POLICY ISSUE

(Notation Vote) 

June 25, 2013 SECY-13-0070

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON POWER UPRATES 

PURPOSE: 

To summarize the power uprate program accomplishments and challenges since the last 

update in SECY-12-0084, “Status Report on Power Uprates,” dated June 15, 2012, and to 

request Commission approval to reduce the frequency of future status reports. This paper does 

not address any new commitments. 

BACKGROUND: 

The staff currently provides the Commission with an annual update of significant power uprate 

activities, in accordance with the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated 

February 8, 2002, entitled “Briefing on Status of Nuclear Reactor Safety” (SRM-M020129). 

DISCUSSION: 

The staff continues to ensure that the goal of protection of public health and safety remains 

paramount throughout its power uprate license application reviews and is not compromised to 

meet the associated timeliness and resource performance goals. Since the last update, the 

NRC staff has approved power uprates for five plants. The staff is currently reviewing 14 power 

uprates. Over the next 5 years, the staff expects that licensees will submit an additional three 

power uprate applications. The enclosed status report provides detailed information on the 

power uprates approved since June 15, 2012, applications under review, applications expected 

in the future, accomplishments, status of technical challenges, and programmatic changes. 

Because of continuing challenges with meeting the timeliness review goals for power uprates, 

the staff discussed plans to lengthen these performance goals in the last power uprate status 

report, SECY-12-0084. The timeliness review goals for measurement uncertainty recaptures 

CONTACT: Nicholas J. DiFrancesco, NRR/DORL 

 301-415-1115
The Commissioners - 2 - 

(MURs) was changed from 6 to 9 months; the goal for stretch power uprates was changed from 

9 to 12 months; and the goal for extended power uprates (EPUs) was changed from 12 to 18 

months. However, these revised timeliness goals only applied to applications received after 

June 2012, and most of the power uprate applications currently being reviewed remain under 

the previous performance goals. Current application review resource estimates remain 

unchanged since the last report. 

For those applications received prior to June 2012, the staff encountered challenges in meeting 

the previous timeliness review goals. The staff exceeded the prior 12-month goal for the Grand 

Gulf, Unit 1, EPU by 7 months because of staff concerns associated with the steam dryer 

analysis. The staff exceeded the prior 12-month review goal for the St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, 

EPU reviews by 3 and 4 months, respectively, because of staff and Advisory Committee on 

Reactor Safeguards concerns relating to nuclear fuel thermal conductivity degradation affecting 

reactor safety analysis calculations. The staff exceeded the prior 6 month review goal for the 

McGuire, Units 1 and 2, MUR by 7 months due to licensee delays in responding to a request for 

additional information and associated staff review of those responses. 

In addition to revising the timeliness goals, the staff has continued to explore programmatic 

enhancements to improve the execution of power uprate reviews. One area where the staff has 

looked for efficiency and effectiveness is streamlining administrative requirements. Given the 

maturity of the power uprate program, limited staff resources and the forecast of few power 

uprate applications being submitted in the coming years, the staff recommends informing the 

Commission of the status of power uprate activities with this report on a biennial basis, vice 

annually. The staff will evaluate other changes to seek opportunities to enhance the program 

and improve upon the execution of power uprate reviews. 

The continuing goal is for the staff to conduct timely power uprate reviews of appropriate scope 

and depth for each of the technical areas, while ensuring that safety is maintained. 

RECOMMENDATION: 

The staff recommends that the Commission approve reducing the frequency of the Power 

Uprate Status Report from annual to biennial. 

RESOURCES: 

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

Since March 2013, there have been a number of cancellations of power uprate projects 

because of commercial considerations. These cancellations equate to a 3.9 full-time equivalent 

reduction of expected staff work for fiscal year (FY) 2014. Since the congressional budget 

justification for FY 2014 has already been submitted, these fact of life changes will be 

reprioritized during execution of the fiscal year FY 2014 Operating Reactor business line. There 

were no significant changes to the FY 2015 budget, as these recently cancelled applications 

were not scheduled for review during FY 2015. 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel reviewed this report and has no legal objection. The Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objection. 

/RA Michael R. Johnson for/ 

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Power Uprate Program Status Report
The Commissioners - 3 - 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel reviewed this report and has no legal objection. The Office 

of the Chief Financial Officer reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objection. 

