POLICY ISSUE

INFORMATION

August 31, 2007 SECY-07-0152

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: SEMIANNUAL UPDATE OF THE STATUS OF NEW REACTOR

LICENSING ACTIVITIES AND FUTURE PLANNING FOR NEW

REACTORS

PURPOSE:

This paper informs the Commission of the staff’s new reactor licensing activities and

accomplishments since the issuance of SECY-07-0039, “Semiannual Update of the Status

of New Reactor Licensing Activities and Future Planning for New Reactors,” dated

February 27, 2007. This paper does not address any new commitments or resource

implications.

SUMMARY:

The paper provides an update of the licensing and future planning activities of the Office of New

Reactors (NRO). This includes the status of the activities associated with design certification,

early site permit, and combined license reviews. In addition, the staff provides the status of its

regulatory infrastructure development, as well as rulemaking and international activities. 

The staff also addresses resource allocation with respect to anticipated new reactor work. 

CONTACT: Meena Khanna, NRO/DNRL

(301) 415-2150
The Commissioners -2-

BACKGROUND:

In SECY-01-0188, “Future Licensing and Inspection Readiness Assessment,” dated

October 12, 2001, the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) assessed its

technical, licensing, and inspection capabilities and described enhancements to support new

reactor licensing. The staff also committed to giving the Commission semiannual updates of

the status of new reactor licensing activities.

DISCUSSION:

Office of New Reactors

The staffing of NRO has taken place in various phases. The various phases occurred in

October and December 2006; and February, April, and July 2007. The final phase will occur in

September 2007. NRO is currently staffed at approximately 75 percent. Management

continues to aggressively recruit staff in preparation for the anticipated new reactor workload. 

Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor Design Certification

The staff is continuing with its review of the General Electric Company (GE) economic simplified

boiling-water reactor (ESBWR) standard plant design. The NRC staff has met all three

milestones to date, which entailed issuing requests for additional information (RAIs). In

February 2007, GE proposed to the NRC staff an approach to facilitate RAI resolution to

support a more efficient ESBWR design certification (DC) review process. Since then, GE has

established and met more achievable milestones for RAI responses and other key deliverables,

and significant progress has been made in reducing the number of unresolved RAIs. In

June 2007, GE submitted its revised schedule for the ESBWR DC, which indicates that Design

Control Document (DCD) Revision 4 will be submitted in September 2007, and DCD Revision 5

will be submitted in March 2008. The staff is developing a detailed schedule for completion of

the ESBWR DC review. 

Early Site Permit Activity

On March 8, 2007, the Commission issued its decision approving issuance of the Exelon

Generation Company, LLC, Clinton Early Site Permit (ESP), and on March 15, 2007, ESP-001

was issued. On March 27, 2007, the Commission issued its decision approving issuance of the

System Energy Resources Inc., Grand Gulf ESP, and on April 5, 2007, ESP-002 was issued.

In April 2007, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) held a hearing regarding the

North Anna ESP. On June 29, 2007, the ASLB issued its initial decision authorizing issuance of

the North Anna ESP. On August 2, 2007, the Commission issued Order CLI-07-23 inviting the

staff and Dominion to address the questions raised in the ASLB’s initial decision (LBP-07-09),

the issues raised by the dissenting judge, and any other issues that the parties believed

warranted comment. 

In August 2006, the staff received the Vogtle ESP application, and in September 2006, the staff

completed its acceptance review. The staff is preparing both the safety evaluation report with
The Commissioners -3-

open items and the draft environmental impact statement, which are scheduled to be issued

later this summer.

Combined License Activity

On July 13, 2007, UniStar Nuclear and Constellation Generation Group submitted Part 1 of their

application for a combined license (COL) for a U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor to be

designated as Calvert Cliffs Power Plant, Unit 3. Unistar/Constellation supplemented the

application on July 16 and August 2, 2007. On August 23, 2007, the staff notified Unistar

Nuclear of the status of the acceptance review of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3,

partial COL application. The staff identified several areas that have not yet been sufficiently

addressed in the application. The staff requested Unistar’s plan for submitting additional

information to address the issues. The staff will resume its acceptance review upon receipt of

the additional information.

Advanced Non-Light-Water Reactor Activities

The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) continues to engage in activities related to

advanced reactor designs (i.e., non-light-water-reactor (non-LWR) designs). These include the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project, the pebble

bed modular reactor (PBMR) preapplication review, and high-temperature gas-cooled reactor

knowledge management. 

Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Company, Ltd. (PBMR (Pty) Ltd.), continues to interact with the

staff in preapplication review activities. Currently, this involves the technical review of a set of

four high-level documents that enable the staff to develop an understanding of the PBMR safety

case on which a DC application will be based. PBMR (Pty) Ltd. has indicated a desire to submit

as many as 15 additional such documents during the preapplication period. The staff is

preparing a memorandum informing the Commission of the staff plan and course of action

related to the additional submittals expected. 

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

The Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards has been working with NRO, RES, and

other supporting offices to review DOE plans for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

(GNEP) program, identify potential technologies, and develop a regulatory framework for these

activities. The current DOE GNEP planning for a closed nuclear fuel cycle would include spent

fuel reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and a sodium-cooled advanced burner reactor (ABR), as well

as advanced fuel separation facilities. The fuel reprocessing and fabrication facilities and ABR

would be regulated by the NRC. As directed in Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) 

SECY-07-0081, “Regulatory Options for Licensing Facilities Associated with the Global Nuclear

Energy Partnership (GNEP),” dated June 28, 2007, NRO and RES will lead the ABR licensing

framework development and the ABR gap analysis.

Regulatory Infrastructure Development

The staff continues to perform activities to ensure that it is prepared to review new applications.

These activities include finalizing a COL application regulatory guide (Regulatory Guide 1.206,
The Commissioners -4-

“Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition),” issued June 2007);

updating NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for

Nuclear Power Plants,” issued March 2007, and associated regulatory guides; developing

strategies for optimizing the review of the applications to be received; developing a construction

inspection program (CIP) framework and subsequent inspection program for new construction

activities; and continuing activities in the preapplication and DC review processes. 

Construction Inspection Program

NRO has been developing the necessary programs and procedures to address the inspection

of anticipated new nuclear power plant construction. The Division of Construction Inspection &

Operational Programs, working with Region II, continued the development of the inspections,

tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria program, updated field procedures for staff inspectors,

continued the development of a database program for construction-based information

management, and initiated the development of assessment and enforcement processes. The

first annual review of the CIP indicated no adverse impact in 2006 on the oversight of operating

facilities. The staff will annually assess the program’s impact to existing reactor oversight as

the CIP grows proportionately to the industry’s expansion.

Rulemaking

On April 11, 2007, the Commission voted to approve the publication and implementation of the

final rule amending Title 10, Part 52, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52),

subject to changes and comments noted by the Commission in SRM M070411, “Staff

Requirements—Briefing on Draft Final Rule—Part 52 (Early Site Permits/Standard Design

Certifications/Combined Licenses),” dated April 11, 2007. The new 10 CFR Part 52 will be

named “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

On August 28, 2007, the 10 CFR Part 52 final rule was published in the Federal Register 

(72 FR 49352). The rule becomes effective 30 days following its publication.

On April 17, 2007, the Commission voted to approve the publication and implementation of the

final rule amending 10 CFR Part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Procedures and

Issuance of Orders,” and 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization

Facilities,” to revise requirements for limited work authorizations (LWAs) and site preparation

activities (ADAMS Accession No. ML071070361). The LWA final rule was submitted for

approval by the Office of Management and Budget on August 30, 2007. The Commission also

directed the staff to work with external stakeholders to develop and publish the necessary

implementation guidance for the LWA rule. NRO is preparing guidance for the LWA rule.

The NRC staff is preparing a proposed rulemaking on aircraft impact assessments following the

SRM for SECY-06-0225, “Assessment of Aircraft Impacts on New Reactor Designs,” dated

May 1, 2007, directing the staff to incorporate the requirement into 10 CFR Part 52. The

proposed rule is expected to be published for public comment in mid-September 2007. The

SRM also directed the staff to share sensitive information related to aircraft impact with new

plant designers. Orders requiring vendors to establish programs for control of Safeguards

Information will be issued by August 30, 2007. It is expected that all vendors will be supplied

the aircraft impact characteristics by mid-September 2007. 
The Commissioners -5-

Multinational Design Evaluation Program

The NRC staff continues to participate in Multinational Design Evaluation Program (MDEP)

Stage 1 and 2 activities, with the goal of leveraging the experience of the agency’s foreign

counterparts in the review of new reactor designs. As part of MDEP Stage 1, the NRC staff

continues to meet with the French nuclear safety authority and the Finnish radiation and nuclear

safety authority (STUK). In addition, NRC and STUK staff are continuing to cooperate on the

review of the Olkiluoto 3 main control room design.

For MDEP Stage 2, the 10 participating countries continue their work on a year-long pilot effort

to analyze the feasibility of enhancing regulatory cooperation and, where feasible and desirable,

converging on common regulatory requirements and regulatory review practices associated

with the design reviews of new reactors. 

Contracting Strategy to Support New Reactor Licensing

The Contract Planning and Management Branch continues to implement the contracting

strategy outlined in SECY-07-0009, “Procurement Strategy for Contracts and DOE Laboratory

Technical Assistance Activities Supporting Combined License Applications,” dated

January 11, 2007. The staff should have all commercial contracts and DOE laboratory and

other interagency agreements in place by the middle of September 2007.

Approach to Resource Allocation

As of July 2007, the staff is aware of at least 20 potential COL applications to be submitted in

Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 through FY 2009. Table 2 of the enclosure lists the anticipated activities

for FY 2007 through FY 2009 based on the formal correspondence of prospective applicants. 

Based on the current FY 2008 budget approach, the staff would begin review of up to 15 COL

applications received in FY 2008. Based on current FY 2009 budget projections, the staff

would start work on the first FY 2009 application when it is received. Work on the remaining

submittals could be delayed depending on resource availability. The staff would prioritize any

additional COL submittals.

Security and Emergency Planning

In 2006, the Division of Preparedness and Response in the Office of Nuclear Security and

Incident Response (NSIR) established New Reactor Licensing Teams. The creation of the

teams has increased the focus on key activities. NSIR has been coordinating with the

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to clarify its role in the security and emergency

preparedness areas. Effective April 2007, the management of the Radiological Emergency

Preparedness Program transferred to the Technological Hazards Division within the National

Preparedness Directorate under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The

NRC staff continues to work with appropriate contacts at DHS and FEMA to ensure continuity

of activities.
The Commissioners -6-

Potential Policy Issues

Staff requirements for COMGBJ-06-0001, “Establishing a Policy for the Review of New Power

Reactor Combined Licenses,” dated April 14, 2006, directed the staff to address policy issues

related to new reactor applications in this paper. At this time, the staff has not identified any

potential policy issues related to current LWRs under review. For non-LWRs and other

advanced reactors, the staff is working to identify policy issues through the development of the

NGNP licensing strategy, the preapplication review of the PBMR, and the GNEP regulatory

framework reviews. The staff will inform the Commission of non-LWR policy issues as these

projects progress.

CONCLUSIONS:

The staff continues to focus on reviewing applications for DCs and ESPs and on preparing for

the review of multiple COL applications. The NRC staff continues its interactions with

stakeholders to ensure openness in these activities and that any future planning reflects the

most recent industry plans and schedules.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. 

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

has no objections.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

 Executive Director

 for Operations

Enclosure: 

Background Material to

 Support the Semiannual 

 Update
The Commissioners -6-

Potential Policy Issues

Staff requirements for COMGBJ-06-0001, “Establishing a Policy for the Review of New Power

Reactor Combined Licenses,” dated April 14, 2006, directed the staff to address policy issues

related to new reactor applications in this paper. At this time, the staff has not identified any

potential policy issues related to current LWRs under review. For non-LWRs and other

advanced reactors, the staff is working to identify policy issues through the development of the

NGNP licensing strategy, the preapplication review of the PBMR, and the GNEP regulatory

framework reviews. The staff will inform the Commission of non-LWR policy issues as these

projects progress.

CONCLUSIONS:

The staff continues to focus on reviewing applications for DCs and ESPs and on preparing for

the review of multiple COL applications. The NRC staff continues its interactions with

stakeholders to ensure openness in these activities and that any future planning reflects the

most recent industry plans and schedules.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. 

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

has no objections.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

 Executive Director

 for Operations

Enclosure: 

Background Material to

 Support the Semiannual 

 Update WITS 200100018 / EDATS: SECY-2007-0194

WITS 200600306 / EDATS: SECY-2007-0196 

ADAMS Accession Number: ML072260018 WITS 200600063 / EDATS: SECY-2007-0197

OFFICE TA:DNRL Tech Ed D:PMDA/NRO D:RES D:OIP

NAME MKhanna HChang FBrown BSheron MDoane

DATE 08/10/2007 08/18/2007 08/15/2007 08/23/2007 08/16/2007

OFFICE D:OHR OCFO D:NRR D:NSIR D:DNRL/NRO

NAME JMcDermott WMcCabe 

(LBarnett for)

JDyer 

(BBoger for)

RZimmerman

(WDean for)

DMatthews

(TBergman for)

DATE 08/16/2007 08/22/2007 08/23/2007 08/21/2007 08/15/2007

OFFICE OGC D/NRO EDO

NAME KWinsberg BBorchardt LReyes

DATE 08/20/2007 08/23/2007 08/31/2007

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure

Background Material to Support the Semiannual Update

INTRODUCTION

This enclosure to the August 2007 update of the status of new reactor licensing activities

provides a history and current status of the Advanced Plant 1000 (AP1000), Advanced BoilingWater Reactor (ABWR), and the Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) design

certification (DC) reviews, the combined license (COL) application interactions, the early site

permit (ESP) reviews, pre-application activities for other reactor plant designs, regulatory

infrastructure development, technical development activities, and stakeholder interactions. 

The staff requirements memorandum for SECY-05-0203, “Revised Proposed Rule to Update

10 CFR Part 52, ‘Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,’” dated

January 30, 2006, directed the staff to provide resource and organization plans for the next

4 years and proposed strategies for staff review of expected applications and support for COL

hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) (WITS 200600063).

