Responses to Requests for Information 

Senators James Inhofe and Shelley Moore Capito 

Letter Dated March 24, 2015

Request 1. 

Please provide all tables in the NRC’s FY 2016 Congressional Budget Justification revised to include the figures.ANSWER. 

All tables in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Congressional Budget Justificatio

revised to include FY 2015 Enacted amounts and are provided in Attachment 1, Revised FY 2016 CongressionaTables, with the exception of the Office of the Inspector General chapter. The tables in that chapter were not reno changes between FY 2015 President’s Budget and FY 2015 Enacted amounts. Resources in the CBJ are uprevious fiscal year enacted amounts; however, due to the timing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 201

113-235), resources in the FY 2016 CBJ are compared to the FY 2015 President’s Budget. P.L. 113-235 providEnacted budget which reduced the amount made available for salaries and benefits and expenses by $44.2 mil2015 President’s Budget. Specifically, P.L. 113-235 authorized the Commission to reallocate the agency’s unobestimate of $34.2 million to supplement its FY 2015 appropriations. A list of the CBJ tables that were revised and the corresponding chapter and page number are provided below. 

NRC FY 2016 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION REVISED TABLES

Chapter Table Pag

Executive Summary Total NRC Budget Authority by Appropriation 6 Executive Summary Budget Authority and Full-Time Equivalents 7 Nuclear Reactor Safety Operating Reactors by Product Line 19 Nuclear Reactor Safety New Reactors by Product Line 27 Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

Fuel Facilities by Product Line 39 

Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

Nuclear Materials Users by Product Line 45 

Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation by Product Line 51 

Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste by Product Line 55 

Performance Measurement Alignment of Resources to NRC Goals 63 Appendix 1: Budget Authority by Function 

Budget Authority by Function 93 
- 2 - 

Chapter Table Pag

Appendix 2: Corporate Support 

Corporate Support by Business Line 97 

Chapter Table Pag

Appendix 2: Corporate Support

Corporate Support Budget Authority and Full-Time Equivalents by Product Line

98

Appendix 3: Estimated Fee Recovery 

Estimated Fee Recovery 10

Request 2. 

In testimony to the Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee, "The FY 2015 proposed fee rule will also reincrease in the agency's staff productivity assumption of 1,375 hours in FY 2014 to 1,420 hours in FY 20in detail this assumption including studies that went into productivity and the methodology used to calcANSWER. 

The productivity assumption used in fee rule calculations represents the average number of working hours a tec

in a major program office is engaged in mission-direct work during the course of a year. The number is derived simple calculation on actual time and labor data. The formula is as follows: 

Total mission-direct hours worked by 

all technical employees 

X Total work hours in a year (2,080) = Average productivity of a mission-direct technical Total hours worked by all technical employee 

employees 

The ratio is derived by determining the total hours that NRC’s technical employees charged to time and labor co

activities in a given fiscal year (FY). Technical employees are staff members in the major program offices—the Reactor Regulation, the Office of New Reactors, the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, the Offic

and Incident Response, and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research—with position titles such as project engmanager, team leader, technical assistant, inspector, etc. Supervisory and administrative staff members in the 

not included in the pool of technical employees, because their time and labor are not directly fee billable, but are overhead activities. The total hours that NRC’s technical employees charged to time and labor codes for mission-direct activities—athe Nuclear Reactor Safety Program and Nuclear Reactor Materials and Waste Program in the agency’s budgethe total hours worked by those same employees during the year, which yields the ratio of mission-direct hours 
- 3 - 

for the technical staff as a whole. The total hours include mission-direct activities as well as annual leave, sick letc., and time spent on administrative activities. This ratio is then multiplied by 2,080, the number of hours in a work year, to arrive at the number of hours or productivity that the average technical staff member spent engage

activities over the course of the year. The NRC periodically reviews the past two years of time and labor data to assess changes in the average numbhours from year to year, and determine a realistic productivity assumption. The analysis is conducted at the begformulation cycle. The resulting productivity assumption informs workload and resources estimates in the agenWhen the NRC calculates the fees required to recover the budget enacted by Congress, this same productivity 

calculate the hourly rate. The productivity assumption of 1,420 hours used in the fee rule calculation for FY 2015 was based on an analyslabor data from FY 2011 through FY 2012. This was the most recent data available when the FY 2015 budget wanalysis showed that the ratio of hours charged to mission-direct activities vs. all hours worked by technical staf

period. The average mission-direct hours per technical employee increased from 1,375 hours in the FY 2014 fe

FY 2015 proposed rule, reflecting an increase in productivity. Request 3.

Please provide the estimated percentage of employees eligible to retire over the next five years. ANSWER. 

Approximately 37% of NRC employees will be eligible to retire in the next five years. Request 4.

Please provide the current attrition rate for NRC employees and whether the attrition rate is expected to years due to retirement eligibility.ANSWER. 

The attrition rate for fiscal year 2014 was 5.4%. The projected attrition rate of NRC employees for FY 2015 is a

The attrition rate is expected to stay relatively level between 2015 and 2020. 
- 4 - 

Request 5. 

Please provide a table listing corporate support costs as indicated in the NRC’s Congressional Budget Jside with corporate support costs as indicated in the NRC’s fee recovery rule for each of the last 15 yeaany discrepancies.ANSWER. 

The table provided below lists support costs as included in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) CongreJustification (CBJ) and the NRC’s Fee Rule for the last 15 years. 

