opportunities for improvement, including identification of technical issues for which guidance updates would be considered. The NRC and industry committed to engage approximately quarterly to discuss SLR lessons learned and to align and prioritize steps to be taken to prepare for the next SLR applications. The NRC and industry also committed to continued engagement on defining the scope and schedule for developing updates to the SLR guidance documents.

20. Once SLR reviews begin, please report progress similarly to current license renewal reviews, including: the date each application was filed, the duration of the review, the original milestone schedule based on an 18-month review, the actual completion dates for milestones, and the scheduled date for completion of the review.

36

Turkey Point On January 30, 2018, FPL submitted the first SLRA seeking to extend the operating life of Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Units 3 and 4. The staff issued the acceptance letter dated April 26, 2018, with the review schedule. The notice of application acceptance and opportunity for hearing was published in the FR on May 2, 2018.

On May 22, 2018, the staff issued an FRN announcing its intent to conduct the environmental scoping process and to prepare an EIS. On May 31, 2018, the staff held two public environmental scoping meetings in Homestead, FL, near the Turkey Point site to obtain public input on the scope of the environmental review. During the scoping process, the NRC staff solicited comments and participation from the public, including residents in the surrounding community and stakeholder groups. The NRC also consulted with Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies. In January 2019, the NRC issued its Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report, Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Miami-Dade County, Florida, which includes the comments received during the scoping process and the NRC staffs responses to those comments (ADAMS Accession No. ML18342A014). Between June 19 and June 22, 2018, the staff was on-site to conduct an environmental audit in support of the staffs review of the SLRA. A summary of the audit was issued on July 20, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18178A229).

In early August 2018, three petitions for leave to intervene were submitted for the Turkey Point SLRA by (1) Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Miami Waterkeeper (Joint Intervenors), (2) Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), and (3) Mr. Albert Gomez.

The applicant and staff filed answers to the petitions. The ASLB held oral arguments on the petitions on December 4, 2018, in Homestead, FL. The parties subsequently filed additional statements regarding the admissibility of two contentions associated with alternative cooling water systems. On March 7, 2019, the ASLB denied Mr. Gomezs petition for failure to file an admissible contention; granted the petitions filed by the Joint Intervenors and SACE; admitted four contentions (as revised) for litigation; and referred one portion of its ruling to the Commission. On March 21, 2019, the ASLB issued an initial scheduling order for the hearing.

In the meantime, SACE has withdrawn from the adjudication. On July 8, 2019, the Board granted a motion from FPL to dismiss the Joint Intervenors two admitted contentions; FPL subsequently informed the Commission that its pending appeal of the Boards decision to admit those two contentions was moot. On August 9, 2019, Joint Intervenors filed a petition for review of the Boards July 8, 2019, order dismissing the two admitted contentions. The petitions for review are pending before the Commission. In June 2019, the Joint Intervenors filed two amended contentions and four new contentions challenging the NRCs draft SEIS. The Joint Intervenors new and amended contentions are pending before the Board.

The partial government shutdown impacted the interim schedule milestones for the environmental review. Specifically, the shutdown delayed the National Park Service (a cooperating agency on this review) from performing a review of those portions of the NRCs draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) pertaining to the areas in and around Biscayne National Park. As a result, the milestones for the issuance of the draft SEIS were delayed from January to March 2019. The staff issued the draft SEIS on March 31, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19078A330). Two public meetings were held on May 1, 2019, in Homestead, FL to receive comments on the draft SEIS. The deadline for submitting public comments on the draft SEIS was May 20, 2019. The staff is currently reviewing and assessing over 400 individual public comment submittals received.

37

Notifications of schedule change were provided to the applicant on January 31, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19028A417), May 9, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19127A070), and August 15, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19200A070). The staff issued the SER with open items on May 21, 2019. The staff closed one open item associated with buried and underground piping based on additional information and actions that FPL will conduct regarding installation of cathodic protection and conducting additional buried steel piping inspections. The ACRS subcommittee meeting was held in June 2019. On July 22, 2019, the staff issued the FSER to support the September 4, 2019, ACRS Full committee meeting. The August 15, 2019, schedule change letter identified changes to the dates for issuance of the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) and the Environmental Protection Agencys notification of issuance of the FSEIS, as well as the number of hours for the staffs review (ADAMS Accession No. ML19200A070). The original milestone schedule and the scheduled date for completion of the review of the Turkey Point SLRA are provided below.

Turkey Point Application Review Time from Acceptance Review Date (Months) 15 Original Current Completion Milestone Schedule Schedule Date 01/30/2018, as Receive SLRA 01/2018 supplemented through 04/10/2018 Publish FRN - License Renewal 04/2018 04/18/2018 Application availability Publish FRN - Acceptance/Rejection 05/2018 05/02/2018 and Opportunity for Hearing Publish FRN - Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS and Environmental 05/2018 05/22/2018 Scoping Public Meeting - License Renewal Overview and Environmental Scoping 05/2018 05/31/2018 meeting Environmental scoping period ends 06/2018 06/21/2018 Deadline for filing hearing requests and 07/2018 08/01/2018*

petitions for intervention Issue draft SEIS 01/2019 03/29/2019 Public Meeting - draft SEIS meeting 02/2019 05/01/2019 End of draft SEIS comment period 03/2019 05/20/2019 Issue SER with open items 04/2019 05/21/2019 ACRS subcommittee meeting 05/2019 06/21/2019 Issue final SEIS 08/2019 10/2019 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FRN Published - availability of final 08/2019 10/2019 SEIS Issue Final SER 08/22/2019 ACRS Full Committee meeting 07/2019 09/2019 Decision - Director, NRR 10/2019 10/2019**

(assuming no hearing)

• Order (Granting a Partial Extension of Time) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18180A185) 38

• • Denotes notification to the Commission that the safety and environmental reviews have been completed and Final SEIS has been submitted to the EPA.

Peach Bottom On July 10, 2018, the NRC received its second application for SLR from Exelon Generating Co.

for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. The application was made publicly available on July 26, 2018.

The staff informed the applicant in a letter dated August 27, 2018, that the application was accepted for detailed technical review. The staff completed all of the planned audits and issued its associated audit reports in 2018 and 2019. In November, a petition for leave to intervene was submitted by Beyond Nuclear, Inc. On June 20, 2019, the Board found that, although Beyond Nuclear had demonstrated standing to intervene, neither of its two proposed contentions was admissible. Therefore, the Board denied Beyond Nuclears petition to intervene and request for hearing and terminated the proceeding. On July 15, 2019, Beyond Nuclear appealed the Boards decision to the Commission; the appeal is pending before the Commission. The original milestone schedule, the actual completion dates for milestones, and the scheduled date for completion of the review of the Peach Bottom SLRA are provided below.

A schedule change letter was issued on July 31, 2019, to identify changes to the dates for issuance of the SER and the meeting with the ACRS subcommittee on Plant License Renewal (ADAMS Accession No. ML19210C571). The NRC is on track to meet the 18-month schedule for issuance of the SLR license for Peach Bottom.

Peach Bottom Application Review Time from Acceptance Review Date (Months) 12 Milestone Scheduled Actual Receive SLRA 07/10/2018 07/10/2018 Publish FRN - LRA availability 08/2018 08/01/2018 Publish FRN - docketing acceptance/rejection and opportunity for 09/2018 09/06/2018 hearing Publish FRN - Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS and 09/2018 09/10/2018 Conduct Scoping Process Public Meeting - Overview of SLR Process and Environmental 09/25/2018 09/25/2018 Scoping Process Environmental scoping process period ends 10/2018 10/10/2018 Deadline for filing hearing requests and petitions for intervention 11/2018 11/19/2018 Issue draft SEIS 07/2019 07/30/2019 Issue SER 10/2019 Public Meeting - draft SEIS meeting, if needed 09/2019 End of draft SEIS comment period 09/2019 ACRS subcommittee meeting 11/2019 ACRS Full Committee meeting 12/2019 39

Peach Bottom Application Review Time from Acceptance Review Date (Months) 12 Milestone Scheduled Actual Issue final SEIS 01/2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FRN Published - availability 02/2020 of final SEIS Decision - Director, NRR 03/2020 (assuming no hearing)

Surry On October 15, 2018, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Energy Virginia or Dominion) submitted its application for subsequent renewal for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2. The application was made publicly available on October 24, 2018. The staff informed the applicant in a letter dated December 3, 2018, that the application was accepted for detailed technical review. The staff completed all of the planned audits and issued its associated audit reports in 2018 and 2019.

On April 29, 2019, the staff issued a schedule change letter to modify the schedule for three milestones (ADAMS Accession No. ML19100A254). For the safety review, the staff moved the scheduled due date for ACRS Full Committee Meeting from March 2020 to April 2020. This change was made due to the finalization of the ACRS Full Committee Meeting schedule. For the environmental review, the staff moved the scheduled due dates for Issue Final SEIS and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FRN Published - Availability of Final SEIS from March 2020 to April 2020 to support workload prioritization. The overall schedule for issuance of the renewed license is not impacted. The original milestone schedule, the actual completion dates for milestones, and the scheduled date for completion of the review of the Surry SLRA are provided below. A schedule change letter was issued on July 31, 2019, to identify changes to the date for issuance of the draft SEIS (ADAMS Accession No. ML19206A651). The staff is on track to meet the 18-month schedule for the issuance of the SLR license renewal for Surry.

Surry Application Review Time from Acceptance Review (Months) 8 Current Completion Milestone Scheduled Schedule Date Receive SLRA 10/15/2018 10/15/2018 Publish FRN - LRA availability 11/2018 11/01/2018 Publish FRN - docketing acceptance/rejection and 12/2018 12/17/2018 opportunity for hearing 40

Surry Application Review Time from Acceptance Review (Months) 8 Current Completion Milestone Scheduled Schedule Date Publish FRN - Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS 12/2018 12/21/2018 and Conduct Scoping Process Public Meeting - Overview of SLR Process and 01/2019 01/08/2019 Environmental Scoping Process Environmental scoping process period ends 02/2019 01/22/2019 Deadline for filing hearing requests and petitions for 02/2019 02/15/2019 i t ti Issue draft SEIS 09/2019 10/2019 Public Meeting - draft SEIS meeting, if needed 10/2019 Issue SER 11/2019 End of draft SEIS comment period 11/2019 ACRS subcommittee meeting 02/2020 ACRS Full Committee meeting 03/2020 04/2020 Issue final SEIS 03/2020 04/2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FRN Published - 03/2020 04/2020 availability of final SEIS Decision - Director, NRR 06/2020

21. For each ongoing power uprate review, please provide:

a. The date the application was filed;

b. The duration of the review;

c. The original milestone schedule;

d. The actual completion dates for the milestones; and

e. The scheduled date for completion of the review based on the metrics in SECY 0070.11 Plant Name Uprate Date Planned Actual Planned Actual Notes Type Filed Issue Issue Review Review (Note 1) Date Date Duration Duration (Months) (Months)

(Note 2)

None Note 1: MUR = measurement uncertainty recapture power uprate EPU = extended power uprate 11 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

41

Note 2: For licensing actions, with an application date of October 1, 2016, or later, the duration of the review of the licensing action will be measured starting when the acceptance review is complete.

22. Please provide a brief status of power uprate application reviews.12 No power uprate reviews are ongoing at this time.

12 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

42

23. Please provide the following information below regarding RAI issued by each of the following offices: NRR, NRO, NSIR, Uranium Recovery, and Decommissioning. The number of RAIs includes the total number of questions or requests contained in a letter or email. For example, if a letter requests five items, the number of RAIs is five. For each office and for the period being reported, please provide:

a. Number of RAIs issued;

b. The number of RAIs issued prior to preparation of a draft SE with open items;

c. The number of RAIs issued in an additional round, subsequent to previous RAIs, in specific technical area or by a technical branch;

d. The percentage of RAI responses provided by licensees within 30 days of the date mutually agreed upon;

e. The number of RAIs prepared or responses reviewed by contractors; and

f. The number of RAIs prepared or responses reviewed by NRC staff.

g. Once sufficient date becomes available please provide 12-month rolling average number of RAIs issued by each office.

NOTE: Information for NSIR is included within each of the other entities or programs reporting below.

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Number of RAIs The Issued in an Percentage of 12 Month The Number of Additional RAI The Rolling Number of RAIs Issued Round, Responses Number Average, RAI Number of Prior to the Subsequent to Provided by of RAIs Number Month/Year Responses RAIs Issued Preparation of Previous RAI's in Licensees prepared of RAIs Reviewed a Draft SE with Specific within 30 by NRC Issued by by NRC Open Items Technical Area or Days or the staff Each Staff by a Technical Date Mutually Office Branch Agreed Upon July-2019 95 Note 1 23 97% 95 156 140 Note 2 43

Note 1: The database systems do not have readily available information that distinguishes between item 23a and 23b. Accurately compiling the number of RAI questions issued prior to preparation of a draft SE with open items would require extensive manual document searches and analysis to cover the significant volume of project reviews. The count of RAIs is presented collectively under Item 23a.

Note 2: The NRC employs contractors to supplement the staff in selected critical skill areas; however, all RAIs identified by contractors are evaluated by NRC staff to verify that they are necessary to support a regulatory finding. If the RAIs are necessary, they are formally prepared and issued by NRC staff. The NRC does not track the number of draft RAIs prepared by contractors. In addition, the NRC staff is responsible for making the final determination on the acceptability of all RAI responses.

Office of New Reactors Number of RAIs Number of Percentage of RAIs Number of Number of Issued in an RAIs Issued Responses RAIs RAIs Additional Round, Prior to Provided by the Prepared or Prepared or Number of Subsequent to Preparation Applicant/Licensee Responses Responses 12-Month RAIs Previous RAIs, in Project Name of a Draft within 30 Days or Reviewed by Reviewed Rolling Issued in Specific Technical SER with the Date Mutually Contractors by NRC Average July 2019 Area or by Open Items Agreed Upon in in Staff in Technical Branch in July 2019 July 2019 July 2019 in July 2019 July 2019 (Note 2) (Note 2)

(Note 1)

U.S. Advanced 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR) DC Advanced 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) DC Renewal (General Electric Hitachi (GEH))

Clinch River 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 Early Site Permit (ESP) 44

Number of RAIs Number of Percentage of RAIs Number of Number of Issued in an RAIs Issued Responses RAIs RAIs Additional Round, Prior to Provided by the Prepared or Prepared or Number of Subsequent to Preparation Applicant/Licensee Responses Responses 12-Month RAIs Previous RAIs, in Project Name of a Draft within 30 Days or Reviewed by Reviewed Rolling Issued in Specific Technical SER with the Date Mutually Contractors by NRC Average July 2019 Area or by Open Items Agreed Upon in in Staff in Technical Branch in July 2019 July 2019 July 2019 in July 2019 July 2019 (Note 2) (Note 2)

(Note 1)

NuScale Small 0 0 N/A 100% 0 100 4 Modular Reactor (SMR)

DC NuScale 0 0 N/A N/A 0 10 1 Topical Reports Vogtle LARs 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 2 Advanced 0 0 0 N/A N/A 0 2.33 Reactors Note 1: NRO does not currently have an electronic system to track how many RAIs are issued in an additional round as a subsequent RAI to a previous RAI issued. To develop this capability within the current electronic system used to track RAIs would be labor and resource intensive.

Note 2: The NRC employs contractors to supplement the staff in selected critical skill areas; however, all RAIs identified by contractors are evaluated by NRC staff to verify that they are necessary to support a regulatory finding. If the RAIs are necessary, they are formally prepared and issued by NRC staff. The NRC does not track the number of draft RAIs prepared by contractors. In addition, the NRC staff is responsible for making the final determination on the acceptability of all RAI responses.

45

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Uranium Recovery Number of The RAIs Percentage Issued in of RAI Number of an 12 Month Responses The The RAIs Additional The The Rolling Provided Number of Number of Issued Round, Number of Number Average, Number by RAI RAI Prior to the Subsequent RAIs of RAIs Number Month/Year of RAIs Licensees Responses Responses Preparation to Previous prepared prepared of RAIs Issued within 30 Reviewed Reviewed of a Draft RAIs in by by NRC Issued by Days or by by NRC SE with Specific Contractors staff Each the Date Contractors Staff Open Items Technical Office Mutually Area or by Agreed a Technical Upon Branch July-2019 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0.33 46

Reactor Decommissioning Number of The RAIs Percentage Issued in of RAI Number of an 12 Month Responses The The RAIs Additional The The Rolling Provided Number of Number of Issued Round, Number of Number Average, Number by RAI RAI Prior to the Subsequent RAIs of RAIs Number of Month/Year of RAIs Licensees Responses Responses Preparation to Previous prepared prepared RAIs Issued within 30 Reviewed Reviewed of a Draft RAIs in by by NRC Issued by Days or by by NRC SE with Specific Contractors staff Each the Date Contractors Staff Open Items Technical Office Mutually Area or by Agreed a Technical Upon Branch July-2019 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0.58 47

24. Please provide the status of specific actions taken or planned to ensure greater discipline, management oversight, and transparency in the use of the RAI process and to limit RAIs to those necessary for making regulatory decisions. The description should include:

management oversight and accountability, the training necessary to provide consistency and sustainable improvement across the applicable program business lines, efforts to establish consistent procedures in relevant offices, and any gaps or trends identified by management or through internal reviews including periodic internal RAI audits.