The staff requirements memorandum for COMGBJ-06-001, “Establishing a Policy for the

Review of New Power Reactor Combined Licenses,” dated April 14, 2006, directed the staff to

provide an update on activities related to the design-centered review approach (DCRA) for COL

applications in the next semiannual update on new reactor licensing. The Commission also

directed the staff to inform it of any impediments to using the DCRA. Additionally, the

Commission directed the staff to continue to use the planning, budgeting, and performance

management process for new reactor licensing activities and to address policy issues related to

new reactor applications.

The staff requirements memorandum for SECY-06-0071, “Chairman Review Thresholds for

Contractual Decisions,” dated April 18, 2006, directed the staff to provide the Commission with

a status report on the plans for contracting work in new reactor licensing and other new work

areas. On January 11, 2007, the staff provided to the Commission an “Official Use Only”

SECY-07-0009, “Procurement Strategy for Contracts and [Department of Energy] DOE

Laboratory Technical Assistance Activities Supporting Combined License Applications.”

A June 27, 2006, memorandum from then U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Chairman Nils J. Diaz to Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations (EDO), and Graham

Wallis, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), requested that

the staff provide the Commission with a status report on its interactions with stakeholders and

on completing the master integrated schedule for new reactor licensing (WITS 200600279 and

WITS 200600306).

The staff requirements memorandum for SECY-06-0244, “Final Rulemaking—10 CFR 

Part 26 —Fitness for Duty Programs,” dated April 17, 2007, provided Commission approval of

the final rule, which amends Title 10, Part 26, “Fitness for Duty Programs,” of the Code of

Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 26) governing the domestic licensing of production and
- 2 -

utilization facilities to revise, reorganize, and clarify drug alcohol testing and other programs,

subject to changes provided. The Commission directed the staff to continue engaging the

industry and other stakeholders to complete the associated regulatory guidance for this rule

and ensure that it addressed the broad range of questions of interpretation and implementation.

The staff requirements memorandum for SECY-07-0030, “Final Rulemaking on Limited Work

Authorizations,” dated April 17, 2007, provided Commission approval of a final rule that amends

10 CFR Part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of

Orders,” and 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” to

revise the requirements for limited work authorizations (LWA) and preparation activities at the

prospective site of a nuclear power plant. The Commission directed the staff to publish the

necessary implementation guidance for the final rule on LWAs with the external stakeholders

per comments in the staff requirements memorandum (SRM). It also directed the staff to keep

the Commission informed of progress in implementing the new LWA process and forward to the

Commission any substantive policy or implementation questions for resolution (WITS

200700144 and 200700145). 

The staff requirements memorandum for SECY-07-0184, “Briefing on New Reactor Issues—

Environmental Issues,” dated April 27, 2007, directed the staff to recommend generic

resolutions for emerging policy issues or proposed rulemaking that the Commission might

initiate to add efficiency and effectiveness to the process for conducting environmental reviews

for ESP and COL applications (WITS 200700189). 

The staff requirements memorandum for COMDEK-07-001/COMJSM-07-001, “Report of the

Combined License Review Task Force,” dated April 27, 2007, directed the staff to conduct a

public meeting with industry representatives and other stakeholders to give the stakeholders an

opportunity to present their views on how to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the

environmental review process (WITS 200700205).

The staff requirements memorandum for SECY-06-0225, “Proposed Rulemaking—Security

Assessments Requirements for New Nuclear Power Reactor Designs,” dated May 1, 2007,

directed the staff to provide information based on the beyond-design-basis aircraft

characteristics specified by the Commission to plant designers or other stakeholders who have

the need to know, and who meet the NRC’s requirements for disclosure of such information per

the SRM. In addition, if it is determined that designers need secret information, the staff is

directed to brief the Commission Technical Assistants on its plan for designers to store and

generate secret information (WITS 200700154 and 200700155). 

The staff requirements memorandum for SECY-07-0076, “Proposed Plan for Cooperation with

China on the AP1000,” dated May 15, 2007, directed the staff to provide technical assistance,

training, and NRC safety codes, pending Executive Branch approval in accordance with the

NRC and Chinese National Nuclear Safety Administration Memorandum of Cooperation.

The staff requirements memorandum for SECY-07-0047, “Staff Approach to Verifying the

Closure of Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Through a Sample-Based

Inspection Program,” dated May 16, 2007, directed the staff to continue to engage industry and

interest group stakeholders to obtain views on the construction inspection program (CIP) using

a public meeting approach similar to what was done during the development of the Reactor

Oversight Process.
- 3 -

The staff requirements memorandum for COMDEK-07-0001/COMJSM-07-0001, “Report of the

Combined License Review Task Force,” dated June 22, 2007, directed the staff to conduct a

public meeting with external stakeholders to roll out its COL review approach and to provide an 

overview of the New Reactor Licensing Program Plan (LPP) before implementation of the

recommendations of the COL Review Task Force. 

The staff requirements memorandum for SECY-07-0081, “Regulatory Options for Licensing

Facilities Associated with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP),” dated June 28,

2007, directed the staff to provide the Commission with supplemental information that

discusses how the regulatory framework and gap analysis will be performed and coordinated

among the NRC organizations. 

The staff requirements memorandum - M070718B, “Briefing on Digital Instrumentation and

Control,” dated August 3, 2007, the Commission directed the staff to proceed with the timely

implementation of the NRC’s Digital Instrumentation and Control Project Plan and the issuance

of interim guidance, recognizing that the staff will continue to work with the stakeholders to

refine the guidance, to address the existing issues within each of the task working groups

(TWGs), and to risk-inform the regulatory framework for digital instrumentation and control

(I&C).

DESIGN CERTIFICATION

Advanced Plant 1000

The AP1000 is a 3400-megawatt thermal (MWt) (approximately 1117-megawatt electric (MWe))

standardized nuclear power plant design. This design makes extensive use of passive design

features to provide postaccident core and containment cooling. On March 28, 2002,

Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) submitted its application for final design

approval (FDA) and standard DC for the AP1000 design. The NRC staff issued the final safety

evaluation report (FSER) and the FDA on September 13, 2004. The proposed design

certification rule (DCR) was published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2005 (70 FR 20062). 

Subsequently, Westinghouse submitted changes to the AP1000 design information in 

Revision 15 to the design control document (DCD). The NRC staff evaluated these changes in

a supplement to the FSER (Supplement 1 to NUREG-1793, “Final Safety Evaluation Report

Related to Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design,” issued in September 2004). The EDO

transmitted the final rule to the Commission on December 14, 2005 (SECY-05-0227, “Final

Rule-AP1000 Design Certification”). On December 30, 2005, the Commission voted to approve

the final DCR for the AP1000 standard plant design, and the Secretary of the Commission

signed the final rule on January 23, 2006, after approval of the information collection

requirements by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

On January 27, 2006, the NRC issued the AP1000 final DCR in the Federal Register (71 FR

4464) as Appendix D, “Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design,” to 10 CFR Part 52,

“Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power

Plants.” Applicants or licensees intending to construct and operate an AP1000 design may do

so by referencing the AP1000 DCR. On March 10, 2006, the NRC issued a revised FDA based

on Revision 15 of the Westinghouse DCD. 
- 4 -

In a joint letter dated March 8, 2006, NuStart Energy Development, LLC (NuStart), and

Westinghouse stated that they would be submitting the AP1000 technical reports to the NRC 

for review during the pre-application phase for the Bellefonte COL application. These reports

will provide the following:

• information needed to close all or part of specific generically applicable COL items in the

AP1000 certified standard design

• standard design changes that are a result of the AP1000 detailed design efforts

• specific standard design information in areas or for topics where the AP1000 DCD

focused on design process/methodology and design acceptance criteria (DAC) 

• deferral of COL information items to as-built requirements (e.g., inspections, tests,

analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC))

Most of the technical reports are related to the closing or partial closing of the AP1000 DCD

COL information items; however, the largest review effort will center on the expected design

changes. The design changes include a redesign of the pressurizer, a revision to the seismic

analysis to allow an AP1000 to be constructed on a site with rock and soil conditions other than

the hard rock conditions certified in the AP1000 DCR, changes to the I&C systems, a redesign

of the fuel racks, and a revision of the reactor fuel design. Another area requiring large

resources will be the review of DAC-related items, such as the technical reports on human

factors engineering (HFE), the I&C design, and piping. Additionally, Westinghouse submitted

one report covering numerous COL information items that can be completed only after the plant

is built. Westinghouse proposes to convert these items to either ITAAC, license conditions, or

license commitments.

By letter dated May 26, 2007, Westinghouse submitted an application to amend the AP1000

DCR and also submitted Revision 16 to the AP1000 DCD. Revision 16 contains changes

proposed in technical reports, some of which have not been reviewed by the NRC staff. The

May 26, 2007, application noted that the submittal was being made in advance of the effective

date of the 10 CFR Part 52 rule provisions that establish the DC amendment process within the

regulations. The letter requested that the NRC establish a schedule for acceptance of the

application. The staff is currently evaluating the submittal to determine an appropriate

scheduled for review.

As of July 3, 2007, Westinghouse had submitted 104 technical reports for staff review. 

Although submitted as part of the Bellefonte COL pre-application phase, these technical reports

apply generically to the remaining COL applications that intend to reference the AP1000 design.

The staff has held several meetings with Westinghouse and has performed audits of

documentation related to leak-before-break analyses, I&C, HFE, and seismic analyses. 

Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor

The ABWR is a 3926-MWt (approximately 1350-MWe) Generation III reactor design. This

design is the first of the next generation of advanced light-water reactor (LWR) plants to be

committed to construction. The ABWR design was certified in Appendix A, “Design Certification
- 5 -

Rule for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor,” to 10 CFR Part 52 in May 1997. In

December 2006, General Electric Company (GE) began submitting a series of topical reports in

advance of the COL application. These reports address generic changes to the certified

design. 

Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor 

The ESBWR is a 4500-MWt (approximately 1550-MWe) reactor design that uses natural

circulation for normal operation and has passive safety features. On August 24, 2005, GE

submitted an application for FDA and standard DC of the ESBWR standard plant design. 

By letter dated December 1, 2005, the NRC staff informed GE that the application, as revised

and supplemented, was sufficiently complete to allow the staff to proceed with its detailed

technical review. 

The NRC staff established the date of October 11, 2006, for issuing its requests for additional

information (RAIs). Because of revised schedules for GE deliverables, the NRC staff

established, by letter dated August 9, 2006, an additional RAI milestone of December 11, 2006,

for areas impacted by delays in submittals. When the schedule for GE deliverables and

proposed changes to the design and the DCD changed again, the staff established a third

milestone for issuance of RAIs on January 31, 2007, by letter dated October 5, 2006. The staff

met these milestones. 

In a letter dated February 2, 2007, GE proposed to the NRC staff an approach to facilitate RAI

resolution to support an efficient ESBWR DC review process. Since then, timeliness of GE

deliverables has improved and significant progress has been made in reducing the number of

unresolved RAIs. Nonetheless, much work remains for completion of the ESBWR design

review, and several of the remaining GE deliverables will require significant staff effort to

complete. 

On June 1, 2007, GE submitted its schedule for submitting major deliverables to support the

ESBWR DC. The revised schedule indicated that DCD Revision 4 will be submitted by

September 28, 2007, and DCD Revision 5 will be submitted by March 31, 2008. GE also

provided the schedule for new topical reports, revised topical reports, and the remaining

sections of Revision 2 of the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA). The staff is developing a

schedule for future review milestones including issuance of the final SER, based on the

information that has been submitted by GE to date. The schedule for new topical reports, and

any impact on the overall schedule for the design certification, will be established after the

topical reports are submitted and the associated acceptance reviews have been completed.

 

COMBINED LICENSE APPLICATION

On July 13, 2007, UniStar Nuclear and Constellation Generation Group submitted Part 1 of their

application for a COL for a U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (U.S. EPR) to be designated as

Calvert Cliffs Power Plant, Unit 3. UniStar/Constellation supplemented the application on

July 16 and August 2, 2007. The staff is conducting its acceptance review of the partial

application. On August 23, 2007, the staff issued a letter to Unistar stating that the detailed

design information necessary to meet the requirements for the initial submittal is not complete. 
- 6 -

The staff requested that additional information be submitted so that the staff can complete its

acceptance review.

COMBINED LICENSE PRE-APPLICATIONS

The number of expected COL applications for the period of Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 to FY 2009 is

currently 20, and several of these applications will be for dual-unit sites.

On March 9, 2007, and April 9, 2007, TXU Power submitted letters notifying the NRC that it had

chosen the US-Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor (US-APWR) design and that it plans to

construct the proposed two new units at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station site. TXU

Power previously indicated that it was exploring additional sites for more units. However, in its

April 9, 2007, letter, TXU Power indicated that currently it is not pursuing additional construction

at other sites.

On March 15, 2007, Amarillo Power, LLC, submitted a letter notifying the NRC that it had

changed its choice of reactor technology (previously listed as ABWR) to the U.S. EPR design

for both units at an unannounced site in the vicinity of Amarillo, Texas. In addition, Amarillo

Power, LLC, indicated that it plans to forego an ESP and proceed directly to a COL application

and submit its application in the last quarter of 2008.

On April 5 and June 1, 2007, AmerenUE submitted letters notifying the NRC that it had entered

into an agreement with UniStar Nuclear, LLC, to assist with the development of a COL

application for a single unit to be submitted to the NRC in the third quarter of 2008. In addition,

AmerenUE notified the staff that it had chosen the AREVA NP (AREVA) EPR design. In its

letter dated June 1, 2007, AmerenUE indicated that it had selected the Callaway site as the

basis for submitting its COL application. 

On June 13, 2007, PPL Generation, LLC, submitted a letter notifying the NRC that it had

publically announced its intent to submit a COL application for a new nuclear unit at the current

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station site.

On July 23, 2007, Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (AEHI), submitted a letter notifying the NRC

of its intent to submit a COL application in the fourth quarter of 2008 for a single unit to be

located in Bruneau, Idaho. AEHI notified the staff that it had chosen the U.S. EPR design.

On August 8 and 9, 2007, Dominion Energy, Inc., and Entergy/NuStart Energy, respectively,

submitted letters notifying the NRC that the ESBWR Design-Centered Working Group (DCWG)

has selected North Anna as the reference combined license (R-COL) applicant for the ESBWR

design. The Dominion letter also stated that the North Anna R-COL application will be

submitted in November 2007, and the Entergy/NuStart Energy letter identified a revised date of

February 2008 for when it intends to submit its application for the Grand Gulf site. 