/RA Michael R. Johnson for/ 

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosure: 

Power Uprate Program Status Report 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML13098A298 WITS 200200020 *via e-mail 

OFFICE DORL/LPL3-2/PM DORL/LPL3-2/LA TECH ED* NRR/DE/EMCB* NRR/DSS/SCVB* 

NAME NDiFrancesco SRohrer JDougherty AMcMurtray RDennig 

DATE 04/22/13 05/21/13 04/24/13 05/22/13 05/22/13 

OFFICE OGC (NLO) NRR/DORL/LPL3-2 NRR/DORL/D OCFO/DPB/DD* NRR EDO 

NAME MYoung JBowen MEvans GSuber ELeeds 

(JUhle for) 

RBorchardt 

(MJohnson for)

DATE 05/28/13 05/28/13 06/10/13 06/21/13 06/21/13 06/ 25 /13 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
 Enclosure 

Power Uprate Program Status Report 

June 2013

Power uprates are categorized based on the magnitude of the thermal power increase and the 

methods used to achieve the increase. Measurement uncertainty recapture (MUR) power 

uprates result in power-level increases of less than two percent and are achieved by 

implementing enhanced techniques for calculating reactor power. Stretch power uprates 

(SPUs) typically result in power-level increases of up to seven percent and generally do not 

involve major plant modifications. Extended power uprates (EPUs) result in greater power-level 

increases than SPUs and usually require significant modifications to major plant equipment. 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved EPUs for thermal power 

increases as high as 20 percent. 

Power Uprates Approved Since June 2012

Power uprates approved since June 15, 2012, have added 1,266 megawatts thermal (MWt) or 

approximately 422 megawatts electric (MWe) to the Nation’s electric generating capacity. This 

brings the total number of power uprates approved since 1977 to 148, resulting in a combined 

increase of about 20,586 MWt (6,862 MWe) to the Nation’s electric generating capacity. 

Table 1 provides information on the power uprates approved since June 15, 2012. 

Table 1 – Power Uprates Approved Since June 15, 2012 

No. Plant % Uprate MWt Application 

Date

Acceptance 

Date

Approval 

Date Type

1 Grand Gulf 1 13.1 510 9/08/2010 12/09/2010 7/18/2012 EPU

2 St. Lucie 1 11.9 320 11/22/2010 3/03/2011 7/09/2012 EPU*

3 St. Lucie 2 11.9 320 2/25/2011 6/23/2011 9/24/2012 EPU*

4 McGuire 1 1.7 58 3/05/2012 4/25/2012 5/16/2013 MUR

5 McGuire 2 1.7 58 3/05/2012 4/25/2012 5/16/2013 MUR

 Total 1,266 

* St. Lucie 1 and 2 EPU applications included a 1.7 percent MUR. 

The staff continued to encounter challenges in meeting the timeliness review goal for EPUs and 

MURs.1

 The staff exceeded the 12-month review goal for Grand Gulf, Unit 1, EPU by 

seven months because of staff concerns resulted in revisions to the licensee’s steam dryer 

analysis. The staff identified concerns with the licensee’s application of the General Electric 

 

1

 The timeliness goals do not include the duration of the staff's acceptance review, which the staff conducts 

 upon receipt of the initial application. The timeliness goals for applications received before June 2012, are 

 six months for MURs, nine months for SPUs, and 12 months for EPUs. As discussed in SECY 12-0084, “Status 

 Report on Power Uprates,” the timeliness review goals for applications received after June 2012, are nine months 

 for MURs,12 months for SPUs, and 18 months for EPUs. 
 - 2 - 

 

Hitachi plant-based load evaluation methodology for determining the steam dryer integrity. The 

licensee installed instrumentation on the steam dryer and benchmarked the methodology based 

on plant data during power ascension testing to confirm structural integrity during operation. 

The staff exceeded the 12-month review goal for the St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2, EPU reviews by 

three and four months, respectively, because of staff and Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS) concerns related to nuclear fuel thermal conductivity degradation affecting 

reactor safety analysis calculations. The licensee’s subsequent analysis demonstrated modest 

impacts to the safety analysis calculation results and showed that the results remained 

conservative to acceptance criteria. There were also delays with the licensee’s response to 

requests for additional information (RAIs) associated with stress analyses for modifications to 

structures, systems, and components. 