Efforts to establish consistent procedures throughout the agency are being initiated by the establishment of a working group to align, where appropriate, licensing strategies across the agency including the RAI process. This effort, which is in the initial stages, will include representatives from NMSS, NRR, NRO, NSIR, and OGC.

NRR Activities NRR continues to take actions to sustain the improvements in the RAI guidance and the accountability in the process. In April 2018, mandatory RAI refresher training was conducted for applicable NRR, NSIR, and NRO staff. The training emphasized (a) the explicit identification of the applicable technical and regulatory bases for RAIs; (b) ensuring that the RAIs issued are relevant to the licensing action being reviewed; (c) the requirements and expectations regarding the RAI administrative processes and records management; and (d) the expectation associated with achieving the RAI issuance target of 5 days. The staff completed an RAI audit in October 2018 and determined that the sampled RAIs met quality expectations but needed improvement on administrative processing. The staff recommended that subsequent RAI audits may not be necessary because quality meets expectations. On May 23, 2019, all NRR administrative assistants received an e-mail reminder on appropriate RAI administrative processing. The NRR Director approved the staffs recommendations on July 2, 2019. Lessons learned from the NRR RAI process will be incorporated into a new office instruction on RAIs as part of the guidance consolidation effort related to the NRR and NRO merger.

NRO Activities NRO has taken several steps to ensure that its RAIs are consistently of high quality and are necessary to make a safety finding. In 2016, senior managers in NRO undertook initiatives to examine licensing activities with a goal of promoting a continued strong safety focus, consistency, efficiency, and clarity in our reviews of new reactor licensing applications. These initiatives included revising the RAI process to promote the consistent generation of high quality RAIs.

In October 2016, the NRO RAI process was revised (ADAMS Accession No. ML16280A389) to include a new quality check audit process where, in addition to the technical branchs supervisor, the division management of both the technical and project management organizations review an RAI before it is issued to the applicant or licensee. In addition, the NRO Office Director reviews a sample of RAIs to keep abreast of high-priority issues identified in reviews and to support NROs emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency as it focuses on safety, security, and environmentally significant matters.

On October 7, 2016, the NRO Office Director issued a memorandum titled Effective Use of Request for Additional Information, Audit, and Confirmatory Analysis in New Reactor Licensing Review, to all NRO staff, which emphasized the goals of the RAI process, described the revised process, and included a job aid that contains best practices for preparing RAIs.

48

The staff has incorporated many lessons-learned into its review of the active DC and ESP applications. The 2016 initiative to improve the focus of RAIs has improved the quality and safety focus of these requests. The staff is also using the regulatory audit tool earlier in the process to better inform the staff about the bases supporting the applications and therefore, better focus the staffs RAIs on information that directly relates to the staff reaching safety findings.

In early 2018, the staff conducted an audit to assess the effectiveness of the revised NRO RAI process. The audit evaluated whether the revised RAI process has yielded tangible improvements to NROs licensing process, and if the revised RAI process should be maintained, modified, or eliminated. The audit team evaluated the quality of final RAIs and the effectiveness of the current RAI routing process to make recommendations for improvement to both the current and the future RAI processes. Phase 1 of the audit was a focused, short-term effort to assess the quality of RAIs, to identify examples of high quality RAIs that can be shared with the staff, and to provide constructive, focused feedback to management and staff if concerns were identified. In this phase, the RAI audit team found the quality of the RAIs from the current review process was generally high. Therefore, NRO modified its RAI process such that the leadership for the division from which the RAI originates will now perform the final technical review and approval of all RAIs and removed the requirement for the Office Director to review all RAIs before they are issued. The Director of NRO will only review RAIs on a sampling basis to keep abreast of high-priority issues identified in reviews, and to support the focus on safety, security, and environmentally significant matters.

In August 2018, NRO completed a significant update to its guidance on the development, processing, and issuance of RAIs. The updated guidance identifies the key attributes of high quality RAIs and provides direction for the staff in formulating RAIs to emphasize these attributes. One key attribute is ensuring that each RAI includes the safety, security, risk, and/or environmental significance of the question. This facilitates the NRCs focus on the most risk and safety significant aspects of its reviews.

NMSS Activities In NMSS, internal guidance for uranium recovery and waste program reviews includes the expectation that RAIs will be developed in conjunction with the draft SER to ensure that each RAI is necessary to reach a safety finding. In addition, the guidance contains the expectation to include a reference in the RAI to the specific relevant requirement and encourages staff to conduct telephone conferences with licensees and applicants to efficiently resolve technical issues on RAIs. The NRC staff recently finalized an internal self-assessment that identifies possible efficiency improvements within the Uranium Recovery Program. The self-assessment includes recommendations for improving the efficiency of the RAI process, such as issuing RAIs as they are written rather than as a group and reemphasizing the expectation that staff develop the draft SE and RAIs in concert.

NMSS is also in the process of studying RAI approaches used by other offices at the NRC, developing office procedures, revising guidance, and evaluating the development of job aids to incorporate applicable RAI approaches from other NRC branches, divisions and offices.

Following completion of this effort, NMSS will develop a training plan, as needed, to implement the resulting RAI process products.

In addition, NMSS is revising NUREG-1556, Volume 20, Guidance about Administrative Licensing Procedures. Information in this NUREG regarding RAIs for materials licensing 49

actions is being updated to improve consistency and management oversight between NRC headquarters and regional materials licensing staff.

In August 2016, NMSSs Division of Spent Fuel Management (DSFM) issued Division Instruction (DI) 26, DSFM-26, Rev., 0, which provided management expectations and guidance to employees with regard to meeting division and business line goals of being an independent, transparent, and effective regulator. In DSFM-26, management has specifically indicated that DSFMs goal is one round of RAIs for a typical review and a maximum of two rounds of RAIs. RAIs and the applicants responses need to converge on the information needed for making a regulatory finding. As part of the management oversight process, the staff has been seeking concurrence by the division-level management, in-addition to branch-level, when a second round of RAIs is being considered during the review of an application. In addition, the staff has developed further guidance on preparing RAIs that are clear, complete, and specific with respect to the requested information, the justification for the request, and the associated regulatory basis. This guidance has been discussed with all the reviewers as part of continuous training, supplemented by a desk guide and a quick reference card. In the first quarter of 2019, the division completed a self-assessment on spent fuel storage and transportation licensing RAIs that were issued in FY 2017. The self-assessment evaluated the clarity and effectiveness of RAls issued by DSFM, and it also identified potential improvements to the RAI development process. The staff is currently evaluating the recommendations to develop an implementation plan of actionable enhancements. Implementation of these enhancements is anticipated by the end of the fourth quarter of FY 2019.

The Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, and Environmental Review (FCSE) conducted a review of the FCSE RAI process during the second quarter of FY 2017. Staff reviewed audit reports from the NRCs OIG and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Statement of Facts (GAO Job Code 100910). The NRC staff assessment report is at ADAMS Accession No. ML17102A783. The NRC staff also reviewed the internal policies and interviewed subject matter experts in NRR, NRO, and NMSS. The results of this assessment, including staffs recommendations and proposed actions for implementing recommended improvements, were documented in a report to FCSE management on May 25, 2017. The report proposed revisions to the FCSE Licensing Review Handbook, including:

• Periodically reinforcing expectations of key aspects in the RAI process during licensing seminars or division meetings;

• Promoting a more consistent and uniform use and application of the guidance, particularly following the instructions on interactions with the licensee, drafting the SER as a tool to identify any RAIs, having a sound regulatory basis for the RAIs, and maintaining licensing reviews aligned with its scope;

• The addition of clear instructions specifying that RAIs should not request information available elsewhere; and

• Continuing with current management oversight practice for RAIs process, such as elevating any challenges encountered during the RAI process to Division management for their awareness and involvement.

FCSE has conducted three licensing seminars on RAIs for Project Managers and Technical Reviewers, as well as a team meeting for those involved in the license renewal application review for Honeywell International. The guidance in the Licensing Review Handbook was updated to address the recommendations documented in the report to FCSE management. The final document was issued on October 31, 2018.

50

No adverse findings were identified in the Final GAO Report GAO-17-344, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Efforts Intended to Improve Procedures for Requesting Additional Information for Licensing Action are Underway, dated May 25, 2017.

Efforts to establish consistent procedures throughout the agency are being initiated by a working group to align, where appropriate, licensing strategies across the agency including the RAI process. This effort includes representatives from NMSS, NRR, NRO, NSIR, and OGC.

25. In keeping with the Commissions policy statement on the use of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), please describe the agencys actions to enhance the integration of risk information across the agencys activities to improve the technical basis for regulatory activities, to increase efficiency, and to improve effectiveness. Please include actions taken or planned (including milestones, where appropriate) for improving the realism of PRA information used in regulatory decisionmaking, for training staff to more effectively apply risk information, for updating agency processes and procedures accordingly, and for improving consistency among NRC offices and regions.

As directed by the Commission in SRM-M170511, the staff issued SECY-17-0112, which summarizes its plans to increase staff capabilities to use risk information in decisionmaking activities. The paper describes five overarching strategies and summarizes associated staff actions and plans. Strategy I evaluates and updates RIDM guidance to foster a collaborative review process and a broadened understanding of risk and risk insights. Strategy II develops a graded approach for using risk information in licensing reviews. Strategy III enhances training requirements related to RIDM for managers and staff. Strategy IV advances NRC and industry risk-informed initiatives, and Strategy V enhances communication on risk-informed activities. As directed by SRM-M170511, the staff will provide periodic updates to the Commission on its progress.

Each strategy with examples of specific actions taken or planned (including milestones, where appropriate) is summarized in the table below. Additional details are available in SECY-17-0112 and in an action plan that leverages best practices in RIDM from the operating and new reactor programs (current revision at ADAMS Accession No. ML18211A439). Though strategies and actions mainly focus on the reactor program, Strategies III and V will be coordinated across all agency offices and the regions, as appropriate. In addition, risk-informed approaches as applied in the materials safety and waste management arenas are described, along with reactor safety and cross cutting activities, on the Risk-Informed Activities page on the NRC public Web site (https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-informed/rpp.html).

Strategy Actions/Milestones Description/Background I. Evaluate and Update

• A revision to NUREG-1855, Treatment of Uncertainties Guidance Associated with PRAs in Risk-Informed Decisionmaking was published in March 2017 (ADAMS Accession Updated or new guidance No. ML17062A466).

will be developed to more

• A revision to RG 1.174 An Approach for Using Probabilistic fully equip staff with the Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on tools necessary to use Plant-Specific Changes to The Licensing Basis was quantitative or qualitative published ahead of schedule in January 2018 (ADAMS risk information in both Accession No. ML17317A256).

traditionally deterministic

• New and revised inspection procedures and field guides are and formal risk-informed being developed for risk-informed initiatives.

reactor licensing reviews.

51

Strategy Actions/Milestones Description/Background

• Action plan task 4 included a review of branch technical Importantly, all other position (BTP) 8-8, On-site (Emergency Diesel Generators) strategies also involve and Offsite Power Sources Allowed Outage Time Extensions, guidance development to determine if clarification is needed for use of a 14-day activities. backstop for deterministic evaluations; applicability of the guidance to one-time and permanent extensions; and defense-in-depth considerations, particularly with respect to mitigating the consequences of a loss of offsite power coincident with a loss-of-coolant accident with a single failure.

Milestone: The staff issued its RIDM Phase 1 Findings and Recommendations report on June 26, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18169A205; Enclosure 4 consists of proposed changes to BTP 8-8 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18169A214)). The staff completed the Phase 2 report on January 30, 2019 (ADAMS Accession No. ML19007A339).

II. Develop a Graded

• The staff created a tool to guide technical reviewers to Approach for Using Risk consider plant design features when formulating the scope Information in Licensing and depth of new reactor review activities. This tool was Reviews successfully applied to the NuScale design certification review and is a critical element of the ongoing enhanced safety-A graded approach seeks focused review of this design.

to leverage risk insights

• The NRC has made significant progress on initiatives to across the spectrum of enhance the regulatory framework for non-LWRs with risk-licensing review types (i.e., informed performance-based technology-inclusive deterministic and formal approaches. The actions for advanced reactor reviews are risk-informed submittals). A described more fully in response to question 52.

framework that supports a

• Action plan task 3 involves developing a graded approach for graded risk-informed review using risk information more broadly in operating reactor approach is already licensing reviews. This involves creating tools to facilitate the described in NUREG-0800 consideration of both qualitative and quantitative risk insights (ADAMS Accession Nos. in licensing reviews. Action plan task 1 seeks to expand the ML070630046 and use of license review teams with enhanced collaboration ML13207A315). between the engineering staff and the PRA practitioners.

Milestone: The staff issued its RIDM Phase 1 Findings and Recommendations report on June 26, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18169A205). The staff developed additional milestones for the Phase 2 report (ADAMS Accession No. ML19007A339). Implementation milestones were assigned to responsible NRR Divisions for completion in FY 2019. The milestones address schedules for staff training and detailed RIDM implemented guidance document revisions. Staff training was completed in June 2019.

52

Strategy Actions/Milestones Description/Background III. Enhance Training

• A new course for NRC managers (Perspectives on Risk Requirements Related to Informed Decisionmaking for NRC Managers) has been RIDM for Managers and developed and presented for the first time. It focuses on Staff applications of PRA and describes how risk insights can inform decisionmaking. The pilot courses success is The NRC provides over 30 currently being evaluated and management will determine if formal staff training courses the course will be made mandatory for all supervisors and on technical and regulatory senior managers in the reactor program. Milestone:

aspects associated with Conducted pilot course on June 14, 2018.

RIDM. Courses are

• The staff continues to offer the Risk-Informed Thinking available to all staff Workshop that provides participants with hands-on members; however, experience in applying RIDM using scenarios of practical currently, only some NRC agency work.

employees are required to

• The staff plans to update position-specific qualification take these courses. requirements to include the newly developed Risk-Informed Furthermore, many courses Thinking Workshop for reactor program staff.

focus on the technical

• The staff is evaluating whether aspects of the Risk-Informed aspects of PRA as opposed Thinking Workshop could be integrated with appropriate to describing how risk modules of the Fundamentals of Reactor Licensing Workshop information can be used to for Technical Reviewers. This evaluation is still ongoing.

inform regulatory decisions.

• Action plan task 2 seeks to broaden the definition of risk beyond just a quantitative value. It re-emphasizes the definition of risk to ensure awareness and common understanding between the staff and managers and clarifies the concepts of risk insights in regulatory applications. The staff issued its RIDM Phase 1 Findings and Recommendations report on June 26, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18169A205). Computer Based Training was implemented for the staff responsible for assessing RIDM in licensing reviews. A new course was developed for managers and staff to teach the concepts in NUREG-1855.

The course is in iLearn and on the NRC public Web site available to external stakeholders. The course was made available in June 2018.

• A training manual for NUREG-1855 is being developed. This manual will provide actual examples to show how to apply the guidance in NUREG-1855. Milestone: Complete the manual in November 2019.

IV. Advance Risk-Informed

• Fire PRA realism: The staff is engaged with industry to Initiatives evaluate and improve, where applicable, fire PRA realism.

Existing processes allow licensees to propose method The NRC primarily uses the improvements through the fire PRA frequently asked question Risk Informed Steering (FAQ) process, by submitting a LAR, or by submitting a Committee (RISC) to topical report. The staff has conducted two fire PRA public advance risk-informed workshops and five fire PRA public meetings with industry initiatives. RISC is a senior stakeholders since the third quarter of 2017 to elicit and management committee address new fire PRA FAQs and research activities. NRC with members from each of has completed five fire PRA FAQs to improve realism and is the program offices. The actively working with the Electric Power Research Institute 53

Strategy Actions/Milestones Description/Background industry also has a RISC (EPRI) under its MOU to improve fire PRA methods in several composed of senior areas. The NRC and NEI also are working on one additional managers. Since inception FAQ. On April 3, 2019, the staff conducted a public workshop in 2014, the NRC and for fire PRA realism products (FAQs, EPRI/RES MOU industry RISCs meet NUREGs, NEI reports). Four NUREGs are in various stages:

quarterly. The NRC RISCs the public comment process ended for NUREG-2230; objectives include the NUREG-2178 vol. 2 is in the public comment process; and following: engage industry two other NUREGs related to transient fire data and methods and listen to concerns are under development. In addition, industry continues to relative to the use of PRA to work on an expert elicitation report for enhancements to support regulatory NUREG-2180 to allow credit for Very Early Warning Detection decisionmaking; Systems. Also, the milestones for completion of staff review communicate NRC actions for NEI reports 00-01 and 04-02, with corresponding in the area of RIDM; Regulatory Guide endorsement reference, were re-confirmed.

discuss what initiatives can

• Realism in the ROP: The NRC continuously maintains and be taken by the NRC to improves guidance documents and NRC risk tools used to incentivize industry to support ROP activities. One such tool is the Risk continue to develop PRAs Assessment Standardization Project Handbook (RASP to help both reduce Handbook). In March 2017, the staff transmitted plans to uncertainty and provide a discuss industry concerns associated with the RASP framework to make Handbook. As a result of public meetings, industry proposed decisions in light of pursuing the issue on common cause failure (CCF) as the uncertainty; and discuss highest priority and discussed alternatives. Industry provided industry actions necessary a document regarding CCF modeling for staff review on to achieve the vision for December 8, 2017, with a revised White Paper on January future use of PRA to 26, 2018. Following review of the White Paper, the staff support regulatory shared its comments with external stakeholders at a decisions. December 12, 2018, public meeting. Informed by the insights gained from these interactions, the staff will use the following A brief summary of RISC approaches on a trial-basis for one year: (a) the staff will actions to improve the perform sensitivity studies to evaluate the impact of CCF realism of PRA information when conducting risk evaluations for the Significance used in regulatory Determination Process (SDP); (b) licensees can provide decisionmaking are plant-specific CCF defense strategies for the SDP; and (c) provided here. SECY 17- the staff will initiate a research effort to develop a quantitative 0112 Enclosure 3 provides approach that would categorize the effects of CCF based on additional information on all the cause of the failure.

active RISC initiatives

• Credit for Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX) in including TS Initiative 4b, RIDM: FLEX is currently being credited in multiple risk-The Peer Review Facts and informed applications. The NRC staff has developed several Observations Closure guidance documents to promote consistency and efficiency in Process, 10 CFR 50.69, applications in these areas. The staff is continuing to monitor PRA Methods Vetting the licensees use of FLEX and is evaluating the need for Process, and Risk additional guidance changes.