NRG Energy is planning to submit a COL application for two ABWR units in fall 2007 at the

South Texas Project site. 

Since February 2007, the NRC staff has completed three additional pre-COL visits at potential

sites (Levy County, River Bend, and Callaway) to observe pre-COL subsurface investigation
- 7 -

(e.g., soil suitability, hydrology) activities. Interactions with each applicant’s experts provided a

forum for discussing a potential site’s geological attributes and the applicant’s site exploration

program and observing different geophysical and geotechnical investigations. 

NRC staff conducted readiness assessment visits at the potential sites of six future COL

applicants (V.C. Summer, Bellefonte, Shearon Harris, Lee, Calvert Cliffs, and South Texas 

Project) in order to become familiar with the proposed sites and to begin establishing working

relationships with the applicants and local agencies. Topics discussed during the visits included

hydrology, meteorology, ecology, radiation protection, socioeconomics, energy alternatives, and

alternative sites. The staff conducted followup visits with the applicants for these sites and the

North Anna site to assess the state of readiness of the applicants’ draft environmental reports

(ERs). A combination of headquarters and NRC-contractor technical experts, managers, and

project managers conducted these activities. The readiness assessment is a voluntary

predecisional interaction between the NRC staff and prospective applicants intended to aid the

staff in allocating the resources necessary to conduct its environmental review.

NRC staff conducted public outreach meetings at the South Texas Project and Calvert Cliffs

sites. The purpose of these meetings was to inform members of the public of the new reactors

planned for the sites, inform them about the COL process under the new 10 CFR Part 52

regulations, and let them know when and how they can participate during the licensing process.

 

Design-Centered Review Approach

The industry has generally embraced the DCRA described in NRC Regulatory Issue Summary

(RIS)-06-006, “New Reactor Standardization Needed to Support the Design-Centered Licensing

Review Approach,” dated May 31, 2006. This support has been demonstrated by the active

participation of industry preapplicants in DCWG meetings with the NRC that offer a forum for

communication of important issues. The NRC has held DCWG meetings associated with the

AP1000 and ESBWR design centers, at approximately 6-week intervals, since July 2006. 

Meeting topics have included a spectrum of COL-related topics such as RIS-06-06 response;

key COL applicant and NRC staff challenges; pre-application interaction site visits; preapplication topical reports; development of emergency action levels for passive new reactor

designs; environmental review activities; COL application content and format; Technical

Support Center location; responses to RIS-07-08, “Updated Licensing Submittal Information to

Support the Design-Centered Licensing Review Approach,” dated April 16, 2007; and the

NRC’s COL application acceptance review process. Representatives from other DCWGs

participate in AP1000/ESBWR meetings.

The staff expects to continue these public meetings with the AP1000 and ESBWR DCWGs and

to support similar meetings with other design centers when requested. In addition to the

DCWG meetings, the staff has conducted several public workshops on topics related to

industry’s development of COL applications (e.g., content and format of sample chapters of the

final safety analysis report, ITAAC, and PRA) to identify insights that could be used by

applicants to improve their applications. In their respective responses to RIS-07-08, the

potential applicants reinforced their commitment to the DCRA and their participation in DCWGs. 

Another indication that the industry is committed to a design-centered strategy is the

involvement of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in the development and submission of topical

reports to support pre-application staff review activities. For example, NEI has submitted for
- 8 -

staff review the templates for an industry quality assurance (QA) program document, an

industry training program, and an industry radiation protection program and has committed to

submit a template for radioactive waste programs. The expectation is that multiple COL

applicants will reference these topical reports, if approved by the NRC, thus offering an

efficiency in the use of staff review resources. 

Table 1 lists the COL applications anticipated based on correspondence received from potential

applicants. 

Table 1 Potential COL Applications Based on Letters of Intent

Applicant 

 (Units)

Designs under

Consideration Pre-application COL Application 

Dominion

(North Anna Site) 1 ESBWR FY 2006–2008 FY 2008–2011

South Carolina Electric and

Gas* (Summer) 2 AP1000 FY 2006–2008 FY 2008–2011

NuStart App 1*

(Bellefonte Site) 2 AP1000 FY 2007–2008 FY 2008–2011

NuStart App 2

(Grand Gulf Site) 1 ESBWR FY 2007–2008 FY 2008–2011

Progress Energy App 1*

(Harris) 2 AP1000 FY 2007–2008 FY 2008–2011

Progress Energy App 2*

(Florida) 2 AP1000 FY 2007–2008 FY 2008–2011

Duke Energy*

(Lee) 2 AP1000 FY 2007–2008 FY 2008–2011

Entergy*

(River Bend Site) 1 ESBWR FY 2006–2007 FY 2008–2011

Southern Nuclear

(Vogtle Site) 2 AP1000 FY 2006–2007 FY 2008–2011

UniStar App 1*

(Calvert Cliffs) 1 U.S. EPR FY 2007 FY 2007 Part 1FY 2008 Part 2

Amarillo Power* 

(Site TBD) 2 U.S. EPR FY 2007–2008 FY 2009–2011
- 9 -

Applicant 

 (Units)

Designs under

Consideration Pre-application COL Application 

NRG Energy * 

(South Texas Project) 2 ABWR FY 2007–2008 FY 2008–2011

UniStar App 2*

(Nine Mile Point) 1 U.S. EPR FY 2007–2008 FY 2008–2011

Florida Power and Light *

(Site TBD) 1 TBD FY 2007–2008 FY 2009–2012

TXU Power* 

(Comanche Peak) 2 US-APWR FY 2007–2009 FY 2008–2011

Exelon* (Texas) 1 TBD FY 2007–2009 FY 2009–2010

DTE* (Fermi) 1 TBD FY 2007–2009 FY 2009–2011

AmerenUE* (Callaway) 1 U.S. EPR FY 2007–2008 FY 2008–2011

PPL Generation*

(Susquehanna) 1 U.S. EPR FY 2007–2008 FY 2009–2011

Alternate Energy Holdings,

Inc., and UniStar* 

(Bruneau, Idaho)

1 U.S. EPR FY 2008–2009 FY 2009–2011

* COL Application not referencing an ESP

APPROACH TO RESOURCE ALLOCATION

Since the last update, additional information has been received concerning the number of

expected COL applications for the period FY 2007 through FY 2009 and the total is currently at

20; several of these applications will be for dual-unit sites. Table 2 lists the anticipated activities

for FY 2007 through FY 2009 based on current budget assumptions.

The transition plan for staffing the Office of New Reactors (NRO) considers all expected new

reactor licensing applications, including COL applications, design certification applications

(DCAs), currently ongoing ESP application reviews, expected ESP application reviews,

topical/technical report reviews, and regulatory infrastructure work (such as development of

NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear

Power Plants,” issued March 2007 (hereafter referred to as the SRP)). Initial staffing levels

(January 2007) were set to support known case work (ESBWR DC and ongoing ESP reviews)

as well as infrastructure activities. The office growth rates, selected to provide a smooth

transition to FY 2008 staffing levels, are slightly skewed toward the first half of FY 2007 to

ensure that adequate resources will be on board, trained, and available to support new reactor

licensing reviews when needed in early FY 2008. The staff is maintaining some flexibility in the

plan so that it can make adjustments as it gains experience in performing new reactor licensing

reviews.
- 10 -

Table 2 FY 2007–FY 2009 New Reactor Licensing Anticipated Activities

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009

Complete Grand Gulf, Clinton North Anna ESP

Continue Southern (Vogtle) ESP Continue Southern ESP Complete Southern ESP

DC pre-application activities for U.S.

EPR, pebble bed modular reactor

(PBMR), and US US-APWR

DC pre-application activities for U.S. EPR,

PBMR, and US-APWR

DC pre-application activities for PBMR

Continue ESBWR DC Continue ESBWR DC Continue ESBWR DC

Start U.S. EPR DC Continue U.S. EPR DC

Start AP1000 DC amendment Continue AP1000 DC amendment

Start US-APWR DC Continue US-APWR DC

Pre-application activities for potential

COL applicants

Pre-application activities for potential COL

applicants

Start South Carolina Electric and Gas

(Summer) COL

Continue South Carolina Electric and Gas

COL

Start Dominion (North Anna) COL Continue Dominion COL

Start UniStar (Calvert Cliffs) COL Continue UniStar (Calvert Cliffs) COL Continue UniStar COL

Start Duke (Lee) COL Continue Duke COL

Start NuStart 1 (Bellefonte) COL Continue NuStart 1 COL

Start NuStart 2 (Grand Gulf) COL Continue NuStart 2 COL

Start Southern (Vogtle) COL Continue Southern COL

Start UniStar (Nine Mile Point) COL Continue UniStar COL

Start NRG Energy (South Texas) COL Continue NRG Energy COL

Start Progress Energy (Harris) COL Continue Progress Energy COL

Start Progress Energy (Florida) COL Continue Progress Energy COL

Start Entergy (River Bend) COL Continue Entergy COL

Start TXU Power (Comanche Peak) COL Continue TXU Power COL

Start AmerenUE (Calvert Cliffs) COL Continue AmerenUE COL

Start PPL Gen. (Susquehanna) COL

Start Amarillo Power COL

Start Florida Power and Light COL*

Start Exelon (Texas) COL*

Start DTE (Fermi) COL*

Start AEHI (Idaho) COL*

Regulatory infrastructure

development and technical

development

Regulatory infrastructure development and

technical development

Regulatory infrastructure maintenance and

technical development

Continue Next Generation Nuclear

Plant (NGNP) interactions with the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Submit joint NGNP licensing strategy to

Congress

Continue NGNP interactions with DOE

* Resources to support these reviews are being considered through the Agency’s FY 2009 budget process.

RESOURCES
- 11 -

As of July 8, 2007, NRO has approximately 325 staff on board, with about 55 additional people

in the hiring pipeline or pending transfer from other offices, for a total of approximately 380

staff. This includes most of the FY 2008 complement of supervisory and management support

staff who are necessary to build the office infrastructure and hire and train the technical staff. 

Based on current budget estimates, NRO expects to utilize 483 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in

FY 2008 and have 469 FTEs available in FY 2009. NRO has developed a qualification program

and is in the process of qualifying the staff currently on board. NRO and the Office of Human

Resources (HR) continue to work to rapidly fill the remaining NRO vacancies. A realignment of

HR teams in late July 2007 provided a dedicated team of personnel specialists to NRO and is

anticipated to greatly increase the pace of NRO hiring. 

There are currently a number of vacancies in the areas of electronics (I&C) engineers,

structural engineers, electrical engineers, and project managers for both safety and

environmental reviews. 

MULTINATIONAL DESIGN EVALUATION PROGRAM

This multinational initiative name was changed from the Multinational Design Approval Program

to the Multinational Design Evaluation Program (MDEP) by consensus of the 10 countries 

(the United Kingdom, France, Finland, China, South Korea, Japan, South Africa, Russia,

Canada, and United States) participating in Stage 2 activities. The Chairman signed the Terms

of Reference (TOR) on September 22, 2006. Since the issuance of SECY-06-0187,

“Semiannual Update of the Status of New Reactor Licensing Activities and Future Planning for

New Reactors,” dated August 25, 2006, the NRC staff has continued to make progress in

implementing Stages 1 and 2 of the MDEP. 

Multinational Design Evaluation Program Stage 1 Developments

The NRC staff continues to participate in MDEP Stage 1 activities, with the goal of leveraging

the experience of the agency’s foreign counterparts in the review of new reactor designs. Since

the last semiannual update and as part of MDEP Stage 1, the NRC staff participated in the

March 22 and 23, 2007, meetings with the French and Finnish regulatory authorities, ASN and

STUK, respectively. In addition, NRC and STUK staff are continuing to cooperate on the

review of the Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) main control room design. (STUK sent additional design 

information to the NRC in this area via email on June 7, 2007. The NRC staff is developing a

plan and schedule to provide feedback to STUK on this information.)

At the March meetings in Paris, NRC staff exchanged information with counterparts on the

status of the reviews of the EPR designs in each country, including OL3, which is under

construction in Finland; Flamanville 3, which received a construction permit in May 2007 in

France; and the U.S. EPR, which is in pre-application review for DC in the United States. 

Other topics discussed at the meetings were digital I&C, construction inspection frameworks in

each country, and plans for moving MDEP Stage 1 forward, including the means to facilitate

welcoming other national regulators into this initiative (see meeting summary dated 

April 23, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071020307)). Of note regarding cooperation on 

construction inspection issues, and as agreed in the March meeting, an NRC construction

inspector was assigned to STUK for a two-month period to gain familiarity with the EPR
- 12 -

construction inspection issues. 

The NRC will host the next MDEP Stage 1 meeting with STUK and ASN in the month of

November. 

Multinational Design Evaluation Program Stage 2 Developments 

The 10 participating countries endorsed the MDEP Stage 2 TOR on September 22, 2006, in

Paris at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency

headquarters. The TOR directed the establishment of a 1-year pilot program to test the overall

feasibility of the MDEP Stage 2 concept (followed by a 3-month assessment period). 

Andre-Claude Lacoste, Chairman of ASN, was chosen as the Chair of the Policy Group. NRC

staff attended the initial pilot project working group meetings in Paris October 23–27, 2006. 

The first meeting, which took place October 23–25, 2006, was that of the MDEP Steering

Technical Committee (STC), and the NRC representative was elected STC Chair. The purpose

of the meeting was for the 10 participating MDEP countries to begin discussions and develop

work plans for evaluating the similarities and differences with regard to the safety goals,

regulatory practices, and the scope of the regulatory review for new reactor designs. 

The STC agreed to prepare a survey for the purpose of identifying the similarities and

differences of the regulatory requirements and practices in the areas of severe accidents, digital

I&C, and emergency core cooling systems. The survey was issued to the participating

countries in November 2006, and the results were discussed at a meeting of the STC in March

2007. Following that meeting, the lead country for each of the survey areas hosted a meeting

of the technical experts from several countries to obtain additional information on the

regulations and policies in each country and to discuss the cost and benefits of cooperation and

convergence. 