The staff exceeded the six-month review goal for the McGuire, Units 1 and 2, MUR by 

seven months because of licensee delays in responding to an RAI and the time needed for the 

associated staff review of the licensee’s RAI responses. 

Power Uprate Applications Currently under Staff Review

As illustrated in Table 2, power uprates currently under review could add an additional 

3,001 MWt or approximately 1,000 MWe to the Nation’s electric generating capacity, if 

approved.

Table 2 – Power Uprate Applications under Staff Review 

No. Plant % Uprate MWt Application 

Date

Projected 

Completion Date Type

1 Browns Ferry 2 14.3 494 6/25/2004

To be determined

EPU

2 Browns Ferry 3 14.3 494 6/25/2004 EPU

3 Browns Ferry 1 14.3 494 6/28/2004 EPU

4 Monticello 12.9 229 11/05/2008 October 2013 EPU

5 Braidwood 1 1.6 58.4 6/23/2011

To be determined

MUR

6 Braidwood 2 1.6 58.4 6/23/2011 MUR

7 Byron 1 1.6 58.4 6/23/2011 MUR

8 Byron 2 1.6 58.4 6/23/2011 MUR

9 Oconee 1 1.6 42 9/20/2011

To be determined

MUR

10 Oconee 2 1.6 42 9/20/2011 MUR

11 Oconee 3 1.6 42 9/20/2011 MUR

12 Peach Bottom 12.4 437 9/28/2012 June 2014 EPU

13 Peach Bottom 12.4 437 9/28/2012 June 2014 EPU

14 Fermi 1.6 56 2/07/2013 November 2013 MUR

Total MWt 3,000.6 
 - 3 - 

Withdrawn Application 

Crystal River, Unit 3, containment structure was damaged during a refueling outage in 

September 2009. In February 2013, the business decision was made by Duke Energy, the 

licensee, to retire Crystal River and withdraw the EPU application. 

Delayed Reviews 

The Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3, EPU review has been delayed primarily because of staff 

concerns and licensee delays with providing revised steam dryer analyses and analyses that 

take credit for containment accident pressure (CAP). Tennessee Valley Authority, the licensee, 

informed the staff by letter dated February 22, 2013, of its plans to complete the EPU review. 

In the fall of 2014, the licensee plans to provide a revised CAP analysis, engineering analysis 

for a replacement dryer, and revise, as necessary, all information to the NRC that has been 

superseded. A public meeting on these topics will be held as the submittal date nears. The 

staff review will resume upon receipt of the updated information. 

After a long delay, the Monticello EPU review has resumed, and the staff is actively reviewing 

the steam dryer design, CAP analysis, and licensee gap analysis that identifies changes to 

information previously submitted to the NRC in the EPU license amendment request (LAR) 

application and supplements. The licensee discussed its gap analysis during a 

November 20, 2012, public meeting. In support of review completion, the ACRS sub-committee 

review has been scheduled for July 2013, and a full-committee review has been scheduled for 

September 2013. 

The NRC suspended the Braidwood, Units 1 and 2, and Byron, Units 1 and 2, MUR review on 

December 6, 2012, because disposition of a nonconforming condition with high-energy line 

break (HELB) in the turbine building is required before implementation of the MUR. Through its 

review, the staff found that resolution of the turbine building HELB issue could require a 

departure from the current licensing and design-basis relied on in the application. In 

accordance with staff guidance from Regulatory Issue Summary 2002-03, “Guidance on the 

Content of Measurement Uncertainty Recapture Power Uprate Applications,” the NRC staff 

determined that the analysis of record for HELB does not bound the requested uprated power 

level. The NRC staff suspended the review of the MUR pending the completion of the required 

modifications and analyses associated with the HELB nonconformance. At present, the 

licensee is developing responses to staff questions from the December 6, 2012, letter. 

Following receipt of the licensee’s response, the staff plans to conduct an audit to verify the 

installation of the modifications and confirm that the licensing and design-basis analysis is 

technically sound. 
 - 4 - 

The NRC suspended the Oconee, Units 1, 2, and 3, MUR review on August 31, 2012, because 

of licensee delays with implementation of the new protected service water (PSW) system. The 

NRC staff had proceeded with reviewing the MUR LAR with the understanding that the PSW 

system would be operational before the end of 2012. Because the PSW system is credited in 

the MUR LAR, the NRC staff determined that it cannot authorize the MUR power uprate 

amendment without the PSW system. 