Aggregation.

Additional activities that advance risk-informed initiatives outside Activities supplemental to the RISC include:

the RISC that also advance

• Cooperative Research Activities with EPRI. To conserve resources and to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, both 54

Strategy Actions/Milestones Description/Background risk-informed initiatives are the NRC and EPRI have agreed to cooperate in selected also briefly described here. research efforts and to share information and/or costs whenever such cooperation and cost sharing is appropriate and mutually beneficial. An MOU with EPRI (ADAMS Accession No. ML16223A497) currently covers a number of risk-related topics, including fire, seismic, PRA methods, treatment of uncertainties, and flooding.

• Update to RG 1.200, An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities. RG 1.200 provides the staff position of what constitutes an acceptable base PRA and is the agencys vehicle for endorsing the industry consensus PRA standards and related PRA peer review guidance.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers' ASME/ANS will publish and NEI has recently published updated industry documents related to PRA standards and peer reviews, respectively. RG 1.200 will be revised to reflect the NRCs endorsement of pertinent industry documents.

• Consensus Standards Development: The NRC actively participates in the development and maintenance of consensus standards. This includes PRA standards for all operating reactors, design certification, and combined licenses for advanced LWRs and non-LWR nuclear power plants; these standards address all risk levels of PRA, all reactor operating modes, and all hazards. NRC participation ensures that the NRCs views are considered in the development of the standard and industry guidance. For example, the staff issued two separate letters in May 2017 and March 2018 regarding closure of findings from peer reviews and external hazard PRA peer-review guidance, respectively.

V. Enhance Communication

• Staff with risk/PRA expertise are sharing knowledge and on Risk-Informed experience through presentations at branch and division Activities meetings across the offices on topics such as risk-informed screening tools for operating and new reactor reviews.

The NRC is enhancing Knowledge and experience is also being shared through communication to ensure working group and review team meetings. Seminars on RIDM that its stakeholders are for NRC inspectors and enhanced inclusion of RIDM topics at aware of new and regional and senior reactor analyst counterpart meetings are enhanced risk training now included in the current Regional RIDM action planning.

courses and guidance,

• The RIDM Action Plan, dated November 28, 2018 (ADAMS ongoing RIDM initiatives, Accession No. ML18317A117), contained a communication and plans and experience plan with key messages.

using risk information.

55

26. The NRC has a long-standing effort to establish an efficient, reliable, and predictable licensing process for power reactors to transition from analog to digital instrumentation and control systems for safety-related applications. Please provide the date this effort began, a milestone schedule for implementation of the licensing process including the actual milestone completion dates, and the scheduled date for completion.

The NRC is implementing an integrated strategy plan to modernize the NRC regulatory infrastructure for digital instrumentation and controls (I&C), through strategic and tactical modernization plans (MPs). The plan focuses on topics identified through discussions with stakeholders that will provide confidence in transitioning from analog to digital control systems (Integrated Action Plan - ADAMS Accession No. ML17102B307).

MP #1A: Develop guidance for near term implementation of digital upgrades without prior NRC approval under 10 CFR 50.59 (limited scope of systems) (endorsement clarification of NEI 01-01 via RIS supplement)

Activity Completion Date13 NRC begins effort: March 2017 Prepare preliminary drafts of RIS 2002-22, Supplement 1, clarifying the staffs previous endorsement of NEI 01-01 Issue Draft RIS for Public Comment July 2017 (complete)

Issue revised Draft RIS for 2nd Public Comment Period March 2018 (complete)

RIS issued May 2018 (complete)

MP #1B: NRC review and endorsement, as appropriate, of industry technical guidance for addressing CCF Activity Completion Date NRC begins effort: December 2016 Begin staff evaluation of the partial draft of NEI 16-16 received December 22, 2016, and develop staff comments and gap analysis On August 2, 2019, NEI notified NRC that NEI will no N/A longer continue the development of NEI 16-16. The Implementation Action Plan (IAP) will be revised to reflect this.

MP #1C: Modernize NRCs current position on defense against potential CCF in I&C systems and components Activity Completion Date NRC efforts begin: July 2017 Begin staff review to identify if there are policy issues that need to be taken to the Commission Present SECY paper to Commission for information September 2018 (complete) 13 Actual completion dates noted with (complete).

56

MP #1D: Revise BTP 7-19, Guidance for Evaluation of Diversity and Defense-in-Depth in Digital Computer-Based Instrumentation and Control Systems Activity Completion Date NRC efforts begin: January 2019. A public Revise licensing review guidance to incorporate CCF meeting to discuss the guiding principles, as presented in the SECY paper (MP staffs plans to revise

1. 1C) and address comments from industry stakeholders. BTP 7-19 was held January 31, 2019.

(complete)

Category 2 public meeting to discuss topic focused areas of June 2019 (complete)

BTP 7-19 Complete preliminary draft revision to BTP 7-19 August 2019 Final Category 2 public meeting to discuss BTP 7-19 prior August 2019 to NRC review and concurrence Issue Draft BTP 7-19 for public comment period (60 day December 2019 comment period)

Finalize draft revision to BTP 7-19 May 2020 Issue Revision 7 to BTP 7-19 June 2020 MP #2A: Issue durable guidance for implementation of digital upgrades without NRC approval under 10 CFR 50.59 (full scope of systems) - Endorsement review of NEI 96-07, Appendix D Activity Completion Date NRC efforts begin: April 2016 Initiate review and stakeholder interactions of NEI guidance document, NEI 96-07, Appendix D, Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations NRC decision on technical adequacy and whether to issue a On December 20, potential interim endorsement letter 2018, the staff issued a letter to NEI documenting the App D comments that remain unresolved. (complete)

NRC formally enters NEI 96-07 Appendix D into the RG NEI submitted a letter development process (if decision is made to endorse) requesting endorsement of App D in January 2019.

(complete)

Issue RG endorsing, with exceptions, NEI 96-07, September 2019 Appendix D MP #2B: 50.59 Guidance Implementation and Inspection Training Activity Completion Date B1. Complete Inspector Training on RIS 2002-22, June 2019 (complete)

Supplement 1 (new item as a result of the issuance of RIS 2002-22 under MP #1A)

B2. Complete Lessons Learned Public Meeting on RIS February 27, 2019 2002-22, Supplement 1 Implementation (complete)

B3. Conduct Inspector Training on Appendix D June 2019 (complete) 57

MP #3: Review Industrys process for using commercially available digital equipment Activity Completion Date NRC efforts begin: April 2016 Public Meeting to discuss resolution of RIS 2016-05 public comments EPRI publishes research results June 2019 NEI Submits NEI 17-06 for NRC Review Expected by October 2019.

NRC makes decision on technical adequacy December 2019 NRC staff completes audits of Safety Integrity Level NRC is monitoring certification organizations and accrediting entities EPRIs investigative and research activities to evaluate third party process certification for digital equipment.

Due to delays in publishing of the EPRI research report, the staffs proposed schedule to complete the audits is now October 2019-February 2020.

NRC formally enters NEI 17-06 into the RG development March 2020 process (if decision is made to endorse)

MP #4A: Streamline the licensing process guidance - update to ISG-06 Activity Completion Date NRC begins effort: February 2017 Conduct a series of public stakeholder meetings (e.g., public workshops) for additional feedback Issue final Draft revision of ISG-06 for public comment August 2018 (complete)

Issue final revision of ISG-06 December 2018 (complete)

MP #4B: Develop strategic activities for long-term improvements to the regulatory infrastructure Activity Completion Date NRC begins effort to develop strategic plan to modernize October 2017 overall regulatory infrastructure Consider evaluation of lessons learned from MP 1-4A April 2018 (complete) progress Coordinate with stakeholders to identify potential regulatory July 2018 gaps and potential options for improving the regulatory (complete) infrastructure Develop additional detailed modernization plan for November 2018 implementing tactical and strategic improvements to the (complete) regulatory infrastructure 58

MP #4B: Develop strategic activities for long-term improvements to the regulatory infrastructure Activity Completion Date Begin broad assessment of modernization improvement. January 2019. A public The assessment will be categorized into three areas: 1) meeting to discuss the identification and implementation of significant structural staffs assessment changes to the regulations or major RGs to reduce plans was held complexity, and focus on the fundamental safety principles January 31, 2019.

that are appropriate for all designs; (2) improvement to NRC (complete) review efficiency and enhancement of existing guidance to be more performance-based, and risk-informed; and (3) development of guidance to provide enhanced predictability of reviews and ensure that no unnecessary impediments exist in the review of digital technologies.

Identify any remaining barriers to the overall digital I&C April 2019. A public regulatory infrastructure meeting to discuss I&C regulatory challenges was held on April 4, 2019. (complete)

Complete final assessment Fall 2019

27. Please describe actions taken and/or planned to prepare to review industry requests to use Accident Tolerant Fuel in existing reactors, including but not limited to actions taken and/or planned for lead test assemblies and fuel loads. Please include a milestone schedule and brief project plan for both evolutionary and revolutionary designs.

The staff issued the final version of the NRCs accident tolerant fuel (ATF) project plan Project Plan to Prepare the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Efficient and Effective Licensing of Accident Tolerant Fuels (ADAMS Accession No. ML18261A414) on September 30, 2018. The project plan outlines the strategy for timely licensing of near-term and longer-term ATF designs.

It covers all aspects of ATF regulation, including fabrication, transportation, in-reactor performance, and storage. The plan also contains tasks related to regulatory and infrastructure refinement, computational tools and methods to support SEs, and accounts for interactions with our external stakeholders including industry, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),

international entities and non-governmental organizations.

The staff has completed the phenomenon identification and ranking table (PIRT) exercise for the chromium-coated cladding ATF concept and issued a report Degradation and Failure Phenomena of Accident Tolerant Fuel Concepts: Chromium Coated Zirconium Alloy Cladding (ADAMS Accession No. ML19172A154) on June 21, 2019. This final report is being used to inform the development of ISG that is planned for issuance by the end of calendar year 2019.

The staff made an initial draft of the ISG, Supplemental Guidance Regarding the Chromium-Coated Zirconium Alloy Fuel Cladding Accident Tolerant Fuel Concept, public on July 18, 2019, ahead of a public meeting on August 6, 2019, to solicit high-level comments from stakeholders.

The staff plans to incorporate the feedback received into the guidance and issue a second draft to support an ACRS subcommittee meeting on September 17, 2019. After addressing ACRS feedback, the staff will issue the ISG in the FR for a public comment period, tentatively scheduled for late September 2019.

59

The staff understands that the industry is planning to seek extensions of current fuel burnup limits. Industry has performed a gap analysis related to data needs to support a burnup extension and published a white paper detailing their work. The NRC staff will consider this information during interactions with the individual fuel vendors over the next several months as the staff seeks to understand potential licensing strategies. The fuel enrichment and burnup increases have implications not just for in-core reactor performance, but they also have ramifications for other aspects of the fuel cycle (e.g., fuel manufacturing, spent fuel storage, and transportation). Moreover, the increased enrichment will require an exemption from portions of the requirements in 10 CFR 50.68. The staff is updating the NRCs ATF project plan to include extensions of current burnup and enrichment limits and plans to issue an initial update by the end of October 2019.

The staff also continued engagement with external stakeholders, regarding their plans for both ATF and burnup/enrichment extensions. The staff met with Framatome on July 9-11, 2019, for an information exchange on chromium-coated cladding and silicon carbide cladding ATF concepts Framatome is pursuing. Framatome and the staff engaged in detailed discussions on chromium-coated cladding focusing on the manufacturing process, mechanical properties, effects of imperfections, and testing programs on corrosion, component behavior, and accident conditions (including LOCA, reactivity insertion accident, and beyond-design-basis accidents).

The staff provided feedback in many areas but noted that Framatomes overall strategy and testing plans seemed appropriate and reasonable to support licensing in their requested timeframe provided that future testing continues to confirm the coatings expected performance.

The staff met with Westinghouse (WEC) on July 23-25, 2019, for an annual fuel performance update meeting with a significant focus on ATF activities. WEC presented on updates to their ATF program, specifically on chromium-coated cladding and their ADOPT doped uranium dioxide fuel pellets. WEC also gave a high-level overview of initial plans for extending burnup and enrichment limits of their products.

The staff met with Global Nuclear Fuels (GNF) on July 30-31, 2019, for an annual fuel performance update meeting with a significant focus on ATF activities. GNF provided updates on their ATF testing and licensing preparation associated with their ARMOR (abrasion resistant, more oxide resistant) fuel cladding concept. GNF also gave high-level presentations on their strategy and plans for burnup and enrichment extension of their fuel.

The staff has also made publicly available a generic communication (ADAMS Accession No. ML18270A019) to obtain timeline details, fuel qualification plans, and licensing strategy information from nuclear fuel vendors pursuing the various ATF concepts and has published a notice requesting public comment in the FR (84 FR 3831; February 13, 2019). Two comment letters were received and reviewed by the staff. The generic communication is being finalized.

28. Please describe actions taken and/or planned to improve the quality of cost benefit analyses conducted in association with new requirements, backfit analyses, or rulemaking, including the development of metrics for assessing the quality of cost-benefit analyses. Please include milestones for completing these actions and the guidance that is currently under revision.

The NRC has taken specific actions to improve the quality of cost-benefit analyses conducted in association with new requirements, backfit analyses, or rulemaking. The key milestones for these actions are described below.

On March 19, 2013, the Commission issued a SRM regarding SECY-12-0157, Consideration of Additional Requirements for Containment Venting Systems for Boiling Water Reactors with 60

Mark I and Mark II Containments (ADAMS Accession No. ML13078A017), directing the staff to seek detailed Commission guidance on the use of qualitative factors.

On March 20, 2013, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-12-0110, Staff Requirements -

SECY-12-0110 - Consideration of Economic Consequences within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Regulatory Framework, directing the staff to identify potential changes to current methodologies and tools to perform cost-benefit analysis in support of regulatory, backfit, and environmental analyses. The Commission also directed the staff to provide a regulatory gap analysis before developing new cost-benefit guidance. On January 2, 2014, in response to SRM-SECY-12-0110, the staff submitted SECY-14-0002, Plan for Updating the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Cost-Benefit Guidance. In SECY-14-0002, the staff identified potential changes to current methodologies and tools related to performing cost-benefit analysis in support of regulatory, backfit, and environmental analyses. The staff informed the Commission of its planned two-phase approach for revising the content and structure of cost-benefit guidance documents. Phase 1 aligns regulatory guidance across NRCs business lines by restructuring and incorporating non-policy revisions to NRC cost-benefit guidance. This phase is underway, as described below. In Phase 2, staff will identify and analyze potential policy issues that could affect the NRCs cost-benefit guidance and present these issues to the Commission for consideration and approval. The staff then will incorporate final updates to guidance for conducting cost-benefit analyses that support backfitting decisions.

On August 14, 2014, in response to SRM-SECY-12-0157, the staff submitted SECY-14-0087, Qualitative Consideration of Factors in the Development of Regulatory Analyses and Backfit Analyses. In SECY-14-0087, the staff proposed updating the cost-benefit guidance to include a set of methods that could be used for the consideration of qualitative factors within a cost-benefit analysis for regulatory and backfit analyses.

On December 16, 2014, in response to Commission direction to provide a regulatory gap analysis before developing new cost-benefit guidance, the staff submitted SECY-14-0143, Regulatory Gap Analysis of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Cost Benefit Regulations, Guidance and Practices. In SECY-14-0143, the staff described the review of current NRC guidance, methodologies, and tools used for cost-benefit determinations. The staff also described the results of its review of the NRC regulatory analyses that had been completed and identified differences across NRC business lines (e.g., material users, fuel cycle facilities, new and operating reactors) and procedures (i.e., regulatory analyses, backfit analyses). Finally, SECY-14-0143 included staffs gap analysis, and identified where additional guidance is needed to ensure consistency across the agency.