A working group on component manufacturing oversight (WGCMO) was formed to assess the

similarities and differences in the regulatory requirements and practices associated with the

manufacture of Class 1 mechanical components. The working group issued a survey in

November 2006. The participating countries provided initial responses in February 2007 and

final responses in April 2007. The WGCMO met three times during the pilot program, including

visits to manufacturing sites. The purpose of the meetings was for the 10 participating MDEP

countries to evaluate the similarities and differences with regard to the regulatory oversight of

component manufacturing. A fourth meeting is scheduled for August 2007 to finalize the report

of the working group’s efforts.

A report of the Stage 2 pilot program will be completed by the end of 2007. The report will

summarize the efforts of the STC and the WGCMO, address areas of commonality and

differences, and identify potential areas for increased regulatory cooperation and convergence. 

The recommendations of the STC will be provided to the Policy Group in early 2008.

NRO staff continue to work with the Office of International Programs on the MDEP and is

coordinating communications to the Commission and other stakeholders. 

EARLY SITE PERMITS
- 13 -

The staff has completed its review of the Grand Gulf and Clinton ESP applications. The staff is

currently reviewing two ESP applications. The staff received ESP applications in September

2003 from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion), for the North Anna site, and in

August 2006 from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) for the Vogtle site.

Early Site Permit Safety Reviews

The staff has completed its FSERs for the Grand Gulf, Clinton, and North Anna ESP

applications. The NRC issued the North Anna FSER as NUREG-1835, “Safety Evaluation

Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna Site,” on September 30, 2005; the

Grand Gulf FSER as NUREG-1840, “Safety Evaluation of Early Site Permit Application in the

Matter of System Energy Resources, Inc., a Subsidiary of Entergy Corporation, for the Grand

Gulf Early Site Permit Site,” on April 14, 2006; and the Clinton FSER as NUREG-1844, “Safety

Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon Generation Company, LLC

(EGC) ESP Site,” on May 1, 2006. The staff issued Supplement 1 to the North Anna FSER

(NUREG-1835) on November 20, 2006. 

On August 15, 2006, the staff received an application from SNC for an ESP at the Vogtle site. 

Following receipt of the application, the staff conducted an acceptance review and identified two

areas, seismology and emergency planning, where additional information would be necessary

for the staff to accept the application. In a teleconference on September 8, 2006, SNC

committed to supplement the emergency plans contained in the ESP application by March 1,

2007, to address the staff’s concerns. By letter dated September 13, 2006, SNC supplemented

its ESP application to address the concerns identified in the area of seismology. Following

receipt of the SNC commitments and supplements to the ESP application, the staff found the

application acceptable for docketing on September 19, 2006.

On November 1, 2006, the safety review team conducted an audit at the Vogtle site focusing on

the applicant’s site hazards analysis. The staff toured the Vogtle site and held discussions with

the applicant. On December 6, 2006, the safety review team conducted a second site audit

focused on meteorology. The staff participated in a second tour of the site and met with SNC

meteorological experts to discuss the information contained in the application. The staff

conducted a final audit in January 2007, which focused on hydrology, seismology, geology, and 

geotechnical engineering. The intent of these site audits is for the staff to become familiar with 

the site, to review supplemental information, and to engage the applicant early in the process to

address staff questions. 

Following completion of the safety site audits, the staff issued 187 safety RAIs between

February 1 and April 19, 2007. The staff received all responses to RAIs from SNC within the

allotted 30 calendar days of issuance of the letters and was satisfied with the timeliness of the

responses. The staff has reviewed the responses to the RAIs and is currently developing the

SER with open items, which is scheduled to be issued on August 30, 2007.

On May 21, 2007, SNC submitted a letter to the NRC notifying its intent to submit a request for

an LWA under the new LWA rulemaking. The purpose of the SNC request was to take

advantage of the new rule, which allows for laying of engineered backfill and setting of

reinforcing bar before pouring first concrete. On June 6, 2007, the staff participated in a

conference call with SNC to discuss this issue further. During the call, the staff informed SNC
- 14 -

that it could not submit an LWA request under the new LWA rule until the rule was final. The

staff also informed SNC of the possibility of requesting an LWA-2 as part of its ESP application

under the current rule, which would allow SNC to lay engineered backfill and reinforcing bar. 

SNC indicated that it would submit a request for an LWA-2 possibly in August 2007. 

In preparation for this request, the staff is aligning the resources necessary to complete an 

LWA-2 review and developing a review schedule in parallel with the ESP application review

schedule. 

Early Site Permit Environmental Reviews

The staff completed environmental impact statements (EISs) for the Grand Gulf, Clinton, and

North Anna ESP applications. The NRC issued the Grand Gulf EIS as NUREG-1817,

“Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf Site,” on

April 7, 2006; the Clinton EIS as NUREG-1815, “Environmental Impact Statement for an Early

Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon ESP Site,” on July 20, 2006; and the North Anna EIS as

NUREG-1811, “Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North

Anna ESP Site,” on December 15, 2006.

The NRC received the ER for the Vogtle ESP on August 15, 2006. The staff performed the

acceptance review and accepted the ER, along with the other portions of the ESP application,

for docketing on September 19, 2006. Acceptance of the ER initiated the EIS scoping process. 

The staff developed 103 environmental RAIs and issued them to SNC on December 29, 2006. 

SNC provided responses to the RAIs on January 30, 2007. The contractor supporting the

review of the Vogtle ER, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), stopped work on

January 15, 2007, because of a lack of funding as a result of the Continuing Resolution in

Congress. PNNL resumed work on February 16, 2007, after funding was made available. The

staff review determined that several responses to the RAIs were inadequate, and 22

environmental RAIs were developed and issued to SNC on April 20, 2007. SNC provided

responses to this second round of RAIs on May 10, 2007. As a result of the funding issues

associated with the Continuing Resolution and the issuance of a second round of RAIs, the

schedule for the Vogtle ESP EIS was revised. The draft EIS is scheduled to be available to the

public on September 14, 2007. Issuance of the draft EIS will initiate a public comment period,

and a draft EIS public meeting is scheduled to be held in Waynesboro, Georgia, on or about

October 4, 2007.
- 15 -

Table 3 shows the major remaining schedule milestones in the NRC staff’s review of the other

ESPs. 

Table 3 Schedule Milestones

ESP Milestone SNC

(Vogtle)

Draft EIS issued to EPA 09/14/07 T

Final EIS issued to EPA/NRC

 Notice of Availability Issued

07/03/08 T

SER with Open Items* 08/30/07 T

FSER issued 05/20/08 T

T = Target

*Previously titled as draft SER 

Early Site Permit Proceedings/Hearings

On January 10, 2007, the ASLB authorized the issuance of the Clinton ESP. On January 22,

2007, the Commission issued an order requesting the staff and applicant to respond to two

specific issues raised by the ASLB order. On March 8, 2007, the Commission issued its

decision to approve issuance of the Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Clinton ESP, and on

March 15, 2007, ESP-001 was issued by the NRO Office Director. 

On January 26, 2007, the ASLB authorized the issuance to System Energy Resources, Inc.

(SERI) of an ESP for the Grand Gulf site. On March 27, 2007, the Commission issued its

decision to approve issuance of the Grand Gulf ESP, and on April 5, 2007, ESP-002 was

issued by the NRO Office Director. 

Between April 24, 2007, and April 26, 2007, the ASLB conducted the hearing on the North Anna

ESP. On June 29, 2007, the ASLB released an initial decision authorizing issuance of the

North Anna ESP. On August 2, 2007, the Commission issued Order CLI-07-23 inviting the staff

and Dominion to address the questions raised during the hearing, the issues raised by the

dissenting judge, the suggestions raised by the initial decision (LBP-07-09) of the ASLB, and

any other issues that, the parties believed warranted comment. 

On December 11, 2006, a group of petitioners filed seven contentions opposing the Vogtle ESP

application, with all seven related to SNC’s ER. An ASLB was established and it ordered SNC

and the NRC staff to file responses to the joint petitioners’ hearing request and that the joint 

petitioners reply to the applicant and staff responses. The ASLB scheduled an initial prehearing

conference in Waynesboro, Georgia, on February 13, 2007, to hear arguments by legal counsel

in connection with the admissibility of each of the petitioners’ contentions. 
- 16 -

On March 12, 2007, the ASLB admitted two contentions—Environmental Contention 1.2, “ER

Fails to Identify and Consider Cooling System Impacts on Aquatic Resources,” and

Environmental Contention 1.3, “ER Dry Cooling System Alternatives Discussion Fails to

Address Aquatic Species Impacts.” On May 7, 2007, the ASLB issued a general schedule for

the Vogtle ESP proceedings. The amended/late-filed contentions are due by August 4, 2008,

pre-filed direct testimony is due by November 28, 2008, and the evidentiary hearings will be

held January 26–30, 2009. The ASLB partial initial decision on the contested hearing is

scheduled for April 30, 2009, and on the mandatory hearing for May 15, 2009. 

Future Early Site Permits

By letter dated March 16, 2006, Duke Energy stated that it was designating two additional sites

for possible future ESP development. These two sites, in Davie County, North Carolina, and

Oconee County, South Carolina, will undergo limited site characterization in the future. Duke

Energy did not indicate a schedule for future interactions with the NRC staff. 

By letter dated April 5, 2007, an unannounced applicant stated that it was designating a site for

possible future ESP development. The applicant indicated that the application would be

submitted to the NRC between June 2010 and June 2012. 

PRE-APPLICATION ACTIVITIES

U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor

The U.S. EPR is a large pressurized-water reactor of evolutionary design, with a design output

of about 1600 MWe, designed by AREVA. Design features include four divisions of engineered

safety features and a “core catcher” for containment and cooling of core materials for severe

accidents resulting in a reactor vessel failure. The design also includes a shield building around

the containment, two of four engineered safety feature divisions, the control room, and spent

fuel pool. The design does not rely on passive safety features.

The first U.S. EPR is currently being constructed in Finland (OL3). An U.S. EPR is also

planned for the Flamanville site in France, with operation currently slated for 2012. AREVA

expects to apply for NRC certification of the U.S. EPR design in December 2007. UniStar

Nuclear has stated its plans to reference the U.S. EPR design in a COL application in the fourth

quarter of calendar year (CY) 2007.

AREVA submitted a proposed revised scope of work for the pre-application review, which

includes 15 topical reports and 4 informational technical reports. The NRC staff has completed

its review of two topical reports on the QA program and the applicability of accident and

transient analysis codes and methodologies to the U.S. EPR. The staff is currently reviewing

10 topical reports covering piping analysis and design criteria, severe accident evaluation,

critical heat flux correlation, priority module, software program manual, human factors program,

digital protection system design, instrument setpoint methodology, realistic large-break loss-ofcoolant accidents (LOCAs), I&C diversity, and defense in depth. Other topical reports planned
- 17 -

to be submitted over the next 6 months will cover the fuel assembly mechanical analysis,

setpoint safety analysis methods for the U.S. EPR, and reactivity insertion accident. The NRC

staff holds pre-submittal public meetings and post-submittal teleconferences with AREVA to

discuss the above-mentioned topical reports and technical reports. 

Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems US-Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor

The US-APWR is a 4451-MWt (approximately 1700-MWe) pressurized-water reactor designed

by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. The NRC staff has hosted several public meetings with

Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems (MNES) and is reviewing eight topical reports submitted to

the NRC by MNES on the US-APWR reactor design technology.

Two public meetings were held with MNES in March 2007. The March 1, 2007, public meeting

covered radiation dose assessment, severe accident mitigation, and PRA. The March 22,

2007, public meeting covered engineered safety features, small break LOCAs, and containment

response analysis methodologies. 

On June 13, 2007, staff conducted a public meeting with MNES on the contents of the DCD,

technical specifications for unique design features, and the electrical system design. On

June 19, 2007, a TXU Power design-centered working meeting was held, and MNES presented

its reactor technology, a US-APWR technology overview. Public interactions included a

July 18–19, 2007, NRC public workshop on ITAAC; a July 26, 2007, public meeting on severe

accidents, methodologies and assumptions used for the analyses, and thermal design

methodology. Future public meetings with MNES may include other safety features (such as

safe shutdown systems and mitigation systems), plant design concepts (plant layout, separation

criteria, and steel and concrete structure), and safety analysis methodologies.

MNES has submitted eight topical reports to the NRC, which are undergoing staff review. The

topics include an advance accumulator (January 2007), QA program description (January

2007), safety I&C system description and design process (March 2007), safety system digital

platform (MELTAC) (March 2007), defense in depth and diversity (April 2007), human systems

interface system description and HFE process (April 2007), fuel design criteria and

methodology (May 2007), and thermal design methodology (May 2007). MNES intends to

submit additional topical reports in the area of safety analysis methodology, including large

break-LOCA, small break-LOCA, and non-LOCA accidents.

MNES plans to submit a DCA for the US-APWR in December 2007. TXU Power expects to

submit a COL application in July 2008 for Comanche Peak, Units 3 and 4, using the US-APWR

technology.

Pebble Bed Modular Reactor

The pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) is a 400-MWt (165-MWe) helium-cooled hightemperature reactor. A full-scale demonstration plant is being planned for construction in the

Republic of South Africa. The NRC has entered into pre-application discussions with the

company responsible for the design, construction, and operation of the reactor, PBMR (Pty) 

Ltd., based on its stated purpose to pursue a DC under 10 CFR Part 52. The company intends

to eventually seek deployment of the PBMR in the United States. At present, PBMR (Pty) Ltd.

does not have a domestic utility partner. 
- 18 -

PBMR (Pty) Ltd. projects in its most recent schedule that the pre-application phase will extend

to the latter half of CY 2009, which is when the company plans to submit a DCA to the NRC. 

Consistent with planned resource allocations, the staff has committed to engage in a limited

pre-application review at this time. The review effort is focused on white papers, where each

paper covers a reasonably discrete subject area that has significance for a DCA. The white

papers that have been submitted provide high-level information on the PRA approach; the

identification of licensing-basis events; the classification of structures, systems and

components; and the company’s defense-in-depth approach. PBMR (Pty) Ltd. has indicated a

desire to submit up to 15 more white papers between now and the submission of the DCA.