Expected Power Uprate Applications

Table 3 estimates future power uprate applications based on a survey of all licensees 

conducted in December 2012. Since the prior survey, there have been a number of 

cancellations of previously planned power uprate projects because of commercial 

considerations, including five EPU projects and five MUR projects. Six of these projects were 

cancelled since March 2013, equating to a reduction of 3.9 full-time equivalent work years of 

expected staff work for fiscal year (FY) 2014. Since the congressional budget justification for 

FY 2014 has already been submitted, these fact of life changes will be reprioritized during 

execution of the FY 2014 operating reactor business line. There were no significant changes to 

the FY 2015 budget, as these recently cancelled applications were not scheduled for review 

during FY 2015. 

Table 3 - Projected Future Power Uprate Applications 

Fiscal 

Year

Power Uprates 

Expected

MUR Power

Uprates SPUs EPUs MWt MWe

2013 1 1 0 0 58 19

2014 0 0 0 0 0 0

2015 0 0 0 0 0 0

2016 2 1 0 1 491 164

2017 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 3 2 0 1 549 183

Accomplishments since June 15, 2012

In addition to routine power uprate licensing activities, the NRC staff has accomplished the 

following since June 15, 2012: 

• Presented program activities at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Licensing Forum and 

at the third Annual Nuclear Power Uprate Industry Conference. 

• Participated in discussions of program activities with the Licensing Action Task Force 

(LATF), and discussed the LaSalle EPU NEI pre-licensing checklist pilot with the LATF. 
 - 5 - 

• Provided international support to Swedish Radiation Safety Authority interviews on 

regulatory approaches. 

• Region III staff conducted a self-assessment of regional implementation of NRC 

Inspection Procedure 71004, “Power Uprate.” 

• Conducted pre-application public meeting on proposed LaSalle EPU to discuss licensee 

plans to defer implementation of the power uprate until 2019. Subsequently, the 

licensee cancelled the project in June 2013 due to commercial considerations. 

Status of Technical Challenges

Depending upon the plant design, power uprate applications must address technical issues 

related to CAP credit and adverse flow effects on structures, systems, and components. This 

year, the NRC staff encountered two instances when deficiencies with the plant licensing and 

design basis necessitated that the reviews be suspended to allow for resolution. The progress 

made by staff and stakeholders to resolve these issues is discussed below. 

Update on Containment Accident Pressure Credit 

EPUs result in an increase in the temperature of the sump water (in pressurized-water reactors) 

and suppression pool water (in boiling-water reactors (BWRs)) during certain postulated 

accidents or abnormal events. This could affect the performance of the emergency core cooling 

system (ECCS) and containment heat removal (CHR) pumps taking suction from these water 

sources. In some cases, licensees have included CAP in their safety analyses to demonstrate 

acceptable performance of these pumps. The ACRS recommended changes to this practice by 

letter to the Executive Director for Operations dated March 18, 2009. 

On June 25, 2010, the Commission issued Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-

M100609B, “Meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.” It directed that the 

staff should discuss, in its forthcoming paper on CAP, where the staff aligns or disagrees with 

the ACRS regarding CAP credit, including use of risk information, defense-in-depth implications, 

and the need to assess the practicality of hardware changes to eliminate the need for CAP 

credit. 

In response to SRM-M100609B, the staff provided Commission paper SECY-11-0014, “Use of 

Containment Accident Pressure in Analyzing Emergency Core Cooling System and 

Containment Heat Removal System Pump Performance in Postulated Accidents,” on 

January 31, 2011. The staff provided two options to resolve the policy issues. In response, 

SRM-SECY-11-0014, dated March 15, 2011, the Commission approved the staff’s 

recommended Option 1 and directed the staff to conduct CAP reviews consistent with the 

current practice of accepting CAP credit while also implementing new staff deterministic 

guidance. The staff guidance was developed based on ACRS recommendations to quantify 

uncertainty and margins in net positive suction head calculations. The Commission also 

directed the staff to ensure that the defense-in-depth philosophy is interpreted and implemented 

consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.174, “An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk Assessment 

in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis,” and other staff 
 - 6 - 

guidance. The staff is therefore proceeding with Option 1 and has resumed the CAP portion of 

the delayed EPU reviews. In letters dated April 5, 2011, (Monticello) and May 15, 2011, 

(Browns Ferry) licensees were informed that the staff was prepared to resume the reviews of 

their EPU applications. 