On March 4, 2015, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-14-0087. The Commission approved the staffs plans for updating guidance regarding the use of qualitative factors, including the treatment of uncertainties, and directed the staff to focus the update on capturing best practices for the consideration of qualitative factors. The Commission also directed the staff to provide a toolkit for analysts regarding the consideration of qualitative factors.

In July 2015 and May 2017, the staff held two public meetings on the proposed cost-benefit guidance updates. The staff also held a public workshop in March 2016 to discuss proposed changes to the cost-benefit guidance. Meeting participants included industry representatives, government and nongovernment organizations, and other interested parties.

The Phase 1 update identified in SECY-14-0002 and described above is underway. In April 2017, the NRC issued draft NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of 61

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and published a notice requesting public comment in the FR (82 FR 18163; April 17, 2017). The staff received three comment submissions with a total of 58 individual comments from industry stakeholders and members of the public. The NRC staff considered this input when revising the NUREG.

The staff submitted the draft final NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5, and five appendices to the Commission via a notation vote paper dated March 28, 2018 (SECY-18-0042). The following appendices are included in this update:

• Appendix A, Qualitative Factors Assessment Tools

• Appendix B, Cost Estimating and Best Practices

• Appendix C, Treatment of Uncertainty

• Appendix D, Guidance on Regulatory Analysis Related to ASME Rules

• Appendix E, Special Circumstances and Relationship to Other Procedural Requirements On July 26, 2019, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-18-0042 and directed the staff to conform NUREG/BR-0058 to Management Directive (MD) 8.4, Management of Backfitting, Issue Finality, and Information Collection, as approved in SRM-SECY-18-0049. The staff will return NUREG/BR-0058, as further revised, to the Commission for its review and approval by January 26, 2020. The staff then will conduct Phase 2 of the activity, as described in SECY 0002.

Metrics for assessing the quality of cost-benefit analyses are contained in NUREG/BR-0058, Appendix B. Enclosure B-4 to Appendix B discusses the expectations for quality cost estimates and details the steps to ensure high-quality cost-benefit analyses are developed and presented to agency management. Additionally, the enclosure describes the steps to verify the quality of a cost-benefit analysis through various techniques for checking accuracy.

29. Please provide the status of the revised guidance currently under development to clarify the use of qualitative factors, including milestones and the projected date for completion. In addition to this revised guidance, please list and briefly describe any actions taken and/or planned to improve the use of quantitative factors in regulatory analyses required for rulemaking, in the regulatory analyses required under the Backfit Rule, and in the ROP Significance Determination Process.

As noted above, the staff is revising NUREG/BR-0058 to conform with MD 8.4 and will provide the revised document to the Commission for its review and approval as directed in SRM-SECY-18-0042, issued July 26, 2019.

In the interim, a draft of the NUREG was issued for public comment and is available for interim staff use. In conducting its regulatory analyses, the staff is implementing the best practices and lessons learned that are contained within this draft revision of NUREG/BR-0058.

In revising this cost-benefit guidance, the staff focused on improving methods for quantitative analyses, including the treatment of uncertainty and the development of realistic estimates of the cost of implementing proposed requirements. Specifically, the staff developed two appendices to NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5 to guide the staff in these areas:

• Appendix B, Cost Estimating and Best Practices, provides expanded guidance on incorporating cost-estimating best practices, including estimating life-cycle costs.

62

• Appendix C, The Treatment of Uncertainty, expands on the existing guidance for performing uncertainty and sensitivity analyses for cost-benefit analyses.

In addition to the improved methods for quantitative analyses, the revised cost-benefit guidance directs the staff to quantify the estimates of costs and benefits to the extent possible. However, the staff acknowledges that some attributes in regulatory analyses are difficult to quantify and require additional resources to develop a strictly quantitative analysis. To address this gap, staff developed a toolkit to enable analysts to clearly present analyses of qualitative results in a transparent way that decision makers, and stakeholders can understand.

• Appendix A, Qualitative Factors Assessment Tools, identifies best practices for the consideration of qualitative factors and describes a number of methods that can be used to support the NRCs evidence-based, quantitative, and analytical approach to decisionmaking. The guidance clearly states that these methods (1) should only be used when quantification may not be practical, (2) are not a substitute for collecting accurate information to develop realistic cost estimates, and (3) do not constitute an expansion of the consideration of qualitative factors in regulatory, backfit, or environmental analyses.

Revision 5 of NUREG/BR-0058 is intended to meet the following objectives:

• Refocus and expand guidance on cost-benefit analysis across the agency

• Emphasize quantification and provides methods for creating realistic estimates

• Provide methods for assessing factors that are difficult to quantify

• Incorporate cost estimating best practices identified in GAO guidance and in recommendations from GAO in GAO-15-98, Nuclear Regulatory Commission: NRC Needs to Improve Its Cost Estimates by Incorporating More Best Practices, dated December 12, 2014

• Expand guidance on the treatment of uncertainties

• Enhance transparency of analysis for the decision maker With regard to the use of qualitative factors in the ROPs Significance Determination Process, the SRM for SECY-13-0137 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14181B398) directed the staff, in part, to evaluate the need to provide additional clarity on the use of qualitative factors for operating reactors to provide more transparency and predictability to the process. The staff completed its evaluation, which was documented in Enclosure 2 of SECY-18-0045, Reactor Oversight Process Self-Assessment for Calendar Year 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18059A155). To address the results of this evaluation, the staff prepared a revision to Appendix M of IMC 0609, Significance Determination Process Using Qualitative Criteria (ADAMS Accession No. ML18183A043). This revision, issued on January 10, 2019, clarifies the entry criteria for Appendix M and provides better guidance on the application of existing decision-making attributes in the appendix without expanding its use.

30. Please provide a list of all final generic regulatory actions issued in the last 3 years. Please include:

a. Whether the item was reviewed by CRGR;

b. Whether the CRGR review was formal or informal;

c. The CRGR recommendation; and 63

d. The NRCs conclusions with respect to compliance with the Backfitting Rule (i.e., no backfitting, cost-justified substantial increase, compliance exception, adequate protection exception).

The majority of the final generic regulatory actions that the NRC issues do not lead to backfitting. In addition, as discussed in response #34, the agency is working to enhance oversight to prevent unintended and unsupported backfits. The NRC issues many types of final generic regulatory actions, such as rules, orders, bulletins, generic letters (GLs), RISs, RGs, SRPs, and ISGs.

The CRGR Charter, Revision 9 clarifies which issues should be forwarded to the Committee for review where new or revised generic requirements could propose backfits or new staff positions.

Items for CRGR review are forwarded by the agencys program offices or are directed for review by the EDO. The table below illustrates that only a few final generic agency actions are reviewed by the CRGR to assess if generic backfitting concerns exist. Most backfitting issues are resolved during management review and legal review or identified during interactions with external stakeholders. Rules, orders, bulletins, GLs, and RISs are final generic regulatory actions that are reviewed and evaluated to screen for potential backfitting concerns and new staff positions. CRGR performs a review of these items in a formal setting with the sponsoring office representatives when certain criteria are met, including:

• Stakeholders or NRC staff identify concerns regarding backfitting or regulatory analysis

• The EDO directs the review or an office director requests review

• Use of the compliance exception or the adequate protection exceptions to justify backfitting

• For rulemaking, if there are finality concerns or possible backfitting qualitative factors were used to justify a rulemaking with significant costs, or substantial statistical uncertainty exists in the qualitative benefit determination in the backfit analysis.

In June 2018, the CRGR Charter, Revision 9, formally adopted criteria for reviewing rulemaking activities. The CRGR began piloting the criteria and guidance in June 2017, when the CRGR reviewed a draft proposed rule on cybersecurity at fuel cycle facilities. Subsequently, CRGR has reviewed several rulemakings over the past year, including a draft final rule on enhanced weapons, firearms background checks, and security event notifications. During its review of these packages, the CRGR requested additional information to ensure that the staff was not unnecessarily imposing backfits on the licensees.

RGs, standard review plans, and ISG, are only reviewed by CRGR when concerns are raised during staff review regarding potential backfitting. These documents are intended to provide acceptable approaches for licensees or applicants to meet NRC requirements, or for the NRC staff to confirm the adequacy of proposed approaches. Additionally, adopting new RGs is intended to be voluntary for licensees and applicants. For limited instances where RGs may result in potential backfits or new staff positions, the CRGR conducts a review.

The table below provides NRC final generic regulatory actions issued within the last 3 years.

For the response, the staff has included final rules, orders, bulletins, RISs, and GLs.

64

Summary of Final Generic Regulatory Actions over the Last 3 Years Item # Title Issuance CRGR14 CRGR NRC Date Review Recommen Backfitting dation Review 10 CFR NAC International 07/19/2019 None NA No Backfitting Part 72 NAC-UMS Universal Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Amendment no. 7 10 CFR Revision of Fee 05/17/2019 None NA No Backfitting Parts 170, Schedules; Fee 171 Recovery for Fiscal Year 2019 10 CFR Holtec International HI- 04/18/2019 None NA No Backfitting Part 72 STORM 100 Cask System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1014, Amendment No. 13 RIS-19-02 Preparation and 04/17/2019 None NA No Backfitting Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations RIS-19-01 Clarification of Export 03/15/2019 None NA No Backfitting Reporting Requirements for Nuclear Facilities, Equipment, and Non-Nuclear Materials 10 CFR List of Approved Spent 02/19/2019 None NA No Backfitting Part 72 Fuel Storage Casks:

Holtec International HI-STORM 100 Multipurpose Canister Cask System, COC No. 1014, Amendment Nos. 11 and 12 10 CFR List of Approved Spent 02/19/2019 None NA No Backfitting Part 72 Fuel Storage Casks:

NAC International, Inc.,

NAC-MPC Storage 14 None - indicates that the item was administrative in nature or did not meet thresholds for CRGR backfitting review. Routine Reviews - were conducted by the members without a meeting. Complex Reviews - those items for which a meeting was conducted to assess potential backfitting concerns.

65

Summary of Final Generic Regulatory Actions over the Last 3 Years Item # Title Issuance CRGR14 CRGR NRC Date Review Recommen Backfitting dation Review System, COC No.

1025, Amendment No.

7&8 10 CFR List of Approved Spent 02/15/2019 None NA No Backfitting Part 72 Fuel Storage Casks:

Transnuclear, Inc.,

Standardized Advanced NUHOMS Storage System, Certificate of Compliance (COC) No.

1029, Amendment No.

4 10 CFR Update to Fees for 02/11/2019 None NA No Backfitting Part 9 Search and Review of Agency Records by NRC Personnel 10 CFR List of Approved Spent 12/26/2018 None NA No Backfitting Part 72 Fuel Storage Casks:

Transnuclear Inc.,

Standardized NUHOMS Cask System (Amendment No. 15) 10 CFR List of Approved Spent 12/19/2018 None NA No Backfitting Part 72 Fuel Storage Casks:

NAC International, Inc.,

NAC-UMS Storage System, COC No.

1015, Amendment No.

6 RIS-18-06 Clarification of the 12/10/2018 None NA No Backfitting Requirements for Reactor Pressure Vessel Upper Head Bare Metal Visual Examinations 10 CFR Miscellaneous 11/21/2018 None NA No Backfitting Parts 37, Corrections -

40, 70, 71, 66

Summary of Final Generic Regulatory Actions over the Last 3 Years Item # Title Issuance CRGR14 CRGR NRC Date Review Recommen Backfitting dation Review 72, 73, 76, Organizational and 95 Changes 10 CFR Miscellaneous 11/20/2018 None NA No Backfitting Parts 26, Corrections 30, 40, 50, 70, 73, and 110 RIS-18-05 Supplier Oversight 10/05/2018 None NA No Backfitting Issues Identified During Recent NRC Vendor Inspections 10 CFR Inflation Adjustments to 09/24/18 None NA No Backfitting Part 140 the Price-Anderson Act Financial Protection Regulations RIS-18-04 Notice of Issuance of 09/11/18 None NA No Backfitting Enforcement Guidance MemorandumInterim Guidance for Dispositioning Apparent Violations of 10 CFR Parts 34, 36, and 39 Requirements Resulting from the Use of Direct Ion Storage Dosimetry During Licensed Activities 10 CFR Medical Use of 07/16/18 None NA No Backfitting Parts 30, Byproduct Material 32, and 35 Medical Event Definitions, Training and Experience, and Clarifying Amendments 10 CFR Miscellaneous 06/28/18 None NA No Backfitting Parts 1, 2, Corrections 34, 37, 50, 70, 71, 73, and 140 67

Summary of Final Generic Regulatory Actions over the Last 3 Years Item # Title Issuance CRGR14 CRGR NRC Date Review Recommen Backfitting dation Review 10 CFR Revision of Fee 06/25/18 None NA No Backfitting Parts 170 Schedules; Fee and 171 Recovery for FY 2018 RIS-18-03 National Terrorism 06/01/18 None NA No Backfitting Advisory System and Protective Measures for the Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material RIS-02-22, Clarifications on 05/31/18 Routine NA No Backfitting Supplement Endorsement of NEI Review 1 Guidance in Designing Digital Upgrades in Instrumentation and Control Systems 10 CFR Modified Small 05/04/18 None NA No Backfitting Part 75 Quantities Protocol RIS-17-01, Human Reliability and 03/29/18 None NA No Backfitting Rev. 1 Human Performance Database RIS-18-02 Preparation and 03/26/18 None NA No Backfitting Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations RIS-18-01 Common Violations 01/22/18 None NA No Backfitting Cited During First 2 Years of 10 CFR Part and 37, "Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 03/01/18 Quantities of Radioactive Material,"

Implementation and Guidance Documents Available to Support Rule Implementation 68

Summary of Final Generic Regulatory Actions over the Last 3 Years Item # Title Issuance CRGR14 CRGR NRC Date Review Recommen Backfitting dation Review 10 CFR Approval of ASME 01/17/18 None NA No Backfitting Part 50 Code Cases 10 CFR 2 Adjustment of Civil 01/12/18 None NA No Backfitting and 13 Penalties for Inflation for FY 2018 RIS-17-08 Process for Scheduling 12/21/17 None NA No Backfitting and Allocating Resources for FYs 2020 through 2022 for the Review of New Licensing Applications for LWRs and Non-LWRs 10 CFR Miscellaneous 11/15/17 None NA No Backfitting Parts 2, 9, Corrections 40, 50, 61, 71, 73, and 110 RIS-17-06 NRC Policy on Use of 09/19/17 None NA No Backfitting Combination Dosimetry Devices During Industrial Radiographic Operations RIS-17-05 Administration of 09/13/17 None NA No Backfitting 10 CFR Part 72 COC Corrections and Revisions RIS-17-04 Clarification on the 08/30/17 Routine NA No Backfitting Implementation of Review Compensatory Measures for Protective Strategy Deficiencies or Degraded or Inoperable Security Systems, Equipment, or Components 69

Summary of Final Generic Regulatory Actions over the Last 3 Years Item # Title Issuance CRGR14 CRGR NRC Date Review Recommen Backfitting dation Review 10 CFR ASME Codes and 07/18/17 None NA Two changes Part 50 Code Cases resulted in an adequate protection backfit exception (Code Case N-729-4 and Code Case N-770-2) 10 CFR Fee Recovery for 06/30/17 None NA No Backfitting Parts 170 FY 2017 and 171 RIS-17-03 Preparation and 04/05/17 None NA No Backfitting Scheduling of Operator Licensing Examinations RIS-17-02 Applicability of 10 CFR 02/08/17 None NA No Backfitting Part 37 to Non-Manufacturing and Distribution Service Provider Licensees RIS-17-01 Human Reliability and 02/02/17 None NA No Backfitting Human Performance Database 10 CFR Adjustment of Civil 01/24/17 None NA No Backfitting Parts 2 and Penalties for Inflation 13 10 CFR List of Approved Spent Published 6 None NA No Backfitting Part 72 Fuel Storage Casks COC rules in 2017 10 CFR Increase in the 12/30/16 None NA No Backfitting Part 140 Maximum Amount of Primary Nuclear Liability Insurance 10 CFR Update to Incorporate 12/30/16 None NA No Backfitting Parts 2 and Freedom of Information 9 Act Improvement Act of 2016 Requirements 70

Summary of Final Generic Regulatory Actions over the Last 3 Years Item # Title Issuance CRGR14 CRGR NRC Date Review Recommen Backfitting dation Review RIS-16-12 NRC Employee Access 11/22/16 None NA No Backfitting to Switchyards at Licensee Facilities RIS-16-11 Requests to Dispose of 11/13/16 Routine Endorsed No Backfitting Very Low-Level Review Radioactive Waste Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002 RIS-15-19, Decommissioning 09/27/16 None NA No Backfitting Rev. 1 Timeliness Rule Implementation and Associated Regulatory Relief RIS-16-10 LARs for Changes to 08/05/16 Routine Endorsed No Backfitting Emergency Response Review Organization Staffing and Augmentation

31. Please provide a list and brief description of all facility specific backfits issued in the reporting period.15 None

32. For matters reviewed by the CRGR, please provide 12-month and 3-year rolling averages for the following metrics:

a. For the number of issues reviewed formally16: the percentage accepted for imposition on industry and the percentage rejected based on cost-benefit or Backfit concerns; and

b. For the number of issues reviewed informally: the percentage accepted for imposition on industry and the percentage rejected based on cost-benefit or Backfit concerns.17 15 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

16 In accordance with the new terminology for CRGR reviews as described in the June 2018 Revision 9 of the CRGR charter (ADAMS Accession No. ML17355A532), and as mentioned in previous monthly reports the terms formal and informal are now replaced with the terms complex and routine, respectively.