The staff has been reviewing the submitted white papers using a relatively small fraction of the

budgeted manpower because the skilled staff needed for the review of the subject matter

involved is engaged in higher priority LWR reviews. The budgeted manpower for FY 2007 has

been modest, with a significantly declining trend in both FY 2008 and 2009. The staff met with

PBMR (Pty) Ltd. on July 18, 2007, to discuss the current status of white paper reviews and the

company’s future plans. Having been provided with the information on the staff’s constraints,

PBMR (Pty) Ltd. indicated that it recognized the need to pursue the pre-application activity

giving due consideration to the NRC’s constraints. The staff is preparing a memorandum

informing the Commission of the staff plan and course of action related to the additional

submittals.

International Reactor Innovative and Secure

The International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) is a pressurized, light-water cooled,

medium-power (1000-MWt) reactor. The IRIS development program was originally sponsored

by DOE as part of the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative program and has now been selected

as an International Near-Term Deployment reactor, within the Generation IV International

Forum activities. The NRC held the last public meeting regarding the IRIS on September 28,

2005, when the staff and Westinghouse discussed WCAP-16392, “IRIS Test Plan”; 

WCAP-16318, “IRIS Small Break LOCA Phenomena Identification Ranking Table”; and the

submittal of scaling analyses in support of the IRIS test program.

Westinghouse submitted a letter on September 7, 2006, providing some details of its plans to

submit a DCA. In this letter, the company outlined a proposed schedule for pre-application

activities and restated its intent to begin the formal DC process in 2010. Westinghouse also

indicated a two-path approach to obtaining a DC. The first approach is to submit a DCA under

10 CFR Part 52 requirements in 2010. The second approach involves a separate DCA pending

the evolution of 10 CFR Part 53. The September letter also outlined plans for additional topical

report submittals describing the company’s Simulatore PWR per Esperienze di Sicurezza,

three-loop (SPES-3) test facility and the related IRIS test matrix early in FY 2007, with further

periodic reports of test results, related analyses, and evaluation model changes through

CY 2010. 
- 19 -

Toshiba Super Safe, Small, and Simple Reactor for Galena, Alaska

The Toshiba Super Safe, Small, and Simple (4S) plant is a small, sodium-cooled fast reactor

with a compact steam turbine secondary system. In April 2006, the City Manager of Galena,

Alaska, requested a meeting with the NRC to discuss the white papers, the preliminary safety

information document, and other issues relating to the potential filing of an ESP application for

a small liquid-metal reactor design in Galena. 

On December 7, 2006, the NRC’s Tribal Consultation Team (TCT) met with the Yukon River

Inter-Tribal Watershed Council (YRITWC) to discuss tribal interests and consultation

processes, NRC organizational changes, and future interactions between NRC and the tribes,

as related to the potential siting of a reactor in Galena, Alaska. Some of the concerns

expressed by the YRITWC during the meeting were the adequate timing of communications to 

the tribes in the potential pre-application review and licensing process, the advantage of written

consultation protocols, the importance of the Yukon River to the Tribes’ subsistence, and sitespecific issues related to siting a reactor in Galena, such as the complexity of permafrost and

nearby fault lines.

The TCT plans to provide a status report to the Commission in November 2007 on the items

included in the scope of work, such as the identification of prospective roles, responsibilities,

and expectations of the Native American Tribal governments and the NRC in consultation,

whether a written agreement documenting the consultation process is needed, and future plans

and resource requirements for the development, implementation, and maintenance of

consultation with the appropriate Native American Tribal governments.

High-Temperature Teaching and Test Reactor, University of Texas

On May 11, 2006, the NRC staff held an initial public meeting with the University of Texas and

General Atomics (GA) to discuss the potential licensing of a proposed test reactor at the

University of Texas of the Permian Basin (UTPB) campus. As described by UTPB and GA, the

proposed test reactor, the High-Temperature Teaching and Test Reactor (HT3R), would be a

small high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) with prismatic graphite fuel blocks, 10-

percent enriched uranium-oxide coated particle fuel, a thermal power level of 25 megawatts,

and a helium coolant outlet temperature of 850C (1562F). The passive safety characteristics of

the HT3R would be similar to those of proposed commercial modular HTGR designs such as

the gas turbine-modular helium reactor and PBMR. 

The potential uses of HT3R include (1) testing and demonstration of HTGR technology and its

application to Brayton-cycle electric power generation, hydrogen production, water desalination,

and other uses of high-temperature process heat and (2) isotope production, basic research,

teaching, and operator training. UTPB has indicated that its preliminary plans include

submitting a license application in early 2009, starting construction in early 2010, and

completing construction and licensing by the end of 2012. Pursuant to these plans, UTPB and 

GA requested NRC staff input on the test reactor licensing process to support planning during

the remainder of the HT3R pre-conceptual design phase in 2006 and NRC staff review of the

licensing plan developed during the conceptual design phase in 2007.
- 20 -

Preliminary Pre-application Discussions with Hyperion Power Generation

On May 30, 2007, staff from NRO, Office of Congressional Affairs, Office of Public Affairs, and

the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) met with representatives from Purple

Mountain Ventures (PMV) to discuss potential licensing processes that could be applied to the 

PMV Hyperion reactor design. At this meeting, PMV stated that it is looking into the feasibility

of mass producing a small reactor for dedicated or remote applications. The design under

consideration consists of an 80-MWt self-regulating reactor that uses powdered uranium

hydride as the fuel, has no mechanical moving parts, and could be buried underground. 

The reactor would be constructed in a factory, shipped to the site, installed, and operated for

5 years, before being returned to the factory for refueling.

By letter dated June 15, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML071800261), Hyperion Power

Generation, Inc. (HPG) requested the continuation of pre-application discussions with RES. 

RES met with HPG on August 22, 2007, to learn more regarding the development status of the

Hyperion reactor design. HPG presented the major design concepts of their proposed design. 

HPG indicated that formal analysis and design documentation suitable for NRC 

pre-application review would be available in late FY09. (The meeting summary is available in

ADAMS; Accession No. ML072360204.) 

GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP

The Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) has been working with NRO,

RES, and other supporting offices to review DOE plans for the GNEP program, identify

potential technologies, and develop the regulatory framework for these activities. GNEP is a

DOE initiative that was introduced as a part of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative. 

The GNEP initiative aims to expand the use of nuclear power, both domestically and

internationally; minimize nuclear waste; develop advanced proliferation-resistant recycling and

separation technologies; develop advanced burner reactors (ABRs) for transmutation of

long-lived fission products; establish reliable fuel services; demonstrate grid-appropriate,

exportable reactors; and enhance nuclear safeguards technology. The current DOE GNEP

planning for a closed nuclear fuel cycle would include spent fuel reprocessing, fuel fabrication,

and a sodium-cooled ABR as well as advanced fuel separation facilities. The fuel reprocessing

and fabrication facilities and ABR would be regulated by the NRC. As directed in SRM-07-

0081, “Staff Requirements-Regulatory Options for Licensing Facilities Associated with the

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP),” dated June 27, 2007, NRO and RES will develop

the ABR licensing framework and gap analysis. 

NEXT GENERATION NUCLEAR PLANT LICENSING STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), Section 641, provides that the Secretary of Energy

shall establish a project known as the “Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project” (NGNP Project). 

The NGNP Project consists of research, development, design, construction, licensing, and

operation of a prototype plant, including a very high temperature gas-cooled reactor (VHTR),

which can be used to generate electricity and co-generate hydrogen. Section 644(a) of the

EPAct provides that the NRC shall have licensing and regulatory authority for any reactor

authorized under Sections 641–645 of the EPAct. Section 644(b) of the EPAct requires the

Secretary of DOE and the Chairman of the NRC to develop and jointly submit a licensing
- 21 -

strategy for the prototype nuclear reactor within 3 years of the date of the law’s enactment (i.e.,

August 8, 2008). The licensing strategy, as defined in Section 644(b) of the EPAct, has four

elements—licensing approach, analytical tools for confirmatory safety analysis, supporting

research and development (R&D) bases, and resources—all of which are required by the NRC

to perform licensing and regulatory review of an NGNP plant.

Pursuant to the EPAct mandate, the NRC and DOE put in place on October 12, 2006, a

memorandum of understanding (MOU) to establish a framework for interactions between the

NRC and DOE to develop and document the licensing strategy. The MOU describes respective

organizational responsibilities, the interaction process and schedule, planned work products,

and funding. An NRC/DOE licensing strategy working group has been formed to develop the

licensing strategy. This group consists of staff from RES, NRO, NMSS, the Office of the

General Counsel (OGC), and the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy. The group has been working

on the licensing strategy and has been meeting monthly to discuss progress made on all four

elements of the licensing strategy. 

Key issues discussed by the group include licensing approaches that could be used for the

NGNP. The group identified potential options based on adaptation, to various degrees, of the

current LWR licensing processes while making greater use of risk insights. This is consistent

with the language in the EPAct and with relevant SECY papers and SRMs on risk-informed,

performance-based regulatory process. Although evaluating all licensing options, the group is

focusing its attention on addressing a limited number of options. The group is currently

evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of using the licensing processes under 10 CFR

Part 50 and Part 52.

With regard to the identification of NRC needs for analytical tools and supporting R&D bases,

the staff, in collaboration with DOE, conducted a phenomena identification and ranking

technique (PIRT)—an expert elicitation process—to identify safety-relevant NGNP phenomena

and assess the knowledge base. Key technical areas addressed in the PIRT process include

accident analysis and thermofluidics, high-temperature materials and graphite, process heat

applications, and fission products. A separate PIRT that addressed the NGNP fuels issues had

been conducted previously. The staff will use the PIRT findings to assess the knowledge gaps

in key technical areas and to determine the scope of analytical tools and the supporting R&D

that will form the technical basis for supporting the licensing and regulatory review of an NGNP

application. 

REGULATORY INFRASTRUCTURE

This section provides the status of the 10 CFR Part 52 rulemaking, CIP development, COL

issues, other regulatory guidance for both LWR and non-LWR technologies, and other 

infrastructure activities. 

10 CFR Part 52 Update

On April 11, 2007, the Commission voted to approve the publication and implementation of the

final rule amending 10 CFR Part 52, subject to changes and comments noted by the

Commission in its SRM (ADAMS Accession No. ML071010223). The final rule enhances the

effectiveness and efficiency of the 10 CFR Part 52 licensing processes and clarifies the
- 22 -

applicability of requirements to each of the processes—ESP, standard design approval,

standard DC, COL, and manufacturing license. On May 21, 2007, the staff posted the draft

final rule on the NRC’s rulemaking Web site, reflecting changes that resulted from the

Commission’s SRM. On August 28, 2007, the 10 CFR Part 52 final rule was published in the

Federal Register (72 FR 49352). The rule becomes effective 30 days following its publication.

Limited Work Authorization Rule Update

On April 17, 2007, the Commission voted to approve the publication and implementation of the

final rule amending 10 CFR Part 2 and 10 CFR Part 50 to revise requirements for LWAs and

site preparation activities (ADAMS Accession No. ML071070361). The staff made the changes

to the LWA rule directed by the Commission’s SRM and submitted a clearance package to

OMB on August 30, 2007. OMB must review and approve the information collection aspects of

the final rule before it can be published in the Federal Register. 

The Commission also directed the staff to work with external stakeholders to develop and

publish the necessary implementation guidance for the LWA rule. To that end, on 

May 22, 2007, the staff held a public meeting to discuss the development of regulatory

guidance to support implementation of the LWA rule.

Aircraft Impact Characteristics Sharing

In the SRM on SECY-06-0204, “Proposed Rulemaking—Security Assessment Requirements

for New Nuclear Power Reactor Designs,” dated April 24, 2007, the Commission directed the

staff to share aircraft impact characteristics with the new reactor vendors. In order to

accomplish this goal, the staff issued Orders to Westinghouse and GE on June 8 and

June 15, 2007, respectively, imposing requirements for the protection of Safeguards

Information (SGI). The Orders designated the aircraft impact characteristics as SGI. 

Westinghouse and GE responded to the Order on June 14 and July 2, 2007, respectively. 

Based on the satisfactory results of the staff’s review of the responses, the aircraft impact

characteristics were sent to Westinghouse and GE. The staff is in the process of meeting with

the vendors to discuss the aircraft characteristics that they received and to discuss high-level

results from the analyses done by RES. The staff plans to issue to all four new reactor vendors

(Westinghouse, GE, Mitsubishi, and Areva), Orders that will impose the same requirements for

the protection of SGI as in the previous Orders, but with special restrictions on the sharing of

information. The staff plans to issue these Orders in the near future and they will supersede

the Orders previously issued to Westinghouse and GE. 

Rulemaking on Aircraft Impact Assessments

The NRC staff is preparing a proposed rulemaking on aircraft impact assessments following 

SRM-06-0225, “Assessment of Aircraft Impacts on New Reactor Designs,” dated May 1, 2007,

directing the staff to incorporate the requirement into 10 CFR Part 52. The proposed rule is

expected to be published for public comment in mid-September 2007. 
- 23 -

Construction Inspection Program 

Development of the guidance, enforcement, information management (IM), policies, and

programs necessary for the agency to run a successful CIP continues to be accomplished. 

Highlights are provided below.

Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Working Group

The staff initiated a working group that focuses on the closure verification of ITAAC, which

affects all divisions within NRO. The working group is composed of members from all NRO

divisions, NRC Region II, and OGC and is intended to resolve key policy issues and other

issues associated with ITAAC. The working group charter includes many items such as

developing the scope and process for headquarters technical support of ITAAC closure

verification, developing regulatory guidance for licensee closure documentation, developing the

NRC process for ITAAC closure verification, developing a policy for inspection sampling of sitespecific ITAAC, and estimating resources needed to implement the baseline inspection

program. 

In addition to establishing this working group, on July 11, 2007, the staff briefed the ACRS on

the prioritization method used for selecting ITAAC for direct inspection. ACRS, in a letter dated 

July 24, 2007, concurred with the staff’s approach to ITAAC sampling as presented.

Assessment and Enforcement Program

The staff is developing assessment and enforcement program guidance for plants that would

be licensed under 10 CFR Part 52. A full day workshop will be held on August 30, 2007, to

discuss initial concepts in this area. 