By letters dated September 28, 2012, and November 30, 2012, the licensee for Monticello 

supplemented the EPU application to include an assessment of the Monticello ECCS and CHR 

pumps’ ability to meet the uncertainties and margins described in Enclosure 1 of SECY 11-

0014, using the uncertainties in Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG) reports. The 

staff’s review of these supplements is nearing completion. 

Over the past year, the staff has progressed with its review of the BWROG Licensing Topical 

Report submitted by letter dated February 15, 2008. By letter dated October 24, 2012, the 

BWROG submitted six technical reports to address several topics for the use of CAP contained 

in Enclosure 1 of SECY-11-0014. Most significantly, these technical reports addressed the net 

positive suction head (NPSH) uncertainty analysis of Sulzer CVDS model single-stage, doublesuction, centrifugal pumps used in BWR ECCS and CHR systems. Furthermore, the BWROG 

has informed the staff that additional technical reports are forthcoming in support of the Topical 

Report review. 

The staff continues to develop a deterministic guidance document for CAP credit. Draft 

guidance was sent to the BWROG and Pressurized Water Reactor Owners Group by letters 

dated February 25, 2013. Revisions to the guidance clarified analyses required to be performed 

to support power uprate and other license amendment applications to demonstrate adequate 

NPSH for the ECCS and CHR pumps. The staff plans to finalize the guidance following the 

ACRS review of the Monticello EPU application.

Update on Adverse Flow Effects 

Steam flow velocities at nuclear power plants increase under power uprate conditions. 

Operating experience has shown that as the higher velocity main steam line flow passes over 

branch lines, it can create an acoustic resonance in the steam lines that can vary greatly from 

one plant to another, depending on the routing of the main steam lines and the steam dryer 

vintage and geometry. The acoustic resonance can create fluctuating pressure waves that 

strike the steam dryer in BWRs with significant cyclic force. This cyclic loading could cause the 

stresses in the steam dryer to exceed the material fatigue limits, which may result in steam 

dryer cracking and subsequent generation of loose parts. These loose parts have the potential 

for affecting safety-related structures, systems, and components downstream of the steam 

dryer. The acoustic resonance can also cause excessive vibration that may damage steamline 

and feedwater line components, such as relief valves and piping. To address this issue, BWR 

applicants for EPUs have provided complex steam dryer analyses to demonstrate the structural 

integrity of the steam dryers at uprated power levels. 

These plant-specific reviews have remained challenging and contributed to the delays in the 

EPU reviews for several BWR plants (e.g., Grand Gulf and Monticello). The delays are typically 

caused by licensees introducing new refinements into analytical methods and the introduction of 

new steam dryer designs not used in previous EPU applications (e.g., Monticello and Peach 

Bottom Westinghouse steam dryer design). Delays also stem from the NRC staff identifying 
 - 7 - 

new issues with licensees’ analytical models, licensees needing to make steam dryer 

modifications to address analysis issues, and a lack of adequate plant measurement data 

needed for the steam dryer analyses. 

One industry topical report is under NRC staff review. In December 2008, Electric Power 

Research Institute (EPRI) submitted Boiling Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project 

(BWRVIP)-194, “Methodologies for Demonstrating Steam Dryer Integrity for Power Uprate,” 

which presents an integrated evaluation approach and acceptance criteria for steam dryers. By 

letter dated September 8, 2011, EPRI provided supplemental information for BWRVIP-194. On 

March 27, 2013, the NRC staff informed EPRI that a detailed technical review of BWRVIP-194 

had been delayed due to the priority of active EPU LAR reviews. The staff plans to issue RAIs 

associated with its review of BWRVIP-194 this summer. EPU reviews have not been delayed 

due to a lack of topical report as a thorough review of generic applicability of the methodology is 

required prior to approval. 

Resolution of Issues with the Licensing and Design Bases 

This year two power uprate reviews were suspended because of deficiencies identified with the 

uprate applications. Typically, licensee’s through their corrective action programs address 

deviations and nonconformances with most licensing bases issues. Provided the licensee is 

able to promptly correct the problem and restore compliance, nonconformance or temporary 

deviations from the licensing bases will not impact the licensing review. 