Consequently, this terminology will not be included in future monthly reports.

17 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

71

12-Month Summary of CRGR Review Decisions of Potential Backfit Issues*

Percentage Accepted or Percentage Rejected Percentage Review Type & Endorsed with Based on Backfit Endorsed without Outcome Backfitting Concerns Backfitting Routine Reviews Complex Reviews

• No CRGR reviews have been completed in the past 12 months 3-Year Summary of CRGR Review Decisions of Potential Backfit Issues Percentage Accepted or Percentage Rejected Percentage Review Type & Endorsed with Based on Backfit Endorsed without Outcome Backfitting Concerns Backfitting Routine Reviews 0% 0% 100.0%

Complex Reviews 28.6% 14.3% 57.1%

Comments:

1. As of July 31, 2019, for the rolling 3-year period, the CRGR has completed 14 reviews for potential backfits, including 7 routine reviews and 7 complex reviews. In the past 12-months, no CRGR reviews have been completed. These percentages omit ongoing CRGR reviews.

2. These tables provide summaries of CRGR review results for the rolling 12-month and 3-year periods. The percentage accepted includes CRGR endorsements of generic documents that may lead to licensee backfits, the percentage rejected are reviews in which the CRGR disapproved documents due to backfit concerns, and the percentage endorsed were reviews in which the CRGR found no backfit implications.

33. Please provide the status of the application of the Backfit Rule in the licensing and inspection programs across the agency, including:

a. The need for training on the requirements and application of 10 CFR 50.109;

b. The need for a process, training, and/or oversight in addressing inspection issues that may redefine or reinterpret the original licensing basis (e.g., unresolved issues, task interface agreements, disputed violations) to ensure that new requirements are not imposed through the inspection program;

c. A review of proposed regulatory changes that are currently in process to ensure that regulatory actions are appropriately informed by the requirements of 10 CFR 50.109.

Examples of such actions could include but are not limited to the following:

i. The Draft Regulatory Issue Summary on Service Life addressing the treatment of vendor recommendations within the regulatory framework; ii. 10 CFR 50.46c rulemaking for which the justification utilizes the adequate protection provisions of the backfit rule to obviate the need to compare the benefits of public health and safety with the cost of compliance for the three major portions of the rule; 72

iii. Use of the compliance exception backfit as proposed by the NRC staff to address the "open phase condition (OPC)" issue; and iv. Possible alteration of the risk reduction credit given for Incipient Fire Protection after the modifications have been installed and received approval from the NRC crediting the technology.

d. Please describe the progress made during each reporting period.

a, b, & d. Consistent with the EDO approved milestones in Response 34, the agency developed and implemented refresher training throughout the agency for those with responsibilities that take backfit into consideration. This refresher or reset training was completed in January 2018. In addition, the agency developed and implemented enhanced backfit training for identified staff with backfitting responsibilities in multiple headquarters offices and all regions.

This training included interactive examples and case studies to apply backfitting concepts to daily work activities. All sessions were completed by July 31, 2018. Over 1,400 NRC staff received this new training.

More detailed backfitting guidance and procedures will be developed throughout FY 2019 as discussed in Response 34.

c. The agency has incorporated the recent lessons learned from the Exelon backfit appeal decision and the Commissions direction in SRM-COMSECY-16-0020 into its reviews of proposed regulatory changes and decisionmaking. The agency is also preparing to issue Management Directive 8.4, Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests, per the Commissions direction in SRM-SECY-18-0049, dated May 29, 2019. SRM-SECY-18-0042 issued July 26, 2019, directed the staff to revise NUREG-1409, Backfitting Guidelines, and NUREG/BR-0058 (see items 28 and 29) to conform with the Commissions direction in SRM-SECY-18-0049.

The table below provides a summary of the status of regulatory changes and issues as of July 31, 2019.

Status of Select Regulatory Activities Title Status of Regulatory Change Backfitting Considerations RIS on Service Life - RIS (ADAMS Accession No. ML17177A060) While the CRGR found Disposition of was issued for public comment and the public that the draft RIS did not Information Related comments have been dispositioned. contain any specific to the Time Period backfits or new staff That Safety-Related positions, it did not Structures, Systems, endorse the RIS in its or Components are RIS was reviewed by CRGR on September current form. The CRGR Installed 12 and 14, 2017. CRGR Meeting Nos. #446, indicated that a RIS may

1. 447 (ADAMS Accession No. not be appropriate for ML17276B156). addressing these issues.

The RIS was officially withdrawn in an FRN dated September 12, 2018 (83 FR 46199).

73

Status of Select Regulatory Activities Title Status of Regulatory Change Backfitting Considerations 10 CFR 50.46(c) The NRC staff prepared a regulatory analysis Based on established Rulemaking for the 10 CFR 50.46c draft final rule criteria at the time, the (ADAMS Accession No. ML15323A122) to CRGR was not required identify the benefits and costs of the to review the rulemaking particular regulatory approach for addressing to assess potential emergency core cooling system backfits. The rulemaking performance. The regulatory analysis is currently with the focuses on the marginal difference in benefits Commission for its and costs for each alternative relative to the consideration.

no action baseline alternative for the three major portions of the rule, which is consistent with the requirements of the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109), Commission direction, and the ongoing revisions to the agencys cost-benefit guidance (e.g., NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5).

Proposed Rule, The proposed rule (ADAMS Accession No. CRGR completed its 10 CFR 73.53, ML17145A342), if approved, would require review in two meetings, Requirements for certain Fuel Cycle Facility licensees to June 27 and July 12, Cyber Security at establish, implement, and maintain a cyber 2017. This rule contained Nuclear Fuel Cycle security program that can detect, protect backfitting and was Facilities and against, and respond to a cyber-attack endorsed by the CRGR.

associated draft RG, capable of causing one or more of the This rulemaking is (DG) 5062 Cyber consequences of concern as defined in the currently with the Security Programs proposed rule. Commission for its for Nuclear Fuel consideration.

Cycle Facilities RG 5.77, Revision 1, This RG describes an approach that the NRC This item has been Insider Mitigation staff considers acceptable for an insider closed. The staff did not Program mitigation program for nuclear power reactors identify a backfitting that contain protected or vital areas. concern. This RG is currently being reviewed by the Commission.

34. Please provide a description of actions taken and/or planned to address recommendations made by the CRGR in their report "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Implementation of Backfitting and Issue Finality Requirements," dated June 27, 2017. Please include a milestone schedule for completing action on each recommendation.

The actions identified in the CRGR Review Report and approved by the EDO in a memo dated July 19, 2017, have been organized into the following activities:

74

Backfitting Enhancement Tasks from the June 27, 2017, CRGR Review Report Item Task Lead Due Date Status 1 Update agency-level guidance on NRR 05/02/2018 Completed backfitting and issue finality to reflect Commission direction on the use of the compliance exception to the backfit rule and submit for Commission approval.

2 Update office-level implementing NRR, TBD Pending18 guidance on backfitting and issue finality, NMSS, and the Enforcement Manual to reflect NRO, Commission-approved agencywide NSIR, RES, guidance. all Regions, OE 3 Develop and conduct "reset" training for CRGR 02/28/2018 Completed managers and staff on backfitting and issue finality.

4 Conduct interactive training on backfitting CRGR 08/17/2018 Completed and issue finality for all staff with backfitting responsibilities.

5 Develop or update training and/or CRGR, TBD Pending developmental activities on backfitting NRR, and issue finality for inclusion in NMSS, office/regional qualification procedures. NRO, NSIR, RES, all Regions 6 Revise office qualification procedures to CRGR, TBD Pending require initial and refresher training and NRR, developmental activities on backfitting NMSS, and issue finality. (Formerly part of Item NRO,

1. 5) NSIR, RES, all Regions 7 Make available "just-in-time" training and CRGR 10/31/2018 Completed references on backfitting and issue finality.

8 Add backfitting information to agency CRGR 09/18/2017 Completed knowledge management Web site.

9 Prepare a NUREG/Knowledge CRGR TBD On track Management report on the history and activities of the CRGR.

10 Create a backfitting Community of CRGR 08/31/2017 Completed Practice with office points of contact.

11 Conduct an effectiveness review of CRGR 07/27/2020 On track actions taken in response to the June 27, 2017, CRGR report.

12 Propose a revision to the charter for the CRGR 06/29/2018 Completed CRGR to reflect rulemaking criteria, incorporate recent Commission direction, 18 Following Commission direction in SRM-SECY-18-0042, dated July 26, 2019, the staff has resumed guidance development. Target completion dates will be established in the near-future.

75

Backfitting Enhancement Tasks from the June 27, 2017, CRGR Review Report Item Task Lead Due Date Status and enhance rigor of CRGR assessments.

13 Report on the availability of key docketed OCIO 02/28/2018 Completed information categories and the resources needed to make information more readily retrievable.

14 Report on the resources needed to CRGR 10/02/2017 Completed implement the actions in the July 19, 2017, EDO tasking on backfitting.

76

REACTOR INSPECTION

35. Please provide the ROP findings for year-to-date and 3-year rolling metrics, including the total number and for each region for green, white, yellow, and red findings.

In light of the decline in the number of power reactor inspection findings under the Reactor Oversight Process over the last three years, the Commission directed the staff to perform an analysis to better understand the likely causes of this trend and consider whether further action is appropriate. The staff completed this analysis and included a summary of its findings in an August 15, 2019, memorandum to the Director of NRR (ADAMS Accession No. ML19225D281).

Location # of Findings 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Nationally Total 824 821 704 560 478 160 NSIR (all regions) 18 26 19 N/A N/A N/A (Note 1)

Green 167 169 155 126 107 41 White 3 4 2 2 1 0 Yellow 0 1 0 0 0 0 RI Red 0 0 0 0 0 0 GTG Security 1 1 0 0 0 0 Total 171 175 157 128 108 41

1. OP Units 26 25 25 25 25 23 Green 148 159 151 119 113 41 White 4 1 0 3 0 1 Yellow 0 0 0 0 0 0 RII Red 0 0 0 0 0 0 GTG Security 0 0 1 2 0 0 Total 152 160 152 124 113 42

1. OP Units 32 32 33 33 33 33 Green 221 202 177 133 110 31 White 4 5 1 4 2 1 Yellow 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIII Red 0 0 0 0 0 0 GTG Security 1 1 1 0 0 0 Total 226 208 179 137 112 32

1. OP Units 23 23 23 23 23 23 Green 249 248 196 167 145 45 White 5 2 1 2 0 0 Yellow 2 1 0 0 0 0 RIV Red 0 0 0 0 0 0 GTG Security 1 1 0 2 0 0 Total 257 252 197 171 145 45

1. OP Units 19 19 19 19 18 18 NSIR: Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response GTG Security: Greater-than-green security

1. OP Units: Number of operating units 77

Note:

1. Starting in FY 2017, these finding are included in the findings for each region.

36. Please provide the percentage of Final Significance Determinations made within 90 Days for all potentially Greater-Than-Green findings, monthly for one-year rolling metrics and annually for the past 10 years.

1-Year Rolling Metric Month Percent Met August 2018 N/A September 2018 N/A October 2018 N/A November 2018 N/A December 2018 100 January 2019 N/A February 2019 N/A March 2019 N/A April 2019 50 May 2019 N/A June 2019 N/A July 2019 N/A 10-Year Annual Determinations Within 90 Days Year Percent Met 2009 100 2010 93 2011 100 2012 100 2013 100 2014 86 2015 88 2016 100 2017 93 2018 100 Comments:

This metric, reported in the NRCs CBJ, measures the time from the issuance date of the first official correspondence that describes the inspection finding, until the final significance determination letter is sent to the licensee, which is expected to be 90 days or less.

No Greater-than-Green findings were issued during this reporting period.

37. For each reporting period, please describe each instance where IMC 609 Appendix M, "Significance Determination Process Using Qualitative Criteria," has been applied in the ROP Significance Determination Process, including the justification for doing so. 19 Appendix M was not used to disposition any findings during this reporting period.

19 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

78

38. Please provide the status of potential changes to the ROP, and identify any changes that may require Commission approval prior to implementation.

Significant potential changes to the ROP include the following:

• The NRC staff assessed key components of the ROP - including the reactor assessment process and the baseline inspection program - based on feedback from both internal and external stakeholders. Recommendations for enhancing the ROP were provided to the Commission on June 28, 2019, in SECY-19-0067, Recommendations for Enhancing the Reactor Oversight Process (ADAMS Accession No. ML19070A050). In summary, the staff is seeking Commission approval of changes to the treatment of Greater-than-Green findings and performance indicators in the Action Matrix, changes to the scope and frequency of certain inspection procedures, and a revision to the Emergency Preparedness significance determination process. Additional information, as well as alternative views, are presented in the SECY paper. In August 2019, the NRC issued a FR notice (84 FR 38675) seeking comments on the potential changes to the ROP. Information received during the comment period will be provided to the Commission for consideration.

• The NRC staff has recommended changes to the engineering inspections that are intended to improve effectiveness and efficiency of the inspections (see SECY-18-0113 available at ADAMS Accession No. ML18144A567). The Commission is currently considering the staffs proposal.

39. Please describe the progress toward utilizing an industry consensus document as a means of accomplishing predictability and consistency in operability determinations.

The NRC is engaged with nuclear industry stakeholders on their efforts to develop a consensus document for operability determinations. On June 26, 2018, the NRC staff held a public meeting with nuclear industry stakeholders where they presented issues for the staffs consideration in revising IMC 0326, Operability Determinations & Functionality Assessments for Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety, to improve efficiency and regulatory predictability in operability determinations. The NRC and the industry presented their views through a series of public meetings covering six areas where the industry identified potential opportunities to enhance efficiency and regulatory predictability for operability determinations. To date, the NRC staff has held six focused public meetings and is evaluating the feedback on IMC 0326. The most recent public meeting took place on August 1, 2019. During this meeting, the NRC staff received feedback from stakeholders regarding the draft IMC. The NRC is making final changes to IMC 0326 and expects to issue the document by the end of the fiscal year.

40. For each Design Bases Assurance (DBA) Inspection (formerly known as the Component Design Basis Inspection) completed in the last three years, please list the duration, amount of fees billed, and percentage of fees used to reimburse contractors.

The fees are grouped per DBA inspection in order to allow easier review by the reader and facilitate comparison between the costs of DBA inspections performed at each site. Monthly comparison of DBA inspection fees will not provide an accurate representation of each licensees charges due to the fact that the DBA inspections span 2 months.

79

80 81 82 2018 Design Bases Assurance (DBA) Inspections Costs, Shown Alphabetically By Site

$700,000.00

$600,000.00

$500,000.00

$400,000.00 Dollars

$300,000.00 35%

36%

$200,000.00 44%

47% 48% 43%

51% 38% 57%

61% 56% 61% 54% 61% 51% 56% 56%

$100,000.00 65% 64% 9% 31%

46% 56% 45%

49% 53% 44% 52% 57%

39% 55% 44% 39% 46% 39% 49% 62% 91% 69% 44% 43%

54%

Note: EQ inspections are not included unless otherwise Site - Report Number indicated. NRC Staff Hours Cost Contractor Cost 83

2019 Design Bases Assurance Inspections (DBAIs) Costs, Shown Alphabetically By Site

$250,000

$200,000 45% 46%

52%

Total Cost per Site

$150,000 60% 60% 60%

63% 68%

61%

$100,000 Sum of Contractor Cost Sum of NRC Staff Hrs Cost 55% 54%

$50,000 48%

32% 40% 40% 40%

37% 39%

100% 100%

$0 Sites and Associated Inspection Report Numbers 84

41. Please provide the status of the holistic review of engineering inspection procedures and any actions taken and/or planned because of the review.

In late November 2018, SECY-18-0113 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18144A567) was provided to the Commission with recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the engineering inspections. Many of the recommendations contained in the Commission paper are also reflected in a staff memorandum (ADAMS Accession No. ML18103A174) that captures the recommendations of the ROP Engineering Inspection Working Group to improve the ROP engineering inspections.

NEW REACTORS

42. Please provide a table showing the funds budgeted, the resources spent, and the total Part 170 fees billed each year for the last ten years for NRO.

FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 Enacted ($M) 106.10 102.66 101.27 94.11 92.49 103.49 87.58 81.92 64.34 65.46 55.55 Expended ($M) 81.16 90.55 89.75 76.06 89.16 67.03 61.46 62.63 54.84 51.69 33.28 Part 170 Billed ($M) 75.73 71.83 60.28 60.18 59.79 60.15 55.67 46.44 22.06 Enacted: Beginning in FY 2018, the NRC eliminated the allocation of mission indirect resources in the agency's budget request to increase transparency (see NRC FY 2018 CBJ page 161 for detailed explanation). To allow for comparison of historical budget data, FY 2009 - FY 2017 are presented in a consistent manner.