The guidance for the CIP assessment process will be included in Inspection Manual Chapter

(IMC) 2505, “Periodic Assessment of Construction Inspection Program Results,” which is

currently under development. The objectives of IMC 2505 are to determine overall licensee

performance, determine the readiness of key operational programs, guide timely and

predictable decisions regarding agency actions in response to licensee performance, and

provide a process for informing the licensee and the public of the NRC’s assessment and

subsequent actions. The IMC 2505 assessment process will capture the fundamental

enhancements of the Reactor Oversight Process such as transparency and predictability. The

refinement of the assessment process and its relation to ITAAC sampling will occur in future

fiscal years. 

 

The Enforcement Policy is currently being revised by the Office of Enforcement and will include

modifications to address new reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 52. The enforcement

program objectives for new reactors will be very similar to those for reactors licensed under

10 CFR Part 50. These objectives include deterring non-compliance by emphasizing the

importance of NRC requirements and encouraging prompt identification and comprehensive

corrective actions.
- 24 -

Inspection Procedures Development

The staff is continuing to develop and revise inspection procedures for use with the

10 CFR Part 52 licensing process. Progress continues on the development of inspection

procedures for ITAAC-related construction activities under IMC 2503, “Inspections, Tests,

Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC).” The first set of procedures, which would be 

required to support the inspection of licensee activities under an LWA, will be issued before the

end of FY 2007. The remaining 20 procedures will be issued by summer 2008.

The staff is progressing with its update of the inspection guidance for operational programs as

described in IMC 2504, “Non-ITAAC Inspections.” In addition to operational programs,

IMC 2504 addresses the inspection of other non-ITAAC activities, including the preoperational

test and startup test programs and the transition to the Reactor Oversight Process. In total, the

agency will develop and revise approximately 150 procedures to support inspections under

IMC 2504. The staff has prioritized the procedure review effort such that necessary procedures

would be available well in advance of their need. To date, 92 procedure reviews have been

performed, 17 procedures have been consolidated into other procedures, 34 procedures are in

final review cycle for issuance this fall, and 10 procedures will be completed this FY. The entire

project is scheduled to be completed by the end of FY 2008, with the exception of security

procedures, which are being coordinated with an anticipated rulemaking.

Construction Inspector Qualification and Development

IMC 1252, “Construction Inspector Training and Qualification Program,” which defines the initial

training and qualification requirements for staff performing inspections of reactor construction

activities, was issued in February 2007. With the support of HR, the staff is developing and

piloting the training courses needed for the qualification program. NRO and Region II

construction inspection staff have participated in courses for the new reactor technologies,

10 CFR Part 52, and the CIP. Additionally, Region II construction inspection staff have

participated in commercial training courses for specific technical areas such as fiber optic

cables, soils, concrete, welding, and digital process controls.

Information Management

The construction inspection team continues to work with the Office of Information Services

(OIS), the Region II construction organization, and the NRO Information Technology Team to

complete the CIP Information Management System, a database that will allow the NRC staff to

manage inspection-generated information. The ability to document vendor inspection

information has recently been added to the system. The system design is nearly complete, and

initial system testing will begin before the end of FY 2007. The system is scheduled for

deployment in early CY 2008.

Additionally, NRO is evaluating the use of the Microsoft Enterprise Project Management

software suite (EPM Solution) for tracking and documentation of the ITAAC closure process.
- 25 -

Construction and Operational Experience Program

The NRC is currently capturing the operating experiences gained from the current fleet of

reactors in the Operating Experience (OpE) Program, which resides in the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation (NRR). In order to focus on the issues that are unique to the construction

and operation of new reactors, the staff is developing an internal NRO process, called the

Construction and Operational Experience (COpE) Program. The COpE Program will collect,

evaluate, and communicate the lessons learned from the new reactor construction projects. 

This program also collects and evaluates the operating experience that could impact the

operation of new reactors by monitoring operating reactors’ events as well as inspections of

vendors and licensee QA programs. 

The COpE Program has been integrated with the agency OpE Program. The NRO process

focuses on issues that are primarily applicable to the construction of new reactors. The goal of

the COpE Program is to support the NRC mission of protecting public health and safety through

incorporation of COpE into activities associated with the inspection and licensing of new

reactors. 

The collection of international experience will be accomplished through bilateral agreements,

joint QA and vendor inspections, the Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (CNRA)

working group on operating experience, and the CNRA working group on new reactors. 

Participating countries are expected also to be participating in the MDEP.

The application of the COpE Program includes issuing generic communications, revising NRC

inspection procedures, providing insights to vendor QA audits, and providing insights into

licensing reviews. Examples of recent construction and operational experiences currently being

evaluated by NRO technical reviewers include problems with Kerotest valves at French plants

(multiple incidents since 1993), cracks in the auxiliary building at a French plant (October 2001),

insufficient guidance of subcontractors’ work in Finland, and ABWR turbine damage at

Hamaoka-5 in Japan (June 2006).

Vendor Inspections

The staff is finalizing its updates of the inspection guidance for ESP and COL applications 

(IMC 2501, “Early Site Permit,” issued in October 2002 and IMC 2502, “Pre-Combined License

(Pre-COL) Phase,” issued in June 2005). With the issuance of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.206,

“Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition),” in June 2007 and

SRP Sections 17.4, “Reliability Insurance Program,” and 17.5, “Quality Assurance Program

Description—Design Certification, Early Site Permit, and New License Applicants,” the staff is

revising the IMCs and associated inspection procedures for ESP and COL applications to focus

the guidance on ensuring the appropriate implementation of QA programs. With support from

Region II, the staff has performed QA audits before COL submittal, consistent with the revised

IMCs, to support the review of the COL applications that are expected in fall 2007. In addition

to ESP and COL reviews, the staff has developed IMC 2508, “Construction Inspection Program:

Design Certification,” and the associated inspection procedures to support the review of DCAs. 

Final issuance of the revised and new IMCs and associated inspection procedures is scheduled

to be completed within the next 6 months. 
- 26 -

The staff is enhancing the vendor inspection program (VIP), established in NRR by IMC 2700,

“Vendor Inspection Program,” and in NRO with the development of IMC 2507, “Construction

Inspection Program: Vendor Inspections Program.” IMC 2507 contains additional inspection

guidance and procedures to specifically target nuclear component suppliers and suppliers of

energy services because of a number of significant factors, such as (1) the entry of new

suppliers to the U.S. nuclear industry, most of whom are expected to be based overseas,

(2) the use of modular construction techniques during the fabrication of new reactors, (3) the

requirement to verify completion of ITAAC associated with systems and components, and

(4) the extensive use of contractors to provide engineering and licensing services to most

applicants. 

During the next several months, the staff will be performing vendor inspections at a number of

facilities identified as suppliers of items and services for the construction of new nuclear power

plants. These inspections will afford the staff an opportunity to pilot the enhancements to the

NRO VIP, including inspection program guidance, and to engage interested stakeholders in the

process and results of such efforts.

Operator Licensing Program

The staff met with industry representatives in a public meeting on May 24, 2007, to discuss

issues related to the operator licensing program for COL applicants. Topics of discussion

included use of limited-scope simulators, licensed operator eligibility requirements, cold

licensing of operators, changes to NUREGs and regulatory guides (RGs), and

industry-administered initial operator licensing examinations.

The industry proposed using limited-scope simulators for operator training, as plant-referenced

simulators are not projected to be available until 18 months before fuel load. The industry

intends to conduct operator licensing exams on a plant-referenced simulator.

The industry also proposed developing alternative criteria and suggested that RG 1.8,

“Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,” may need to be updated to

address the new construction conditions. 

The industry indicated that a technical paper will be developed for NRC review that presents a

uniform industry approach toward “cold” licensing of operators and discusses, among other

topics, on-the-job training before fuel load, conducting systems training before construction of

the systems, and reactivity manipulations without a plant or plant-referenced simulator.

At the public meeting, the staff and industry agreed that changes to NUREG-1122, “Knowledge

and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators: Pressurized Water Reactors,” dated

June 5, 1998, and NUREG-1123, “Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant 

Operators: Boiling Water Reactors,” dated June 5, 1998, may be necessary after industry

completes additional licensed operator job analyses.

NEI proposed that (1) the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations be given “management”

responsibility of the Generic Fundamentals Examination (GFE) and that (2) utilities be allowed

to develop, administer, and grade license examinations without any prior NRC review or

approval. NRC expressed concern regarding the reduced Government role, the qualifications
- 27 -

and objectivity of the utility’s examination teams, the ability of the licensee to independently

author high-quality examinations, the potential for examination development biases, public 

confidence in the proposed process, and the potential for significant resource allocations

necessary to effect such a change. 

Since the meeting in May, NEI has informed the staff that industry has decided not to pursue

the proposed change to the initial examination process while continuing to pursue evaluation of

the possibility of assuming responsibility for administration of the GFE.

To meet the industry-projected date for licensing operators, additional NRC operator licensing

examiners will be needed before 2012. The staff met with representatives of the NRC

Technical Training Center to address the issues in order to achieve this need. NRO anticipates

that a mixture of existing qualified examiners and new hires will be used to meet industry

demands in the next decade. 

Regulatory Guides

In March 2007, the NRC staff issued the highest priority RGs related to the support of new

reactor licensing activities. The staff prioritized the remaining RGs based on information from

several sources. The staff plans to develop and publish the second group (Phase 2) by

December 2008 and the third group (Phase 3) by December 2009. 

The staff issued RG 1.206 in June 2007 after resolving public comments and the issuance of

the SRM for the 10 CFR Part 52 rulemaking. The vast majority of the RG was issued for

preliminary use between March 2007 and the final issuance of the RG to support preparation of

applications. The staff is continuing to conduct meetings and other discussions with

stakeholders to resolve issues related to the format and content of applications. 

Standard Review Plan

In March 2007, the NRC staff issued a wholesale update of the SRP (NUREG-0800). Before

formal issuance, preliminary SRP section revisions were made publicly available to support

applicants in their preparation of COL applications. The last several sections of the SRP,

including those related to PRA, were issued in June 2007 following the issuance of the SRM for

the 10 CFR Part 52 rulemaking. 

On August 9, 2007, the staff conducted a public workshop on recently updated high-priority

sections of NUREG-1555, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear

Power Plants,” most recently issued in its entirety in October 1999.

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Feasibility Assessment

In a November 14, 2006 letter the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) informed the NRC of its

intention to perform a feasibility study on completing Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2. 

On June 7, 2007, the staff submitted a paper seeking Commission approval of the staff's
- 28 -

approach for possible reactivation of the WBN Unit 2 project (SECY-07-0096). The

Commission provided direction to the staff for the licensing and inspection program for WBN

Unit 2 in an SRM dated July 25, 2007.

In a letter dated August 3, 2007, the TVA officially notified the NRC of its intent to reactivate

and complete construction activities at WBN Unit 2. In the letter, TVA indicated that it intends

to resume construction activities on December 3, 2007, and that it expects to complete

construction and request an operating license prior to April 1, 2012. NRR staff is developing a

project plan and project organization to perform the reviews necessary for licensing the facility

in accordance with the SRM and to coordinate construction inspection activities with Region II.

Office Instructions and Other Infrastructure Activities

The staff is developing procedures (office instructions) to support the various functions and

responsibilities of NRO. This effort includes administrative controls for the new office as well as

specific procedures for processing applications submitted under 10 CFR Part 52 for COLs,

DCs, and ESPs. These procedures and related tools, such as information systems and

document templates, will enhance the NRO staff and managers’ ability to operate as an office,

including guidance to orchestrate the receipt, acceptance, review, and environmental evaluation

of applications related to new reactor facilities. The staff is developing the licensing-related

procedures in coordination with the revisions to 10 CFR Part 52, the standard format and

content guide (RG 1.206), and the SRP. NRO will determine priorities and schedules for the

completion of specific office instructions and related tools based on the expected application

schedules and the needs of the staff and management in the office. As of July 2007, 12 office

instructions have been issued with another 12 in the final stages of approval.

Technical review tools have been deployed and the NRC staff and contractors are evaluating

and developing the appropriate content to facilitate the technical reviews. The NRC staff, with

the assistance of the national laboratories, is developing design-specific templates for the SERs

needed for the issuance of COLs. The staff expects to have the tools available for use by the

receipt of the first application in fall 2007. 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

The SRM for SECY-05-0130, “Policy Issues Related to New Plant Licensing and Status of the

Technology-Neutral Framework for New Plant Licensing,” dated September 15, 2005, directed

the staff to consider ACRS comments in developing a subsequent notation vote paper

addressing the policy issues of level of safety and integrated risk. In addition, the Commission

directed the staff to expeditiously develop an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)

to consider the spectrum of issues relating to risk-informing the reactor requirements and to

incorporate into this ANPR the formal program to risk-inform 10 CFR Part 50, as well as other

related risk-informed efforts. The Commission also directed that safety, security, and

preparedness be integrated throughout this effort. The staff prepared an ANPR incorporating

the issues identified by the Commission in the SRM for SECY-05-0130. In accordance with the

SRM for SECY-06-0007, “Staff Plan to Make a Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Revision

to 10 CFR Part 50,” dated March 22, 2006, the staff published the ANPR in the Federal

Register (71 FR 26267). Additionally, the staff placed the latest working draft of the technologyneutral framework on the RuleForum Web site to facilitate stakeholder comment on the
- 29 -

framework as part of the ANPR. The staff conducted a public workshop on this subject

September 14–15, 2006. The ANPR comment period ended in December 2006. 

In SECY-07-0101, “Staff Recommendations Regarding a Risk-Informed and PerformanceBased Revision to 10 CFR Part 50,” dated June 14, 2007, the staff provided its

recommendation on whether and how to proceed with a rulemaking and also a summary of

stakeholder comments on issues in the ANPR. The staff recommended that the NRC not

proceed on rulemaking at this time and to allow the need for and scope of a rulemaking to be

informed by the development of a licensing strategy for the NGNP and the pre-application

review of the PBMR. 

Security Requirements for New Reactors

Power Reactor Security (10 CFR 73.55, 10 CFR 73.56, 10 CFR 73.58, 10 CFR 73.71, and

Appendices B, C, and G)

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2006, and had an

extended public comment period ending February 23, 2007. The staff received about

600 pages of comments and is currently in the process of developing responses. The staff is

currently scheduled to provide the final rule package to the EDO about January 2008. The first

draft regulatory guidance in support of the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register

on July 6, 2007, for public comment. The first public meeting to discuss the guidance was held

on July 27, 2007. The publication of draft guidance will continue into the end of 2007. 