The staff suspended the Braidwood, Byron, and Oconee MUR reviews because licensees failed 

to resolve known plant configuration issues that impacted the submittal. The Braidwood and 

Byron MUR was suspended because disposition of a nonconforming condition with HELB in the 

turbine building is required before implementation of the MUR. The Oconee MUR was 

suspended because of licensee delays with implementation of the PSW system. The PSW 

system is credited in the MUR application, and the staff had accepted the application and 

proceeded with the review with the understanding that the PSW system would be operational 

before the end of 2012. Additional details are discussed above in the delayed reviews section. 

For these cases, the staff determined that a safety evaluation could not find that the proposed 

licensing amendment was adequate without reviewing the modified analysis and design. In last 

year’s power uprate status report, a similar issue occurred when the St. Lucie EPU submittal 

was withdrawn during the staff acceptance review to allow the licensee time to evaluate 

concerns with the station blackout coping analysis identified during a 2007 Component Design 

Bases Inspection. 

Status of Programmatic Changes

In addition to the progress the staff made on technical issues, programmatic changes are 

continuing. Work is planned to revise NRR Office Instruction LIC-112, “Power Uprate Process,” 

explore use of interim staff guidance, and identify program activities that can be reduced in 

scope to better focus resources. 
 - 8 - 

Resources and Schedules 

There have been no significant changes in power uprate application review resources or review 

schedule requirements since June 15, 2012. Staff resource estimates for MUR, SPU, and EPU 

applications remain at 1,200, 3,500, and 7,500 hours, respectively. The timeliness goals for 

MUR, SPU, and EPU application reviews received after June 2012, remain at 9, 12, and 

18 months, respectively, and continue to be appropriate. 

Power uprate reviews are resource intensive for technical disciplines in NRR. The overlap of 

current power uprate applications with the Fukushima lessons-learned activities has impacted 

some groups of technical experts. Currently, the staff is reviewing three plant-specific EPU 

applications in conjunction with conducting activities associated with Fukushima Tier 1 NearTerm Task Force recommendations. This has resulted in some resource constraints associated 

with aligning and dedicating staff to meet power uprate schedules. Thus far, the staff has 

largely overcome these challenges by prioritizing power uprate reviews to support licensees’ 

implementation schedules. 

Power uprate application reviews remain a high priority. The staff will maintain its strong safety 

focus and commitment to higher priorities associated with safe plant operation, most notably, 

Fukushima lessons-learned activities and emergent safety issues. 

 

Areas of Program Development 

The staff plans to revise NRR Office Instruction LIC-112, “Power Uprate Process,” to clarify 

project management responsibilities, reflect organization changes, explore use of interim staff 

guidance, and enhance knowledge management. 

The staff plans to establish a framework to document incremental changes to Review Standard 

(RS)-001, “Review Standard for Extended Power Uprates,” through interim staff guidance 

documents. Previously, the staff refrained from committing to a complete revision to RS-001, 

because of resource considerations and a perception that the cumulative change would not add 

significant value to stakeholders. Staff precedence for power uprate reviews has been captured 

in power uprate review RAIs and reliance on revisions to NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan 

for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants.” Interim staff guidance 

will support knowledge management and provides thorough management review, opportunity 

for stakeholder input, and development of concise regulatory positions to support licensee 

uprate power application development. 

Areas of Planned Reduction 

Consistent with overall agency goals of promoting cost-effective program management, NRR 

recently reviewed aspects of the power uprate program that can be reduced with minimal impact 

to stakeholders. Therefore, the staff plans to reduce the frequency of several work products. 

Specifically, the staff (1) recommends that the Commission approve reducing the frequency of 

this Status Report on Power Uprates to a biennial basis, (2) will no longer update listings of 

RAIs for completed reviews on the public Web site, (3) will reduce to biennial a solicitation by 

memorandum for internal NRC stakeholder input on the program, and (4) will reduce to annual a 
 - 9 - 

survey of power reactor licensees on their plans for power uprate license amendment 

applications. 

The staff believes these reductions are appropriate considering the maturity of the power uprate 

program, limited resources, and the results of the latest licensee survey indicating that few 

power uprate applications are anticipated in the coming years. These reductions are not 

anticipated to diminish the effectiveness of the program. The staff’s ongoing technical work and 

planned program enhancements are targeted to improve the overall stability, consistency, and 

predictability of power uprate reviews. 

The staff will continue to evaluate the appropriateness of power uprate performance goals and 

explore enhancements to the power uprate program through interactions with internal and 

external stakeholders.