Expended: Expenditures include contracts, travel and FTE utilization as of July 31, 2019. The expenditure includes both fee and non-fee recoverable costs for NRO.

Part 170 Billed: For FY 2009 - FY 2010, the data in the legacy billing system is not available at the office level. The next quarterly billing is scheduled for October 2019.

43. For each design certification, Construction and Operating License (COL), and ESP application reviewed since 2007, please provide:

a. The date of the first pre-application meeting;

b. The date the application was filed;

c. Whether the acceptance review was completed in 60 days;

d. The originally scheduled dates for completion of the SER and EIS;

e. The actual dates for completion of the SER and EIS; 85

f. For ongoing reviews, the projected date for final agency action;

g. For terminated or suspended reviews, the dates of the termination or suspension; and the total fees billed for each review.

86

Date of Original Withdrawal Acceptance Review Actual FSER Date of or Total Fees Date the Review Schedule and FEIS (or Projected First Pre- Suspension Billed for Each Project Name Application Completed Dates for EA) Date for Application Request (for Review was Filed in 60 Days FSER and Completion Final NRC Meeting terminated (Note 4)

(Note 1) FEIS (or EA) Dates Action projects Completion only)

U.S. APWR DC 05/12/2006 12/31/2007 Yes FSER: 06/2012 Application is Not N/A $78,465,420 FEIS: N/A currently Scheduled under review (Note 2)

APR1400 DC 11/05/2009 12/23/2014 Yes FSER: 09/2018 FSER: 09/2019 N/A $62,153,570 FEIS: N/A 09/28/2018 ABWR DC 02/23/2010 12/07/2010 Yes FSER: 03/2018 Application is Schedule N/A $6,670,804 Renewal (GEH) FEIS: N/A currently currently under review under review Turkey Point 02/10/2009 06/30/2009 Yes FSER: 12/2012 FSER: COLs N/A $34,790,538*

COL FEIS: 10/2012 12/2016 issued on FEIS: 04/12/2018 10/2016 Clinch River 12/14/2010 05/12/2016 No FSER: 08/2019 FSER: 10/2019 N/A $11,947,078 ESP (Note 3) FEIS: 06/2019 06/14/2019 FEIS:

04/03/2019 NuScale SMR 07/09/2008 01/06/2017 Yes FSER: 09/2020 Application is 01/2021 N/A $46,815,959 DC FEIS: N/A currently under review North Anna Information 09/25/2003 Yes FSER: 06/2005 FSER: ESP issued N/A $8,579,177 ESP not known FEIS: 06/2005 08/2006 on FEIS: 11/27/2007 12/2006 87

Date of Original Withdrawal Acceptance Review Actual FSER Date of or Total Fees Date the Review Schedule and FEIS (or Projected First Pre- Suspension Billed for Each Project Name Application Completed Dates for EA) Date for Application Request (for Review was Filed in 60 Days FSER and Completion Final NRC Meeting terminated (Note 4)

(Note 1) FEIS (or EA) Dates Action projects Completion only)

Vogtle ESP Information 08/15/2006 Yes FSER: 05/2008 FSER: ESP issued N/A $11,680,269 not known FEIS: 05/2008 02/2009 on FEIS: 08/26/2009 08/2008 South Texas Information 09/20/2007 Yes FSER: 09/2011 FSER: COL 6/22/2018 $58,469,726 Project COL not known FEIS: 03/2011 09/2015 terminated (withdrawal FEIS: on request) 02/2011 07/12/2018 Bellefonte COL Information 10/30/2007 Yes FSER: 02/2011 Application N/A 03/28/2016 $21,916,556 not known FEIS: 01/2010 withdrawn by (withdrawal the applicant request) 12/02/2016 Withdrawn North Anna Information 11/26/2007 Yes FSER: 08/2010 FSER: COLs N/A $33,032,004*

COL not known FEIS: 12/2009 01/2017 issued on FSEIS: 06/02/2017 02/2010 Lee COL Information 12/12/2007 Yes FSER: 02/2011 FSER: COLs N/A $22,778,515 not known FEIS: 03/2010 08/2016 issued on FEIS: 12/19/2016 12/2013 88

Date of Original Withdrawal Acceptance Review Actual FSER Date of or Total Fees Date the Review Schedule and FEIS (or Projected First Pre- Suspension Billed for Each Project Name Application Completed Dates for EA) Date for Application Request (for Review was Filed in 60 Days FSER and Completion Final NRC Meeting terminated (Note 4)

(Note 1) FEIS (or EA) Dates Action projects Completion only)

U.S. EPR DC 02/08/2005 12/11/2007 Yes FSER: 05/2011 Application N/A 02/25/2015 $82,585,674 FEIS: N/A review is (suspension suspended at request) the applicants request Shearon Harris Information 02/18/2008 Yes FSER: 04/2011 Application N/A 05/02/2013 $10,106,258 COL not known FEIS: 05/2010 review is (suspension suspended at request) the applicants request Vogtle COL Information 03/28/2008 Yes FSER: 12/2010 FSER: COLs N/A $29,770,625 not known FEIS: 01/2010 08/2011 issued on FEIS: 02/10/2012 04/2011 V.C. Summer Information 03/27/2008 Yes FSER: 02/2011 FSER: COLs 12/27/2017 $28,057,913 COL not known FEIS: 02/2011 08/2011 terminated (termination FEIS: on request) 04/2011 03/06/2019 Levy COL Information 07/30/2008 Yes FSER: 05/2011 FSER: COL 01/25/2018 $26,901,490*

not known FEIS: 09/2010 05/2016 terminated (termination FEIS: on request) 04/2012 04/26/2018 89

Date of Original Withdrawal Acceptance Review Actual FSER Date of or Total Fees Date the Review Schedule and FEIS (or Projected First Pre- Suspension Billed for Each Project Name Application Completed Dates for EA) Date for Application Request (for Review was Filed in 60 Days FSER and Completion Final NRC Meeting terminated (Note 4)

(Note 1) FEIS (or EA) Dates Action projects Completion only)

Fermi COL Information 09/18/2008 Yes FSER: 03/2012 FSER: COL issued N/A $25,704,722*

not known FEIS: 08/2011 11/2014 on FEIS: 05/01/2015 01/2013 Comanche Information 09/18/2008 Yes FSER: 12/2011 FSER: N/A N/A 11/07/2013 $23,278,377 Peak COL not known FEIS: 01/2011 FEIS: (suspension 05/2011 request)

Application review is suspended at the applicants request River Bend Information 09/25/2008 Yes A review Application N/A 01/09/2009 $1,350,316 COL not known schedule was withdrawn by (suspension not developed the applicant request) for this application 12/04/2015 (withdrawal request)

Callaway COL Information 07/24/2008 No A review Application N/A 06/23/2009 $4,066,138 not known schedule was withdrawn by (suspension not developed the applicant request) for this application 08/12/2015 (withdrawal request) 90

Date of Original Withdrawal Acceptance Review Actual FSER Date of or Total Fees Date the Review Schedule and FEIS (or Projected First Pre- Suspension Billed for Each Project Name Application Completed Dates for EA) Date for Application Request (for Review was Filed in 60 Days FSER and Completion Final NRC Meeting terminated (Note 4)

(Note 1) FEIS (or EA) Dates Action projects Completion only)

Bell Bend COL Information 10/10/2008 Yes FSER: 03/2012 FSER: N/A N/A 02/25/2015 $20,026,574 not known FEIS: 03/2011 FEIS: (suspension 04/2016 request)

Application withdrawn by 08/30/2016 the applicant (withdrawal request)

PSEG ESP Information 05/25/2010 Yes FSER: 07/2013 FSER: ESP issued N/A $17,917,093 not known FEIS: 03/2013 09/2015 on FEIS: 05/05/2016 11/2015 ABWR DC Information 10/27/2010 Yes A review Application N/A 06/09/2016 $686,911 Renewal not known schedule was withdrawn by (withdrawal (Toshiba) not developed the applicant request) for this application Victoria County Information 03/25/2010 Yes FSER: 04/2013 Application N/A 08/28/2012 $6,146,248 ESP not known FEIS: 08/2013 withdrawn by (withdrawal the applicant request)

Calvert Cliffs Information 07/13/2007 No FSER: 07/2012 FSER: N/A N/A 02/27/2015 $31,400,772 COL not known (Part 1 of FEIS: 03/2010 FEIS: (suspension application) 05/2011 request)

Application 03/14/2008 Yes withdrawn by 06/08/2015 (Part 2 of the applicant (withdrawal application) request) 91

Date of Original Withdrawal Acceptance Review Actual FSER Date of or Total Fees Date the Review Schedule and FEIS (or Projected First Pre- Suspension Billed for Each Project Name Application Completed Dates for EA) Date for Application Request (for Review was Filed in 60 Days FSER and Completion Final NRC Meeting terminated (Note 4)

(Note 1) FEIS (or EA) Dates Action projects Completion only)

Nine Mile Point Information 09/30/2008 Yes A review Application N/A 12/01/2009 $2,687,822 COL not known schedule was withdrawn by (suspension not developed the applicant request) for this 11/26/2013 application (withdrawal request)

Grand Gulf Information 02/27/2008 Yes FSER: 03/2011 Application N/A 02/09/2015 $4,719,505 COL not known FEIS: 05/2010 withdrawn by (withdrawal the applicant request)

Grand Gulf ESP Information 10/21/2003 Yes FSER: 10/2005 FSER: ESP issued N/A $5,352,875 not known FEIS: 10/2005 10/2005 on FEIS: 04/05/2007 04/2006 Clinton ESP Information 09/25/2003 Yes FSER: 08/2005 FSER: ESP issued N/A $5,186,587 not known FEIS: 08/2005 02/2006 on FEIS: 03/15/2007 07/2006 AP1000 DC Information 05/26/2007 Yes FSER: 08/2010 FSER: Final Rule N/A $33,036,394 Amendment not known FEIS: N/A 08/2011 published FEIS: N/A on 12/30/2011 Economic 6/20-21/2002 08/24/2005 No FSER: 06/2009 FSER: Final Rule N/A $68,153,802 Simplified FEIS: N/A 03/2011 published Boiling Water Supplement on Reactor DC FSER: 10/15/2014 09/2014 FEIS: N/A 92

Date of Original Withdrawal Acceptance Review Actual FSER Date of or Total Fees Date the Review Schedule and FEIS (or Projected First Pre- Suspension Billed for Each Project Name Application Completed Dates for EA) Date for Application Request (for Review was Filed in 60 Days FSER and Completion Final NRC Meeting terminated (Note 4)

(Note 1) FEIS (or EA) Dates Action projects Completion only)

ABWR DC Information 06/30/2009 Yes FSER: 04/2010 FSER: Final Rule N/A $1,145,852 Amendment not known FEIS: N/A 10/2010 published FEIS: N/A on 12/16/2011 Victoria County Information 09/03/2008 Yes A review Application N/A 06/11/2010 $1,493,183 COL not known schedule was withdrawn by (withdrawal not developed the applicant request) for this application

• Reflects refund for erroneous charges related to contested hearings Note 1: NROs acceptance review metric is to complete the acceptance review within 60 days and to issue a letter to the applicant documenting the staffs findings on acceptability within 75 days.

Note 2: The NRC is performing the review of the US APWR at a very reduced pace at the request of the applicant and will continue at this pace until notified by the applicant of a change in its plans. Therefore, no completion date has been established.

Note 3: The acceptance review for the Clinch River ESP application was extended at the request of the applicant, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), by letter dated August 19, 2016.

Note 4: The NRCs 10 CFR Part 170 charges are billed on a quarterly basis. Therefore, updates will be provided in this report to Question 43.h during the reporting periods for January, April, July, and October.

93

44. Please provide a concise summary of the status of ongoing design certification, COL, and ESP application reviews. Please include a discussion of the issuance of RAls and receipt of responses.

In addition to the updates provided here, each of the DC, COL, and ESP milestone schedules that are under review are publicly available on the NRC Web site.

DC Applications The NRC employs a 6 Phase schedule to monitor progress towards completion of the safety review. These phases are:

• Phase 1 - Preliminary SER with RAIs issued to applicant

• Phase 2 - SER with Open Items issued

• Phase 3 - Response to ACRS regarding SER with Open Items issued

• Phase 4 - Advanced SER with no Open Items issued

• Phase 5 - Response to ACRS regarding SER with no Open Items issued

• Phase 6 - Final SER issued US-APWR Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) submitted its US-APWR DC application on December 31, 2007. The staff is currently in Phase 2 of the review. By letter dated November 5, 2013, MHI initiated a coordinated slowdown of NRC licensing activities in order to focus its resources towards supporting the restart of the Mitsubishi-designed reactors in Japan following the Fukushima event. The NRC staff has been performing the review of the US-APWR DC application at a reduced pace and is making progress on the Phase 4 review for six DC chapters. As of July 31, 2019, the staff has issued 5,683 RAIs and the applicant has responded to 5,534 of them.

NuScale On January 6, 2017, NuScale submitted the first SMR DC application for review by the NRC.

On March 15, 2017, the NRC completed its acceptance review and docketed the application.

The staff then issued the acceptance review letter to NuScale on March 23, 2017, and developed a full review schedule with public milestones that was transmitted to NuScale on May 22, 2017. On April 11, 2018, the staff completed Phase 1 of the review. The staff closed Phases 2 and 3 of the review on July 12, 2019, and noted that, due to some unresolved issues, the SERs for Chapters 15 and 20 will remain preliminary and a final Phase 2 SER will not be issued. Any remaining issues and associated open items will be resolved before completion of Phase 4 (Advanced SER with No Open Items). The staffs review is currently in Phase 4. The staff identified 29 challenging issues. Sixteen of these issues have been resolved to date. Of the remaining 13 issues, ten have a clear path forward toward resolution. For the remaining issues, a path forward for resolution is being developed. On May 16, 2019, the NRC staff issued a letter to NuScale communicating the status of Phase 2 of the DC application review.

This letter is a follow up to the January 17, 2019, DC application review status letter.

Specifically, the May letter conveyed that the NRC staff has met the Phase 2 public milestone for most of the 21 DC application chapters through the completion and issuance of SEs with open items and has completed Phase 3 actions for many of these chapters with presentations made to the ACRS. The letter also stated that the staff has not met the Phase 2 milestone of May 16, 2019, because several issues remain unresolved without a mutually understood and 94

clearly defined path toward resolution. The letter further emphasized that to meet the overall 42-month schedule for review, NuScale must resolve the remaining issues with the NRC staff and the open items identified in the completed Phase 2 SEs to meet the December 12, 2019, Phase 4 milestone for completion of an Advanced SER with no open items. As of July 31, 2019, the staff has issued 521 RAIs, which included 1,324 questions and the applicant has responded to 1,311 of these questions. Of the 521 RAIs issued, 332 RAIs (~64%) are now closed. As of July 31, 2019, NuScale has responded to approximately 69 percent of RAI questions within the 60 days agreed to in the staffs May 22, 2017, schedule letter for the design certification review.

DC Renewal Applications ABWR Renewal GEH On December 7, 2010, GEH submitted an application for renewal of the ABWR DC. The NRC staff issued a letter to GEH on July 20, 2012, describing 28 design changes that GEH should have included in the application. By letter dated September 17, 2012, GEH stated it planned to address the 28 items in its Revision 6 of the ABWR DCD. By letter dated February 19, 2016, GEH submitted its revised application incorporating the changes to the ABWR DCD. On August 30, 2016, the staff issued a schedule letter to GEH based on resolving all open items by January 2017. However, some open items associated with the review of the application remain unresolved. On August 3, 2017, the staff issued a letter to GEH stating that the NRC will not be able to meet the original schedule outlined in the August 30, 2016, letter due to unresolved issues with the application. The letter also stated that the NRC will issue a revised schedule letter to GEH after additional interactions with the applicant are held to resolve these issues and the staff receives complete responses to the NRCs RAIs. In a letter dated January 21, 2019, GEH provided the NRC staff with the final RAI response regarding the peak cladding temperature issue. As of July 31, 2019, the staff has issued 37 RAIs and the applicant has responded to all of them. GEH has addressed all the previous open items and the staff completed the Advanced Final SER (Phase B) on June 28, 2019. The ACRS subcommittee meeting (Phase C) has been scheduled for August 23, 2019, with an ACRS Full Committee meeting to be held in October 2019. In a letter dated May 31, 2019, the NRC staff projected the completion of the ABWR DC Renewal FSER by the end of March 2020.

ESP Applications The NRC employs a 4 Phase schedule to monitor the progress towards completion of the safety review. These phases are:

• Phase A - Preliminary SER and RAIs issued to the applicant

• Phase B - Advanced SER with No Open Items Developed

• Phase C - ACRS meeting on Advanced SER

• Phase D - Final SER issued The NRC also employs a 4 Phase schedule to monitor completion of the EIS. These phases are:

• Phase 1 - Scoping Summary Report issued

• Phase 2 - Draft EIS issued to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• Phase 3 - Responses to draft DEIS comments completed

• Phase 4 - Final EIS issued to EPA 95

Clinch River On May 12, 2016, TVA submitted an ESP application for the Clinch River Nuclear Site located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. By letter dated August 11, 2016, TVA identified certain aspects of the application for which it intended to provide supplemental information. The NRC responded to TVA in a letter dated August 19, 2016, and informed TVA that its application would remain in a tendered but not docketed status until all of the supplemental information was provided to NRC. By December 15, 2016, TVA had provided the supplemental information in support of its application, and by letter dated January 5, 2017, the NRC staff informed TVA that its application, as supplemented, was acceptable for docketing and detailed technical review.