Security Assessment Rulemaking and Guidance Development

On July 6, 2005, the staff provided the Commission with SECY-05-0120, “Security Design

Expectations for New Reactor Licensing Activities.” On September 9, 2005, the Commission

issued an SRM approving the actions proposed in SECY-05-0120. One of the proposed

actions, to conduct rulemaking to require applicants to submit a security assessment and target

set analysis, is due on September 29, 2007. The NRC conducted two public meetings (March 6

and July 17, 2006) on this rulemaking and posted draft rule language on the Web for

stakeholder information. The staff delivered the proposed rule to the Commission in SECY-06-

0204 on September 28, 2006. On April 24, 2007, the Commission issued SRM-SECY-06-0204,

which disapproved the proposed rulemaking and directed the staff to discontinue some aspects

of the proposed rule and to consolidate other aspects in changes to a 10 CFR Part 52

rulemaking.

Currently, the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR) staff is continuing with

regulatory guidance for target set analyses, upon which site protection strategies would, in part,

be based, and for security assessments, upon which mitigative strategies would be based

consistent with the proposed Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 73, “Physical Protection of Plants and

Materials.”
- 30 -

Security Measures During Construction of a New Plant

The staff continues to meet with the New Plants Security Task Force (industry/vendors) on a

periodic basis to discuss security for new reactors. Topics normally include access

authorization for greenfield construction sites as addressed in Appendix F to NEI 03-12,

“Security Plan, Training and Qualification Plan, and Safeguards Contingency Plan;” ITAAC; and

generic implementation schedule for operational programs.

Security Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Homeland Security

Section 657 of the EPAct provides that before issuing a license for a utilization facility, the NRC

shall consult with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concerning the potential

vulnerabilities of the location of the proposed facility to terrorist attack. The MOU with DHS was

published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2007 (72 FR 9959–9960). The staff meets with

DHS on a monthly basis to develop an implementation plan (procedure) on the MOU for

interaction between the two organizations.

Contracting Strategy to Support New Reactor Licensing

The Contract Planning and Management Branch (NCPM) staff continues to implement the

contracting strategy in anticipation of the new reactor licensing activities projected for FY 2007

and FY 2008. The NRO contracting strategy includes the use of a broad mix of contractors,

early identification of needs, and placement of contracts consistent with the DCRA. NRO has

engaged with the DOE laboratories, commercial contractors, and other Federal agencies and is

finalizing basic ordering agreements and commercial contracts to provide technical assistance

for all phases of the new reactors licensing process. 

NCPM has finalized basic ordering agreements with PNNL, Sandia National Laboratory, and

Brookhaven National Laboratory. NRO expects to finalize new agreements with the Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),

and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by the middle of September 2007. The Division of

Contracts is scheduled to award four new commercial contracts by the end of FY 2007. 

Therefore, NRO will have multiple vehicles in place to obtain technical assistance from USACE,

USGS, five DOE laboratories, and four commercial contractors. 

At the present time, NCPM is working with the technical divisions to develop task order

statements of work for the anticipated outsourcing of technical reviews and other licensing

activities to USACE, USGS, DOE laboratories, and commercial contractors. In addition, NCPM

continues to explore the possibility of expanding the use of other organizations while addressing

organizational conflict of interest (OCOI) issues to ensure the independence of COL reviews. 

The staff is committed to ensure that each laboratory agreement and commercial contract is

assessed for OCOI and that the laboratories and commercial contractors are required to

comply with the NRC’s OCOI rules.
- 31 -

Licensing Program Plan

The LPP defines the process that NRO will use to perform licensing reviews of DCs, COL, and

ESP applications. The LPP defines the anticipated work, the schedule and resources required 

to perform the reviews, processes to perform this work, methods of statusing the work,

practices for change controls, communication plans, and the information technology (IT)

requirements for implementing the review process. Accompanying the LPP document is the

EPM Solution, which integrates the licensing review schedules (Gantt chart) for all the DC,

COL, and ESP applications that industry has indicated it will be submitting. The schedules will

be developed, monitored, and maintained using the EPM Solution. The EPM Solution will

permit task statusing through the NRC Intranet. 

Version 1 of the LPP and its integrated schedule (approximately 80,000 task line items) was

issued on February 7, 2007. Training of management and staff on the use of the EPM Solution

started in the third quarter of FY 2007 and will continue to evolve as lessons learned are

incorporated into the system. The planning and scheduling staff has developed R-COL,

subsequent COL (S-COL), and DC templates that will be customized based on RIS-07-08

responses, discussions with applicants about the contents of their applications, and interactions

with the technical staff for each of the various potential applications. NRO will maintain the LPP

and its associated schedules throughout the licensing reviews.

New Reactor Business Process Plan

To assist in creating the new reactor program, the staff developed a Business Process Plan,

formerly known as the master integrated schedule, to facilitate interactions among key

stakeholders for significant issues directly related to the success of the program. The Business

Process Plan included activities related to organizational development, resource acquisition,

work processes, and technical guidance. The plan was instrumental in tracking the

development and progress of those activities that were essential for starting up the new office. 

The majority of the actions included in the plan have been completed, and the remainder will be

completed by the end of FY 2007. The programs that were described in the plan, such as a

contracting strategy, staff qualification program, and the LPP, are well established. The

activities described in the Business Process Plan are now included in the NRO Operating Plan,

and the remaining milestones are being tracked as part of the Operating Plan. Therefore, the

staff decided that it was no longer beneficial to maintain the Business Process Plan as a

separate communications and tracking tool and has closed this activity. 

Combined License Review Task Force

In the SRM for COMDEK-07-0001/COMJSM-07-0001, dated June 22, 2007, the Commission

approved, in part, the recommendations of the Combined License Review Task Force. The

Commission directed the staff to expeditiously provide the Commission with plans for 

implementing the recommendations. A brief description of the approved

recommendations/Commission directions and status is provided below.
- 32 -

Regarding Recommendation 1, the Commission approved the proposal that the Commission

itself will conduct the mandatory hearing (in the absence of legislation eliminating the

requirement for a hearing even if a request for hearing is not made). OGC is preparing a plan

for the conduct of these hearings by the Commission, modeled after the Browns Ferry restart

meeting and the Calvert Cliffs and Oconee license renewal meetings. 

Regarding Recommendation 2, the Commission approved expansion of the scope and duration

of the COL application acceptance review to include completeness and technical sufficiency

review. The staff has developed a working group on the acceptance review process for new

reactor COL applications, as addressed below, which will ensure that the criteria used for the

expanded scope of review are clear and transparent. 

Regarding Recommendation 4, the Commission approved of the staff seeking additional

opportunities to use EISs completed by other government agencies for NRC COL reviews, to

the extent that they are appropriate and applicable. The staff intends to utilize the techniques

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of "tiering," "incorporation by reference,"

and "adoption" outlined in Appendix A.1(b) to 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” to take advantage of

information and positions developed by the NRC or other Federal agencies, including EISs that

are relevant to proposed new reactor licensing actions, to the maximum extent practicable. 

Where other Federal agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USACE, and others have Federal actions that overlap

with the NRC's action, the NRC staff plans to coordinate with other agencies to exploit

synergies. The value of the coordination will depend on the timing of actions, i.e., one

preceding the other or one concomitant with the other. The NRC has MOUs to work

cooperatively so that each agency can meet its responsibilities under the NEPA in the most

effective manner for the Federal Government. 

Regarding Recommendation 5, the Commission directed the staff to conduct a public meeting

with industry representatives and other stakeholders to give the public and stakeholders an

opportunity to present their views on how to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the

environmental review process. The staff is currently working with industry on scheduling this

meeting.

 

Regarding Recommendation 6, the Commission approved maximizing the use of electronic

document management to eliminate the processing time for bound reports from the critical path

on the schedule. The staff is taking various actions to maximize the use of electronic document

management. Examples include working with industry on electronic submittals and developing

electronic distribution of documents generated by the staff. 

In Additional Recommendation 1, the Commission approved obtaining legislative authority from

Congress to eliminate from Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act the statutory requirement to

conduct a hearing even if no one has asked for a hearing.

In Additional Recommendation 2, the Commission approved rulemaking to resolve issues that

are generic to COL applications. The staff is in the process of evaluating those rulemakings

that will provide the greatest efficiencies—on such subjects as nonproliferation risks of nuclear
- 33 -

power, the need for power, the long-term storage of spent fuel, reprocessing and waste

confidence—and assessing the impact of pursuing such rulemaking initiatives on the staff’s

ability to complete the COL reviews in a timely manner. 

Working Group on Acceptance Review Process for New Reactor Combined License

Applications

In May 2007, a working group was formed in NRO in response to recommendations in

COMDEK-07-0001/COMJSM-07-0001, “Report of the Combined License Review Task Force,”

dated April 18, 2007, relating to the acceptance review of COL applications. In the SRM for

COMDEK-07-0001/COMJSM-07-0001, as discussed above, the Commission directed the staff

to expand the scope and duration of the COL application acceptance review from 30 to 60 days

and to include completeness and technical sufficiency reviews. Furthermore, the Commission

reaffirmed that the safety and environmental technical reviews should commence on the date

the application is docketed (i.e., after the acceptance review, when the application is

determined to be complete and technically sufficient and not when the application is initially

submitted by the applicant). The working group set out to implement the Commission’s

direction by developing an NRO office instruction that discusses the 60-day completeness and

technical sufficiency acceptance review. 

The working group comprises staff and managers from five NRO divisions. The working group

has nearly completed the development of an efficient and effective acceptance review process

for new reactor COL applications. In addition, it has nearly completed a final draft of an NRO

office instruction that would provide guidance to the staff during the acceptance review to

ensure that the applications meet the NRC’s regulations and are technically sufficient,

streamline the acceptance review considering both safety and risk insights, and provide

schedule input for the development of an application-specific review plan and updated

schedule. Upon completion of the NSIR and NRO review of the office instruction, the expanded

acceptance review will be rolled out to the staff at an all-hands meeting.

Training to the Chinese on the AP1000 Design

From August 3–19, 2007, NRC staff traveled to Beijing and Beidaihe, China, to provide

technical training to the Chinese on the AP1000 design and the NRC’s DC review. This was

the first cooperative activity as discussed in the May 2007 memorandum of cooperation (MOC)

between the NRC and the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA), the regulator in the

People’s Republic of China. The MOC agrees to cooperation on the nuclear safety review and

inspection for the siting, design, manufacturing, construction, commissioning and operation

phases of the AP1000. The cooperation between the NRC and NNSA on the AP1000 will be

done under the NRC-NNSA Steering Committee on Nuclear Safety Cooperation, which will

discuss specific cooperative programs for this project.

Information Technology/Information Management

As the agency continues preparations for new reactor licensing, the Office of Information

Services (OIS) is coordinating closely with agency offices to implement business process and

technology improvements in advance of the anticipated ESP and COL applications. Several 
- 34 -

recent process and technology implementations are providing enhanced support for the DCRA

and the mandatory adjudicatory hearings. 

OIS is hiring additional staff based on the number and complexity of these new reactor projects

and a review of current workloads. The staff is planning, implementing, and supporting

application enhancements, technology improvements, security requirements, and other 

initiatives to address agency growth and expanding NRC Headquarters locations. The staff has

completed preparations to fulfill increased IM requirements that support the New Reactor

Licensing Program.

Information Technology/Information Management Contracting Strategy

OIS is using a diverse mix of contractors under various contracting vehicles to effectively meet

agency IT/IM support requirements. Whenever possible, OIS uses existing support and service

contracts to quickly and efficiently meet agency needs. OIS has modified existing contracts for

desktop computers, network support, computer center operations, systems administration,

applications development and support, telecommunications services, and IM to accommodate

enhancements and changes in scope. For example, the recent Seat Management Services

Contract modification has resulted in the deployment of Microsoft Office to enhance the NRC’s

ability to effectively communicate with licensees and other external stakeholders. For

requirements beyond these established contracts, OIS identifies additional commercial

contracting requirements and pursues competitive sources. The office is also exploring

General Services Administration and other interagency agreements as potential sources. OIS

documents all procurement activities in the Advance Procurement Plan provided to the Division

of Contracts.

The four primary factors described below drive OIS contracting activities.

(1) Agency Growth 

The growth in agency staff and the expansion to additional offsite buildings have increased

costs in a number of areas. For example, direct expenses include direct costs for computer

workstations, telecommunications services, software licenses, and help desk support

personnel. Agency growth and the expansion in NRC Headquarters locations also drive the

need for additional capacity for Internet service, remote access, and audio/video conferencing. 

The Seat Management Services Contract to provide infrastructure services and support has

been modified to accommodate projected agency staff growth.

(2) Technology Requirements 

The initial efforts to address technology requirements involve working directly with program

offices to ensure that technology investments effectively meet business needs, minimize

duplication of systems, maximize data sharing, and integrate well with the agency IT/IM

infrastructure. OIS has completed initial solution deployments to address new reactor licensing

requirements, such as electronic receipt and review of COLs, agencywide deployment of

Microsoft Office, electronic receipt and processing of adjudicatory documents for COL hearings,

and automated capture of email in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management
- 35 -

System (ADAMS). A combination of contract modifications, competitive procurement, and

interagency agreements supplies the expertise to deliver the required solutions. 

The agency is using the IT/IM improvements implemented to support the adjudicatory process

in the context of a pilot project during the Vogtle ESP proceeding. In addition to automated

capture of email for the hearing file, these improvements provide for electronic filing, review,

and distribution of adjudicatory documents. NRC staff has evaluated the pilot project and

implemented required adjustments to the business process and IT/IM components. In addition,

the NRC has issued guidance for electronic submissions to the NRC to assist all users on how

to properly submit electronic information to the NRC.

 

In partnership with NRO and the industry, OIS has successfully streamlined the process for

electronic receipt and online review of COL applications. All of the stakeholders are now

aligned concerning how a COL will be formatted, packaged, and submitted to the NRC. The

enhanced IT components and business process improvements are implemented in the

production environment and have been used during the latest revision of the AP1000 DCD to

(1) guide the applicant in creating consistently formatted electronic COL application documents, 

(2) automate the COL application document intake process, (3) manage submission revisions,

(4) ensure submission referential integrity, and (5) simplify the navigation of the complex COL

application. 

(3) End User and Systems Support 

Contract resources are integral to delivering an enhanced level of end user and system support

as the efforts to review ESPs and COLs peak. To better support telecommuting and overtime

work, modifications to the Seat Management Services Contract have been completed to extend

the hours of the Desktop Support Center to 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. weekdays (the Desktop Support

Center previously closed at 6 p.m.) and to add weekend support hours from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. 

Network and data center onsite support has likewise been extended to provide an immediate

response capability to the NRC’s core infrastructure components (i.e., local and wide area

networks, email, ADAMS). A new help desk is currently in the procurement process to provide

specialized support to ensure that licensees, staff, and members of the public can effectively

use the processes and systems designed for the electronic submission and review of ESP and

COL documents. The Public Document Room is providing help desk services until the new

help desk is operational. OIS is acquiring these enhanced support services through a

combination of contract modifications, competitive procurement, and interagency agreements.

(4) Information Management 

Both the FY 2008 and FY 2009 budget requests include resources to process an increased

volume of documents generated during the new reactor licensing review process. In addition to

the information collections deployed to support the staff’s reference material needs, the

Technical Library staff will perform a needs assessment for additional online technical research

databases. The Technical Library has deployed a collection of online IT books for NRC staff. 

The collection contains e-books on the suite of Microsoft Office software being deployed by OIS

to NRC staff. OIS is acquiring these materials and services through a combination of contract

modifications, purchase card transactions, and competitive procurement.
- 36 -

TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

Support for Light-Water Reactors

The staff is using the TRACE thermal-hydraulics code to perform independent confirmatory

analyses of ESBWR accidents and transients. Activities include model development, TRACE

code assessment against test data, and confirmatory calculations. Moreover, the MELCOR

code (the NRC’s severe accident code) is used in performing the ESBWR containment

performance analysis to identify the limiting containment pressure response.

To support the review of the ESBWR design, the staff developed a version of the TRACE code,

along with (1) ESBWR input decks, (2) a report documenting the results of calculations to

demonstrate the ability of the code to model operating and accident scenarios, (3) descriptions

of models included in the TRACE code, and (4) supporting documentation for code users.

Additional support for the ESBWR design review is provided in the area of computational fluid

dynamics (CFD). The staff is developing a detailed CFD model of the core bypass region to

support the review of anticipated transient without scram scenarios by providing insights into

the mixing of the boric acid solution injected into the core bypass region from the standby liquid

control system. For ESBWR severe accident analysis, the staff performed MELCOR

calculations of risk-dominant sequences addressing severe accident issues identified in 

SECY-93-087, “Policy, Technical, and Licensing Issues Pertaining to Evolutionary and

Advanced Light-Water Reactor (ALWR) Designs.” In addition, the staff performed MELCOR

calculations of containment loading for design-basis events along with selected code

sensitivities to confirm the adequacy of the ESBWR containment design.

The staff has developed an U.S. EPR research plan and is in the process of developing a USAPWR research plan. The main objectives of the plans are to (1) identify key safety research

area needs and (2) describe subsequent research to develop the necessary tools, knowledge,

and data to conduct an independent safety review of the reactor design. Key research areas in

the U.S. EPR research plan include severe accident and thermal-hydraulics analyses and

digital I&C. Key research areas in the US-APWR plan include thermal-hydraulics and

containment analyses.

Support for Gas-Cooled Reactors

The NRC staff’s HTGR knowledge management efforts have involved remaining cognizant of

domestic and international developments in safety-related aspects of HTGR technology,

ensuring that the HTGR analysis tools developed are documented and retrievable for future

staff use, and preserving and transferring the knowledge gained from the staff’s earlier efforts 

on HTGR technology. Under this activity, the staff has been capturing critical internal and

external HTGR information and establishing the ability to make the appropriate information

available to cognizant NRC staff as needed. As part of this process, three knowledge capture

seminars have been completed, each bringing an individual with significant experience and

expertise in a facet of HTGR technology to the NRC for a full day. Video files of the seminars

as well as various other HTGR documents are accessible through a Web-based HTGR

community of practice, where information can be shared to facilitate current work assignments

and knowledge transfer between expert and journeyman staff.
- 37 -

The staff has completed a draft update of the NRC Advanced Reactor Research Program Plan

previously documented in SECY-03-0059, “NRC’s Advanced Reactor Research Program,”

dated April 18, 2003. The draft update involved a comprehensive reassessment of the

technical infrastructure development needs for HTGR and VHTR designs, and a limited-scope

technical infrastructure development needs survey for fast liquid metal reactor (LMR) designs. 

It is anticipated that the final version of the updated Advanced Reactor Research Program Plan

will be issued before the end of CY 2007. The update is being used to support the

development of the joint NRC-DOE licensing strategy for the NGNP project as required by the

EPAct. 

Support for Other Reactor Technologies

As documented above, the staff has conducted an initial infrastructure needs survey of the

technical and safety R&D issues associated with fast LMRs. The infrastructure assessment

survey addresses potential future applications involving fast LMRs, such as small, secure

reactors or the ABR, associated with the GNEP initiative.

Codes and Standards Development

The NRC staff continued its participation in the quarterly meetings of the American Nuclear

Society (ANS) 28 Subcommittee, which is preparing an ANS safety standard for modular

HTGRs, titled “Nuclear Safety Criteria for the Design of Modular Helium-Cooled Reactor

Plants.” The objective of the standard is to establish the nuclear safety criteria, functional

performance, and design requirements of structures, systems, and components of modular gas

reactor plants consistent with established risk objectives.

The staff is working with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and ANS on a

suite of PRA standards to support regulatory guidance being developed by the NRC. The staff

is also working with other ANS committees to appropriately endorse existing safety criteria

standards that have been used in advanced reactors such as the AP1000, ESBWR, and EPR. 

These standards are based on deterministic principles that have provided the safety criteria for

LWRs.

The NRC staff is supporting ASME code development by serving on the steering committee

and as a technical advisor to the DOE/ASME collaboration to update and expand appropriate

materials, construction, and design codes for application in future Generation IV (Gen IV)

nuclear reactor systems that operate at elevated temperatures. The NRC staff also participated

at meetings of the American Society of Testing Materials, which is developing nuclear graphite

materials specifications and testing standards for important properties determination.

Additionally, NRC staff has participated in a discussion on industry activities and improvements

to the ASME Code to help in the licensing and operation of new reactors. The staff discussed

the provisions of 10 CFR Part 52 and possible areas where ASME could help promote the

safety and performance of new nuclear power plants and the efficiency of the licensing process.
- 38 -

Human Factors Research

One of the TWGs that was established as part of the Digital I&C Steering Committee initiative

relates to human factors and highly integrated control rooms. The primary purpose of this

activity is to facilitate consistent and efficient licensing of new digital human-system interface

technology at new reactors by modifying existing or developing new HFE review guidance,

regulatory positions, and acceptance criteria, as needed. The areas of particular interest are

the minimum inventory of alarms, displays, and controls needed to implement the emergency

operating procedures (EOPs) when the primary control system has failed; computerized

procedures; the safety parameter display system; a graded approach to human factors design

and review; the feasibility and reliability of manual operator actions that provide diversity and

defense in depth; and the human factors aspects associated with operating safety and nonsafety functions through a non-safety multichannel video display unit. In addition, RES

performed a PIRT process to prioritize research needed to develop the technical bases to

support the advanced reactor guidance development. The report from this activity will be

available during the next reporting period.

Digital Instrumentation & Controls

Digital I&C Steering Committee Activities

On November 8, 2006, the NRC staff and industry briefed the Commission on digital I&C

issues. As a result of the meeting, the Commission issued an SRM instructing the staff to

engage industry in order to establish a project plan with specific milestones and deliverables to

address issues involving deployment of digital I&C for new reactors and digital upgrades to

existing plants. In response, the staff formed the Digital I&C Steering Committee with members

representing key NRC program offices, including NRO, NRR, RES, NSIR, and NMSS. Under

the steering committee, six TWGs have been formed for each of the following six key issue

areas:

(1) cyber security

(2) diversity and defense in depth 

(3) risk-informed digital I&C

(4) highly integrated control room—communications 

(5) highly integrated control room—human factors

(6) licensing process

The steering committee and TWGs have been working directly with the corresponding industry

counterparts—the Industry Digital I&C/Human Factors Working Group and various task forces

and focus groups. The Digital I&C Steering Committee has held several public meetings with

industry, and the TWGs have publicly met with their industry contacts at more than 30 public

meetings this year. As a result, the staff completed and issued the digital I&C project plan on

July 12, 2007, and implementation of the plan is currently underway.

On July 18, 2007, the NRC staff and industry briefed the Commission on the progress toward

establishing an integrated digital I&C and human-machine interface test facility, and the status

of the regulatory infrastructure for digital I&C. The Commission directed the staff to proceed

with the issuance of interim guidance.
- 39 -

The staff developed an interim staff guidance (ISG) process, similar to previous ISG processes

successfully used, so that the staff guidance to be developed by the TWGs through the project

plan could be made publicly available for industry use in a timely manner. The development of

the ISG for the key issues is in various stages for each of the TWGs. The staff has already

issued a draft ISG on diversity and defense in depth, discussed it with the stakeholders in June

2007, and recently received industry comments. The staff plans to issue the ISG before

September 30, 2007, after addressing comments. The remaining near-term ISGs are 

scheduled to be issued by the end of this year. The ISGs are intended to provide the industry

with acceptable approaches that are expected to have a high likelihood of staff review and

approval of submittals in a timely manner. The ISGs issued may need to be updated on a

case-by-case basis as appropriate for continuous improvement based on industry feedback,

lessons learned, and the availability of relevant information. Eventually, the ISGs will be used

to update the SRP and other RGs in the next year or two.

Current Review Activities

The NRC staff is currently reviewing the ESBWR digital I&C design as part of the DCA review. 

GE has also submitted topical reports on several key technical areas in support of the DC and

plans to submit additional reports in the future. The staff reviewed Revisions 1, 2, and 3 to the

DCD and identified numerous RAIs. Based on the submittals and RAI responses, the staff

recently developed a preliminary SER with open items for the digital I&C area. The open items

are associated with the remaining RAIs to which GE is yet to respond and the additional topical

reports to be submitted. In addition, a large volume of pre-application activities is ongoing for

future DC and COL applications for other designs. Specifically, the industry has submitted a

number of digital I&C topical/technical reports associated with U.S. EPR, US-APWR, ABWR,

and AP1000. The staff is in the process of reviewing these reports. The vendors indicated that

they would submit additional technical and topical reports in the future.

At this time, the staff has not identified any policy or technology impediments for the ABWR,

ESBWR, or AP1000 designs. The final design details remain to be developed and reviewed by

the staff for each of the three designs. The staff has identified several technical issues

regarding the U.S. EPR and US-APWR designs that require increased attention and interaction

with the vendors. For example, the staff is closely evaluating the interaction between safety

and nonsafety systems, integration of the reactor trip system and engineered safety features

actuation system into single controllers, and diversity and defense in depth. The staff is fully

engaged with the vendors on these issues through public meetings and correspondence to gain

a better understanding of these new designs and technologies and to seek effective and

efficient resolution of potential safety concerns. Staff review of the ESBWR DC and

technical/topical reports is progressing using the existing guidance.

International Activities

The NRC staff continues to have extensive interaction with international entities and partners

concerning the deployment of digital I&C in nuclear facilities. For example, the staff has held

several bilateral meetings with various foreign countries concerning digital I&C in new reactors. 

These bilateral meetings have been mutually beneficial as lessons learned, current

developments, and insights on regulatory, operational, and technical issues are shared. 
- 40 -

The staff engaged in a full-day meeting on June 18, 2007, with representatives from seven

international regulatory agencies to discuss technical and regulatory issues related to diversity

and defense in depth. The staff also hosted an international symposium June 19–21, 2007,

sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on digital common-cause failures. 

The staff is also participating in other IAEA TWG activities. 

From June 20–21, 2007, the staff participated in a meeting in France led by the MDEP to

identify areas of potential convergence and cooperation associated with the digital I&C

technical reviews conducted in support of licensing and regulatory reviews. This effort was in

support of the MDEP Stage 2 activities. 

Research Activities

The staff is conducting several research projects to augment and supplement review criteria for

licensing digital I&C systems, solicit insights from international nuclear regulators, and build on

the agency’s licensing experiences with digital I&C systems. These include, but are not limited

to, risk assessment of digital systems, the highly integrated control room, diversity and defense

in depth, and security aspects of digital systems.

Challenges

The staff is actively recruiting qualified employees with the appropriate skill sets to be able to

handle the future digital I&C workload associated with new reactors. Progress has been made

in hiring employees for digital I&C, but the timely hiring of staff with the right skill sets has been

challenging for several key reasons, including high demand with limited pool in this country and

deployment of the first-of-its-kind technologies in new reactor designs such as the U.S. EPR

and US-APWR. Because of the uniqueness, complexity, and continuing evolution of digital I&C

technologies, there will also be a steep learning curve for the staff already on board in its review

of new reactor activities.

Structural and Seismic Accomplishments

One of the high-priority regulatory guidance documents issued in March 2007 was RG 1.208, 

“A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion.” 

This new RG provides an acceptable alternative to existing RG 1.165, “Identification and

Characterization of Seismic Sources and Determination of Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground

Motion,” issued March 1997. This RG has been developed to provide general guidance on

methods acceptable to the NRC staff for (1) conducting geological, geophysical, seismological,

and geotechnical investigations, (2) identifying and characterizing seismic sources,

(3) conducting a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, (4) determining seismic wave

transmission (soil amplification) characteristics of soil and rock sites, and (5) determining

site-specific, performance-based ground motion response spectra, satisfying the requirements

of paragraphs (c), (d)(1), and (d)(2) of 10 CFR 100.23, “Geologic and Seismic Siting Criteria,”

and leading to the establishment of a safe-shutdown earthquake to satisfy the design

requirements of Appendix S, “Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” 

to 10 CFR Part 50.
- 41 -

The RG continued the acceptance of probabilistic seismic hazard assessment as part of the

primary basis for the establishment of the earthquake ground motion characteristics for use in

siting and designing nuclear power plants.