The NRC staff began its detailed technical review of the ESP application in January 2017 and developed a full review schedule with public milestones that was transmitted to TVA on March 17, 2017. The Phase A safety review for all chapters of the application was completed by the staff on August 4, 2017. The staff completed Phase B of its review on October 17, 2018.

On December 6, 2018, the NRC staff completed safety public milestone, Phase C - ACRS Review and Meetings on Advanced SEs. As of July 31, 2019, the staff had issued 50 safety-related RAI questions and the applicant had responded to all 50 RAI questions. The final SER was issued on June 14, 2019. For the environmental review, NRC staff completed Phase 1 of the review on October 30, 2017. Additionally, the NRC staff completed Phase 2 by issuing the draft EIS on April 27, 2018. The public comment period for the draft EIS closed on July 13, 2018. Based on one of the comments received from the applicant, the staff issued one environmental RAI question in September 2018, and the applicant responded to the RAI in October 2018. The final EIS was issued on April 3, 2019..

On June 12, 2017, the SACE, Tennessee Environmental Coalition (TEC), and Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League filed petitions seeking a hearing. The ASLB denied the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Leagues petition to intervene and granted the SACE/TEC joint petition to intervene and admitted two contentions. Separately, TVA appealed the admission of the two contentions to the Commission, and the Commission upheld the admission of one contention and dismissed the other. In April 2018, the staff published its draft EIS two months ahead of the public milestone. On May 21, 2018, SACE/TEC submitted two new contentions on the draft EIS. On July 31, 2018, the ASLB issued a memorandum and order (LBP-18-04) denying the Intervenors motion for leave to file new contentions, granted TVAs and the NRC Staffs Motions to dismiss the remaining admitted contention, and terminated the contested proceeding. The Boards decision was not appealed. The Commission conducted the mandatory hearing for the Clinch River ESP application on August 14, 2019.

45. For reactors under construction, please provide:

Project Name Project Type Licensing Status Vogtle Unit 3 COL Holder COL issued on 02/10/2012 Vogtle Unit 4 COL Holder COL issued on 02/10/2012

a. The number of NRC inspections and ITAAC reviews forecast to be completed per month versus the number completed each month; 96

NRC Inspections ITAAC Inspections:

ITAAC Inspections Completion Status 8

ITAAC Inspections Completed 7

ITAAC Inspections Not Complete 6 for ICNs Submitted 5

Total Number 4

4 3 3 3

2 1

0 0 0 0

May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Comments:

The graph above tracks, by month, the number of ITAAC inspections completed and the number of ITAAC inspections not completed for ITAAC Closure Notifications (ICNs) that had been received. For each ITAAC, there are predetermined inspections to be completed in order to provide assurance that the licensee has met the design commitments and that the ITAAC acceptance criteria are met. An ITAAC inspection is comprised of multiple inspection activities that may be performed over days, weeks, or months.

For this graph, the term ITAAC Inspections Completed means that all the associated NRC inspection activities tied to that ITAAC have been completed, verified, and marked Inspection Complete in the NRC database. The term ITAAC Inspections Not Complete for ICNs Submitted represents the number of ITAACs for which the completed box in the NRC database has not been checked for ICNs that had been submitted by the licensee.

Because of the coordination between the NRCs inspections and the licensees construction activities, the majority of the required inspections are scheduled and completed prior to the ICN submittal. The completion of these ITAAC-related inspections closely mirrors the completion status of the licensees (Southern Nuclear Operating Company) associated work activities.

Changes to the licensees construction schedule due to weather conditions, work sequencing, and other factors impact when NRC inspections can be performed.

97

ITAAC Closure Notifications Reviews:

The NRCs goal is to complete 90 percent of ICN reviews within 60 days. However, some ICN reviews may be completed in significantly less time. Conversely, complex ICN reviews may require more than 60 days to complete. For this reason, it is difficult for the NRC to forecast in which month a specific ICN review will be completed based on its submittal date. Therefore, the NRC relies on the metrics reported in its response to question 45.b.

b. The percentage of NRC inspections and the percentage of ITAAC reviews completed within 30 days and within two months; New Reactor Inspection Status:

AP1000 Construction Inspection Completion Progress 50%

44.3% 45.2% 45.4%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20.8 20.8% 20.8%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Vogtle 3 & 4 Program Inspections Completed Vogtle 3 & 4 ITAAC Inspections Completed Comments:

This graph represents the percentage of NRC inspections associated with ITAAC that have been completed with respect to the total number of inspections required for the Vogtle facility. Planned inspection activities are evaluated and updated to ensure they align with licensees work activities.

For this graph, the term ITAAC Inspections Completed means a specific inspection activity/plan is completed, verified, and approved in the NRC database. Monthly, this number of completed ITAAC inspection activities is compared to the total number of all the required ITAAC inspection activities/plans for the Vogtle Units 3 and 4 ITAAC inspection program.

Once all the associated ITAAC inspection activities are completed, verified, and approved, then Inspection Complete is marked in the NRC database. This information is presented earlier in Graph 45.a.

98

This graph also reports Program Inspections Completed since the start of construction for the Vogtle facility, which include both programs required for construction and operation of Units 3 and 4. There are a total of five construction programs, which include Quality Assurance, Fitness for Duty, and ITAAC Management. In addition, there are a total of 20 operational programs, which include Fire Protection, Emergency Preparedness, Reactor Operator Training, and Security. The graph depicts the percentage of planned inspections that are completed and does not account for the level of effort required for inspections.

At this time, the work surrounding development of the construction ITAAC inspection plans has been completed. Development of the initial test program inspection plans has also been completed and the operational program inspection plans are complete for those activities currently being inspected. The remaining operational program inspection plans will be completed over the next several months. Region II, Division of Construction Oversight, will continue to revisit the inspection plans and associated processes, with respect to changes in Southern Nuclear Operating Companys construction schedule and licensing requirements, to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the inspection plans and to maintain readiness.

Timeliness of ITAAC Closure Notification Reviews:

Comments:

This bar chart shows the percentage of ICN reviews completed each month within 30 days and within 60 days. There were three ICN reviews, received in late June that carried over into July 2019. These were completed in July 2019 and are reflected in this bar chart.

c. For ITAAC reviews completed during the reporting period, please provide the date when the NRC received the ITAAC closure notice and the date when the review was completed.

For the current reporting period of July 2019, three ICNs were received late in June 2019 and these reviews were completed along with the three ICNs for July 2019.

99

Approval Review Month Unit ITAAC Received Date Under 60 Days Date July 2019 VOG4 2.2.03.08d 7/25/2019 7/30/2019 VOG3 2.3.03.02 07/22/2019 7/24/2019 VOG3 3.3.00.06b 7/15/2019 7/17/2019 VOG4 2.3.09.03.iii 6/26/2019 7/8/2019 VOG4 2.2.03.08c.v.01 6/26/2019 7/3/2019 VOG3 2.3.05.03a.ii 6/28/2019 7/3/2019

46. For reactors under construction, please provide:

a. The number of license amendment reviews forecast to be completed in the reporting period;

b. The number completed in the reporting period; and

c. The number of those that were completed within 30 days.

Number of License Amendment Reviews Number of Those that Reporting Number Completed in the Forecast to be were Completed Period Reporting Period Completed in the within 30 Days Reporting Period July 2019 0 0 0

47. For reactors under construction, please provide the budgeted resources versus actual expenditures each month for the last 24 months.

The NRC does not formulate the budget on a monthly basis. The annual budget for construction resources is provided below. The monthly budgeted resources provided below are calculated as 1/12th of the annual budgeted construction resources.

FY 2017 Enacted Budget ($K) $14,191 FY 2018 Enacted Budget ($K) $10,467 FY 2019 Enacted Budget ($K) $10,203 Budgeted Resources Total Expended Month

($K) ($K)

Aug-2017 $1,183 $886 Sept-2017 $1,183 $808 Oct-2017 $872 $753 Nov-2017 $872 $763 Dec-2017 $872 $623 Jan-2018 $872 $770 Feb-2018 $872 $767 100

FY 2017 Enacted Budget ($K) $14,191 FY 2018 Enacted Budget ($K) $10,467 FY 2019 Enacted Budget ($K) $10,203 Budgeted Resources Total Expended Month

($K) ($K)

Mar-2018 $872 $879 Apr-2018 $872 $895 May-2018 $872 $858 June-2018 $872 $788 July-2018 $872 $776 Aug-2018 $872 $884 Sept-2018 $872 $678 Oct-2018 $850 $785 Nov-2018 $850 $765 Dec-2018 $850 $736 Jan-2019 $850 $700 Feb-2019 $850 $684 Mar-2019 $850 $639 Apr-2019 $850 $716 May-2019 $850 $727 June-2019 $850 $532 July-2019 $850 $745

48. Please provide a concise summary of the status of licensing and inspection for Vogtle 3 &

4, including any challenges to the timely resolution of: licensing issues, 10 CFR Part 52 interpretations, completion of inspections, or completion of ITAAC reviews.20 The NRC issued COLs to SNC and several co-owners on February 10, 2012, for two AP1000 units at the Vogtle site near Augusta, GA. As construction progresses, the NRC has increased the pace of construction inspections to verify compliance with the agencys regulations and to ensure that the new plants are constructed in accordance with their COLs. A summary of the license amendment inventory for Vogtle 3 & 4 is included in response to question 13. There are currently no challenges with timely resolution of licensing issues for Vogtle 3 & 4.

The graphs provided in Item 45 of this report represent the completion status of ITAAC inspections and ICN reviews. The completion of these ITAAC-related inspections closely mirrors the completion status of the licensees work activities associated with the ITAAC. The graphs also display the percentage of completed program inspections, which are separate from the ITAAC-related inspections, and include both construction and operational programs. For ITAAC reviews, the NRC tracks the timeliness of ICNs reviewed and closed. In the past year the NRC has increased communication with the licensee and other external stakeholders through various public meetings and workshops to improve processes that support ICN closure, including inspection related activities. The NRC is implementing an integrated project plan that overlays key NRC activities on top of the licensees construction and start-up schedule. In addition, the Vogtle Readiness Group (VRG) was created to provide division-level management 20 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

101

attention to the timely implementation of the integrated project plan. NRC management is in regular contact with the VRG and the licensee to ensure effective communication and the timely resolution of issues.

Additionally, NRC has established metrics to represent the different aspects of the ICN review process and the inspection program. The metrics track performance, reinforce accountability, and communicate issues needing attention at the appropriate management levels. These metrics enhance early engagement of NRC management and are key internal and external communications tools. With the improvements identified to the processes and increased communication with the licensee, the staff does not foresee any major challenges in 2019.

49. Please describe any actions taken in the past 3 years or planned to improve the efficiency of new plant reviews, including milestone schedules to implement efficiency improvements.

Please include any concerns arising from review experience in the past 3 years.21 The NRC proactively identifies ways to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of its new reactor reviews. For oversight of licensing activities at the Vogtle site, NRO senior managers have established quarterly meetings with the licensee executives to monitor progress of licensing activities supporting construction at the site. The Licensing Action Review Meetings provide an opportunity for both the NRC and SNC to be strategic in identifying and resolving topics that are needed to support construction.

Similarly, for the NuScale review, the NRC senior managers meet with NuScale executives quarterly. These meetings provide executives from both organizations the opportunity to discuss progress on known review challenges, to identify emerging issues, and to establish timelines for resolving these emerging issues to keep the project review on schedule.

Starting in mid-2017, the NRO management team developed and implemented new internal metrics to better track the timeliness related to the review of LARs supporting Vogtle licensing efforts. These metrics have identified license amendments that have been under lengthy reviews and have focused managements attention on the actions necessary to complete these reviews. The management and project managers meet biweekly to identify amendment requests that may require elevated management attention and to track the progress of license amendments, with particular attention to amendment requests that have been in review for 120 days or longer. NRO management has set an internal goal of completing all license amendment reviews within 180 days of their acceptance. With additional management attention and better use of pre-application meetings, NRO has been able to improve the timeliness of reviews.

NRO has also incorporated many of the lessons-learned from previous new reactor reviews into its review activities for the active DC and ESP applications. As discussed in response to question 24, NRO implemented an initiative in 2018 to improve the quality and safety focus of RAIs. The staff is also enhancing use of the regulatory audit tool.

NRO has instituted an Enhanced Safety Focus Review initiative for the NuScale design certification review. This initiative focuses the staffs review on first-of-a-kind or high safety, high risk areas of the design, and simplifies the review of lower safety or risk significant areas.

21 No new information was added to this section since the last report.

102

In addition, the NRC has made significant progress on initiatives to enhance the regulatory framework for non-LWRs. For example, in December 2017, the NRC issued the Regulatory Review Roadmap for Non-Light Water Reactors, which described flexible review options including the use of a staged-review process and the use of conceptual design assessments during the pre-application period. The actions for advanced reactor reviews are described more fully in response to question 52.

50. Please provide a list of any unresolved policy issues with regard to the licensing of SMRs.

Please include an approximate date for when each issue was first raised, any actions taken or planned to resolve the issue, the milestone scheduled for resolution, and the projected date for resolution.

Issue Title/Applicability Status References I. Appropriate Source In the December 29, 2011, memorandum to the Staff White Term, Dose Commission, the staff stated it would remain Paper Calculations, and engaged with SMR stakeholders regarding (06/13/19)

Siting for SMRs applications of mechanistic source term (MST) methods, review of pre-application white papers Staff Draft Applicability: SMRs and and topical reports it receives from potential White Paper non-LWRs SMR applicants concerning source term issues (11/29/17) that discuss design-specific proposals to address MST, and considerations of research SECY-16-0012 and development in this area. If necessary, the (02/07/16) staff would propose revised review guidance or regulations, or propose new guidance to support Commission reviews of SMRs. Memo (06/20/14)

In Commission memoranda dated May 30, 2013, and June 20, 2014, the staff provided Commission updates on interactions with DOE and nuclear Memo industry organizations regarding MST. On (05/30/13)

February 7, 2016, the staff provided the Commission SECY-16-0012, which addressed Commission this item. The paper concluded that (1) SMR Memo and non-LWR applicants can employ modern (12/29/11) analysis tools to demonstrate quantitatively the safety features of those designs, and (2) MST analysis methods can also be used by applicants to demonstrate the ability of the enhanced safety features of plant designs to mitigate accident releases, allow future COL applicants to consider reduced distances to Exclusion Area Boundaries and Low Population Zones and potentially increase proximity to population centers.

Disposition: The staff continues to engage with interested stakeholders on this issue. The staff developed a draft white paper summarizing the assessment of current siting regulations, guidance, and Commission policy and 103

Issue Title/Applicability Status References discussed it in a public meeting on December 14, 2017. During a May 3, 2018, public meeting, NEI provided feedback on this topic on behalf of the nuclear industry. The NEI stated their position that RG 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, should be updated to scale the population density guidance based on the smaller source term and lower probability of release anticipated for SMRs and advanced reactors. In June 2019, Oak Ridge National Laboratory completed a technical report, ORNL/TM-2019/1197, Advanced Reactor Siting Policy Considerations, identifying potential alternative siting criteria for SMRs and non-LWRs recognizing the possible reduced offsite releases for advanced reactor designs. The report provided insights to inform the staffs plans to develop additional regulatory guidance for SMR and non-LWR siting. On June 13, 2019, the staff released a second draft white paper, Population-Related Siting Considerations for Advanced Reactors, to facilitate stakeholder discussions at a public meeting that was held on June 27, 2019. The staff discussed the white paper with the ACRS subcommittee on August 23, 2019, and plans to discuss it with the ACRS Full Committee in September 2019. The staff will then report to the Commission on any proposed actions.

II. Offsite Emergency In SECY-11-0152, the staff identified a possible SECY-18-0103 Planning (EP) approach for a scalable EP zone for SMRs. The (10/12/18)

Requirements for NRO staff is working with NSIR and NRR on an SMRs and other new internal working group to review these issues Final technology. further. As part of the approach, the staff would Regulatory liaise with other stakeholders (Department of Basis Applicability: SMRs and Homeland Security/Federal Emergency (10/16/17) non-LWRs Management Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of State, SRM-SECY Department of Commerce, NEI, American 0069 (06/22/16)

Nuclear Society (ANS), and the public), consider NEI position papers on this topic and develop SECY-16-0069 recommendations. (05/31/16)

In a May 30, 2013, Commission memorandum, SRM-SECY the staff provided updates on its EP activities. 0077 (08/04/15)

The staff stated that it would not propose new SECY-15-0077 policy or revise guidance for specific changes to (05/29/15)

EP requirements absent specific proposals from industry stakeholders.

104

Issue Title/Applicability Status References NEI Response On December 23, 2013, NEI submitted a white to NRC paper on this topic. The staff conducted a public Questions on meeting to discuss the white paper on White Paper April 8, 2014, issued follow-up questions to NEI (11/19/14) on June 11, 2014, and received NEI responses in November 2014. On May 29, 2015, the staff NRC Letter to issued SECY-15-0077 regarding EP for SMRs NEI (R. Bell) and non-LWRs. On August 4, 2015, the (06/11/14)

Commission approved the staff's NEI White Paper recommendation to initiate a rulemaking. The (12/23/13) staff developed SECY-16-0069, which discussed the rulemaking plan and schedule. Commission On June 22, 2016, the Commission approved Memo the staff's plan and schedule for the rulemaking. (05/30/13)

Disposition: The rulemaking will address EP SECY-11-0152 issues for future SMRs and other new (10/28/11) technologies, including non-LWRs, and medical radioisotope production facilities. The Commission directed the staff to utilize exemptions in the interim (e.g., for the TVA ESP) until completion of the EP rulemaking.

The draft regulatory basis was published for public comment in the FR on April 13, 2017. A public meeting was held May 10, 2017, to discuss the draft regulatory basis. The public comment period closed on June 27, 2017. After considering the public comments, the staff issued the final regulatory basis on October 16, 2017. The staff discussed this rulemaking during a June 14, 2018, stakeholder meeting.

The staff released the draft proposed rule language on August 1, 2018, (ADAMS Accession No. ML18213A264) to support ACRS briefings on August 22 and October 4, 2018.

The proposed rule was provided to the Commission for its consideration in SECY 0103 on October 12, 2018.

III. Insurance and In SECY-11-0178, the staff identified a potential SECY-11-0178 Liability for SMRs inequity between the insurance requirements for (12/22/11) facilities with power reactors that produce Applicability: SMRs and electrical power equal or greater than 100 MWe non-LWRs per unit and multi-module facilities with SMR designs that individually produce less than 100 MWe, but, in combination, produce more than 100 MWe. Specifically, the staff raised the question of whether, under the current Price-Anderson Act and associated regulatory language, insurance and indemnity coverage 105

Issue Title/Applicability Status References would be sufficient to pay all public claims in the case of an insurable event at a multi-module facility where an individual module is sized at less than 100 MWe.

Since completing that paper, the staff prepared a comparative analysis of different SMR designs to further explore the potential inequity. The staff is also evaluating the differences in potential consequences for postulated accidents for non-LWR designs in relation to insurance and liability requirements. The staff is using these analyses, and other inputs, to identify whether to recommend any changes to the Price-Anderson Act for SMRs and non-LWRs.

Disposition: In accordance with the latest version of the Price-Anderson Act, the NRC will prepare a report to Congress, and an associated SECY paper, for the Commissions consideration, recommending the need for continuation or modification of the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act by December 31, 2021.

This report and SECY paper will address any changes that the staff recommends for non-LWRs and SMRs.

The staff engaged stakeholders on this topic during a November 2, 2017, public meeting and the staff will continue to keep stakeholders informed as the report to Congress is prepared.

IV. Security and On December 14, 2016, NEI submitted a white Regulatory Safeguards paper on a "Proposed Consequence-Based Basis Requirements for Physical Security Framework for Small Modular (07/16/2019)

SMRs Reactors and Other New Technologies." This paper "... proposes an approach to security that Applicability: SMRs and considers the enhanced safety and security SRM-SECY non-LWRs incorporated into these designs and provides a 0076 more effective and efficient means to protect the (11/20/18) public health and safety." In the transmittal letter, NEI requests that "... the NRC establish regulatory positions on this approach and the SECY-18-0076 associated policy and technical issues." (08/01/18)

Disposition: The NRC met with NEI on May 3, 2017, to discuss the review of their submittal. Staff Draft The NRC provided feedback on NEIs white White Paper paper in July 2017 and met with NEI again on (11/29/17)

October 12, 2017. The staff prepared a draft white paper to facilitate stakeholder interactions.

The staff discussed this white paper with NEI 106

Issue Title/Applicability Status References and other stakeholders on December 13, 2017. NEI White The staff considered stakeholder input and Paper prepared SECY-18-0076, Options for Physical (12/14/16)

Security for Light-Water Small Modular Reactors and Non-Light-Water Reactors, which was sent to the Commission on August 1, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Commission directed the staff to initiate a limited-scope revision to regulations and guidance related to physical security for advanced reactors and approved, subject to edits, a related rulemaking plan.

During a December 13, 2018, Advanced Reactor Stakeholder meeting, participants discussed the scope of potential changes to physical security requirements. The staff prepared a regulatory basis, which was published on July 16, 2019 in the FR, for public comment. The staff discussed the regulatory basis with stakeholders during an August 8, 2019, public meeting and will consider comments on the regulatory basis as it prepares the draft proposed rule.

51. Please provide a list of any unresolved policy issues with regard to the licensing of advanced non-LWRs. Please include an approximate date for when each issue was first raised, any actions taken or planned to resolve the issue, the milestone schedule, and the projected date for resolution.

See response to question 50. All of the SMR policy issues listed in that response are also applicable to non-light-water designs. In addition, there was one non-light-water-reactor specific issue that was previously included on that list, functional containment performance, which has now been resolved with the Commissions approval of the staff proposal in SECY-18-0096, Functional Containment Performance Criteria for Non-Light-Water-Reactors.

52. Please describe the status of preparations to review non-LWR applications including a milestone schedule and completion dates.

The agency has developed a vision and strategy to assure NRC readiness to conduct its mission for these technologies effectively and efficiently as described in NRC Vision and Strategy: Safely Achieving Effective and Efficient Non-Light-Water Reactor Mission Readiness, which was published in the FR on July 21, 2016, for stakeholder input. The NRC updated this document (ADAMS Accession No. ML16356A670) to reflect stakeholder feedback and made it publicly available in December of 2016.

The NRCs non-LWR vision and strategy has three strategic objectivesenhancing technical readiness, optimizing regulatory readiness, and optimizing communication. The NRC has developed IAPs to identify the specific activities the NRC will conduct in the near-term (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years), and long-term (beyond 10 years) timeframes to achieve non-LWR readiness. In the fall of 2016, the NRC released its draft near-term IAPs to obtain stakeholder feedback. The staff also developed draft mid- and long-term IAPs, which were 107

released to the public in February of 2017. The staff updated its IAPs to reflect stakeholder feedback in July of 2017 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML17165A069 and ML17164A173).

The staff issued SECY-19-0009, "Advanced Reactor Program Status" (ADAMS Accession No. ML18346A075) on January 17, 2019. This paper provides the status of the NRC staff's activities related to advanced reactors, including the progress and path forward on each of the IAP strategies. It also provides an overview of the various external factors influencing the staff's activities to prepare for possible licensing and deployment of advanced reactors.

There are 6 individual strategies addressed in the near-term IAPs. These strategies, and the activities in support of each strategy, are discussed below.

Strategy Activities in support of the strategy

1) Acquire/develop sufficient

• NRC contracted with the Oak Ridge National knowledge, technical Laboratory to develop a 12-module training course on skills, and capacity to Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs). The course provided perform non-LWR background on various MSR concepts presently under regulatory activities development, including history of earlier MSR projects, descriptions of conceptual designs, and expected technical and regulatory challenges. About 90 NRC staff attended the training along with several DOE staff in three separate 2-day sessions in May, August, and November 2017. Additional training on sodium-cooled fast reactors was held on March 26-27, 2019, and additional training on high-temperature gas-cooled reactors was held on July 16-17, 2019. The NRC staff also contracted with Brookhaven National Laboratory to prepare a report on the NRC Regulatory History of Non-Light Water Reactors, which will be finalized this year. This report will serve as a knowledge management and training tool for NRC staff on non-LWR licensing and policy issues.

• NRC developed models of the competencies required for reviewing advanced reactor designs. Project managers and technical reviewers in NRO have assessed their skills against the models. Supervisors are in the process of completing an independent assessment of their employees skills. Based on assessment results, any skill gaps that may exist can be identified and the system will help the employee identify developmental activities and create an individual development plan to close those gaps.

2) Acquire/develop sufficient

• The staff attended DOE and NRC-sponsored computer codes and tools workshops and technology working groups, sought to perform non-LWR additional information through pre-application regulatory reviews interactions, and focused its training efforts to better understand the reactor systems under development.

In the near-term, these efforts are focused on the following areas: Reactor Kinetics and Criticality, Fuel 108

Strategy Activities in support of the strategy Performance, Thermal-Fluid Phenomena, Severe Accident Phenomena, Offsite Consequence Analysis, Materials and Component Integrity, and PRA.

• An initial screening of analysis codes for design-basis and beyond-design-basis event simulation was completed, and a suite of tools for further examination and consideration has been identified. The code suite comprises both NRC-developed and DOE-developed codes. Future efforts will evaluate codes in the code suite against analysis requirements.

• A PIRT exercise was conducted for molten salt reactors. The PIRT focused attention on fuel salt MSRs due to their novel and unique feature of fuel being part of the coolant. The PIRT is considered preliminary in that design specifics are not available, but it is useful in that several phenomena requiring simulation could be identified based on existing information.

• The staff completed a PRA report that summarizes previous work and issues for non-LWRs and identifies several policy decisions that may need to be made for non-LWRs.

• On August 21, 2018, DOE briefed the ACRS on advanced computer models for reactor safety applications including models under development for non-LWRs. A follow-up ACRS briefing was held November 16, 2018, where the NRC staff briefed the ACRS on the role of confirmatory calculations in regulatory decisionmaking, and non-LWR developers discussed their plans for modeling and simulation tools.

• The staff drafted reports that provide a coherent basis and technical rationale for the selection of computer codes, and related development activities, in support of safety reviews of non-LWR designs. The reports describe the factors used to select the codes, the work necessary to achieve readiness to support the safety reviews, and the approach that will be taken in prioritizing resources for code development activities.

The staff briefed the ACRS on the draft reports on May 1, 2019. The staff plans to engage stakeholders in a public meeting on August 15, 2019, and meet with the ACRS on September 17, 2019, before finalizing the reports in late 2019.

109

Strategy Activities in support of the strategy

3) Develop guidance for a

• In October 2017, the staff issued a preliminary draft of flexible non-LWR A Regulatory Review Roadmap for Non-Light-Water regulatory review process Reactors (ADAMS Accession No. ML17279B177) within the bounds of and discussed it with stakeholders on November 2, existing regulations, 2017. The NRC issued the final regulatory review including the use of roadmap on December 26, 2017 (ADAMS Accession conceptual design No. ML17312B567).

reviews and staged-review processes

• In June 2017, the NRC issued a preliminary draft document, "Nuclear Power Reactor Testing Needs and Prototype Plants for Advanced Reactor Designs,"

to solicit stakeholder feedback (ADAMS Accession No. ML17025A353). This document describes the relevant regulations governing the testing requirements for advanced reactors, describes the process for determining testing needs to meet the NRC's regulatory requirements, clarifies when a prototype plant might be needed and how it might differ from the proposed standard plant design, and describes licensing strategies and options that include the use of a prototype plant to meet the NRC's testing requirements. The NRC addressed stakeholder feedback and issued the final prototype document as part of the Regulatory Review Roadmap on December 26, 2017.

• On February 3, 2017, the NRC issued DG-1330, "Guidance for Developing Principal Design Criteria for Non-Light-Water Reactors" for formal public comment.

The staff briefed the ACRS subcommittee on the draft final RG in February 2018 and the ACRS Full Committee in March 2018. On April 3, 2018, the NRC issued the final RG 1.232 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17325A611), along with the, "Public Comment Resolution Table" (ADAMS Accession No. ML17325A616). The notice of availability of RG 1.232 was published in the FR on April 9, 2018.

• The NRC has engaged with the Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) being led by Southern Company, coordinated by the NEI, and cost-shared by DOE. The LMP's objective is to develop technology-inclusive, risk-informed, and performance based regulatory guidance for licensing non-LWRs for the NRC's consideration and possible endorsement. The NRC has reviewed four LMP white papers and sent a letter to the LMP on February 21, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18047A149), concluding its review of the white papers. After a series of public meetings, industry issued its consolidated LMP document (as 110

Strategy Activities in support of the strategy NEI 18-04) on September 28, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18271A172). NEI 18-04 outlines an approach for use by reactor developers to select licensing basis events; classify structures, systems, and components; determine special treatments and programmatic controls; and assess the adequacy of a design in terms of providing layers of defense in depth. The staff and industry briefed the ACRS Future Plant Subcommittee on LMP in June and October 2018, and the ACRS full committee in February 2019. The NRC published draft regulatory guide DG-1353, "Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors," in the FR on May 3, 2019, for public comment. This draft RG endorses, with clarifications, the principles and methodology in NEI-18-04 as one acceptable method for determining the appropriate scope and level of detail for parts of applications for licenses, certifications, and approvals for non-LWRs. The methodology described in NEI 18-04 and the draft RG also provides a general methodology for identifying an appropriate scope and depth of information to be provided in applications to the NRC for licenses, certifications, and approvals for non-LWRs. The NRC plans to issue a final regulatory guide in late 2019.

4) Facilitate industry codes

• The staff is actively participating in subgroups and and standards needed to working groups associated with the development of support the non-LWR life ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, cycle (including fuels and Section III, Division 5. The staff is also participating in materials) the Task Group on ASME/NRC Liaison for Division 5 that seeks NRC, DOE, and industry stakeholder input in identifying gaps in ASME B&PV Code Section III, Division 5, which need to be resolved prior to considering endorsement in 10 CFR 50.55a. ASME sent a letter to the staff confirming that advanced reactor developers support NRC endorsement of the 2017 edition of ASME Section III, Division 5.

Therefore, the staff is initiating the endorsement process. ASME also plans to submit a technical basis document for the 2017 edition. The staff discussed its plans for endorsement of ASME Section III Division 5 during the NRCs annual standards forum on September 11, 2018, and during a periodic advanced reactor stakeholder meeting held on September 13, 2018. The staff updated stakeholders on this topic again during a June 27, 2019, public meeting.

111

Strategy Activities in support of the strategy

• The staff is actively participating on several ANS standards working groups and consensus committees related to non-LWR safety standards and the joint ASME/ANS non-LWR PRA standard. On February 7, 2019, the NRC Standards Executive issued a letter to ASME Board Chair and ANS Standards Board Chair (ADAMS Accession No. ML19031C904) communicating the priority of various PRA standard development activities. The NRC has identified completion of the non-LWR PRA standard as a high priority consistent with NEIMA. The staff discussed its plan for endorsement of the standard during a June 27, 2019, public meeting.

• On September 26, 2017, the NRC held the second annual NRC Standards Forum, which was attended by representatives from many standards development organizations (SDOs), representatives from industry (NEI, the EPRI, and Technology Working Groups for non-LWRs), and representatives from DOE and DOE national labs. A portion of this years standards forum was devoted to non-LWRs with the intent of working with stakeholders to identify new codes and standards needed for non-LWR development and to facilitate the codes and standards development and eventual endorsement by the NRC, as appropriate. A follow-up workshop on advanced reactor standards development was hosted by ANS and the NRC on May 2, 2018. On September 11, 2018, the staff held the third annual NRC Standards Forum, during which ANS provided an update on advanced reactor codes and standards development activities. The staff will continue to interface with SDOs, reactor developers, and other stakeholders to encourage standards development activities and to identify high priority standards for NRC involvement and potential endorsement.

5) Identify and resolve

• The NRCs key activities related to the resolution of technology-inclusive (not policy issues in support of near-term IAP strategy 5 specific to a particular are discussed in response to questions 50 and 51 non-LWR design or above. In addition, an April 2018 Commission briefing category) policy issues on advanced reactors included an overview of near that impact regulatory term policy issues.

reviews, siting, permitting, and/or licensing of non-LWR nuclear power plants

6) Develop and implement a

• The NRC is conducting public meetings with structured, integrated stakeholders every 4 to 6 weeks. The most recent of strategy to communicate these meetings was held on August 15, 2019, and the 112

Strategy Activities in support of the strategy with internal and external next one is scheduled for October 10, 2019. The NRC stakeholders having uses these stakeholder meetings to solicit input on interests in non-LWR policy and process issues related to the possible technologies licensing and regulation of non-LWR technologies.

• The NRC and DOE hosted a series of three Advanced Non-LWR Workshops. The most recent workshop was held on April 25 and 26, 2017. This series of workshops focused on opening a dialogue between key stakeholders to discuss challenges in the commercialization of non-LWR technologies and to discuss possible solutions.

• On November 10, 2016, the NRC and DOE signed an MOU (ADAMS Accession No. ML16215A382) on the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN)

Initiative. GAIN is an initiative that is intended to provide the nuclear energy community with increased access to the technical, regulatory, and financial support necessary to move new or advanced nuclear reactor designs toward commercialization while ensuring the continued safe, reliable, and economic operation of the existing nuclear fleet. As described in the MOU, the NRC is responsible for providing DOE and the nuclear energy community with accurate, current information on the NRCs regulations and licensing processes.

• The NRC will continue to share information with various international groups, including the NEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Generation IV International Forum, and the NRCs international regulatory counterparts. The NRC chairs NEAs ad hoc group for international regulators of non-LWRs known as the Group on the Safety of Advanced Reactors. The purpose of the group is to bring interested regulators together to discuss common interests, practices, and problems, and address both the regulatory interests and research needs.

113