CORPORATE SUPPORT COSTS 

Fiscal 

Year 

CBJ Enacted* 

($M) 

Fee Rule 

($M) 

2000 144.1 126.7 2001 146.1 129.3 2002 161.0 135.9 2003 165.8 149.6 2004 173.2 149.4 2005 181.0 157.2 2006 207.7 185.8 2007 252.2 247.8 2008 290.2 266.2 2009 332.2 316.5 2010 343.9 330.4 2011 342.9 474.1 2012 347.5 472.3 2013 362.3 474.8 2014 384.0 486.0 2015 369.7* 455.612015 369.7* 422.32

1FY 2015 Proposed based on FY 2015 President’s Budget 2FY 2015 Estimated Final based on FY 2015 Enacted Budget 

*Enacted budget per appropriation as reported in the CBJ. 
- 5 - 

Program support costs are calculated differently in the CBJ compared to the Fee Rule. The Fee Rule includes support costs included in CBJ, as well as the budget of the Office of the Inspector General, as a component in toverall hourly Fees for Services rate under 10 CFR Part 170. Additionally from FY 2011 – FY 2014, the fee rule 

support (supervisors, administrative assistants, and other program support personnel working in the program ofcomponent in the hourly Fees for Services rate. This reallocation of resources was done in conjunction with cenactivities to achieve overall efficiencies. Since completion of centralization, in FY 2015, most supervisory costs back to the business lines that they are directly associated with. In contrast, the CBJ does not include office sucosts and allocates office support costs directly to program areas they support (e.g., Operating Reactors, Fuel Fconsistent with all fee relief activities, the University Grants are considered direct resources for the Fee Rule, bu

is part of corporate support in the CBJ. 
- 6 - 

Request 6. 

The NRC’s Info Digest includes the following figure labeled “How We Regulate:” 

Figure 1. How We Regulate

1 Regulations 

and Guidance

• Rulemaking• Guidance Development• Generic Communications• Standards Development

OperationalExperience

• Events Assessment

Support forDecisions

• Research Activities• Risk Assessment• Performance Assessment• Advisory Committee Activities• Adjudication

Licensing,Decommissioningand Certifi

• Licensing

3 Oversight

• Inspection• Assessment of Performance• Enforcement• Allegations• Investigations• Incident Response

Developing regulations and guidance for applicants and licensees.1. Licensing or certifying applicants to use nuclear materials, 

operate nuclear facilities, and decommission facilities.

2. Inspecting and assessing licensee operations and facilities to ensure 

licensees comply with NRC requirements, responding to incidents, investigating allegations of wrongdoing and taking appropriate followup or enforcement actions when necessary.

3. Evaluating operational experience of licensed facilities and activities.4. Conducting research, holding hearings, and obtaining independent 

reviews to support regulatory decisions.
- 7 - 

We consider corporate support costs to be any resources not directly engaged in executing the activitiefigure. 

a. Please provide a list of any costs not directly engaged in these activities that are not counted as 

as accounted for in the Congressional Budget Justification. Please explain an explanation as to for each item.

b. Please provide a list of any costs not directly engaged in these activities that are not counted as 

as accounted for in the fee recovery rule. Please include an explanation as to why that is the cas

ANSWER. 

a. In accordance with the requirements defined in Section 51.2 of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB

Requirements for Program Justification, the NRC’s Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) provides the fuprograms. The CBJ allocates the agency’s corporate support infrastructure and support for centrally manag

necessary for the staff and agency programs to achieve goals more efficiently and effectively. These activitieacquisitions, administrative services, financial management, human resource management, information mantechnology, international activities, outreach, and policy support. In addition, as described in the response to question 5, the CBJ allocates supervisors, administrative assistaprogram support personnel directly to the business lines. The office support resources in the FY 2016 requeto the business lines total $56 million, including 310 FTE. 

b. As described in the response to question 5, the Fee Rule considers other program support costs, as well as 

Office of the Inspector General, to be components of an overall hourly Fees for Services rate under 10 CFR contrast, the CBJ allocates most of those costs directly to business line and corporate support programs. Abetween the fee rule and the CBJ include the Office of the Inspector General, which is not part of full cost in the University Grants budget. The University Grants are considered direct resources for the Fee Rule, but t

part of corporate support in the CBJ. 

Request 7.

Following Fukushima, NRC staff initiated a consequence study that evaluated the risk of a radioactive refuel pool following an earthquake. The NRC staff also prepared a report on the expedited transfer of sp

Please indicate the FTE and costs expended on these two efforts. ANSWER. 

In 2013, the NRC staff provided two policy papers to the Commission that dealt with or were associated with the 

fuel movement. The papers were the “Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan Lessons-Learned Tier 3 
- 8 - 

Transfer of Spent Fuel,” dated November 12, 2013 (COMSECY-13-0030; ADAMS Accession No. ML13329A91“Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark 1 Bodated October 9, 2013 (SECY-13-0112; ADAMS Accession No. ML13256A334). The NRC staff concluded (in COMSECY-13-0030) that expedited transfer of spent fuel to dry cask storage woulnegligible reduction in risk to public health and safety, and this reduction was not justified in light of the costs asexpedited transfer. Therefore, the staff also recommended to the Commission that no further generic assessmerelated to possible regulatory actions to require the expedited transfer of spent fuel to dry cask storage. The Cothis recommendation in May 2014 (SRM-COMSECY-13-0030; ADAMS Accession No. ML14143A360). The approximate costs associated with the development of SECY-13-0112 and COMSECY-13-0030 are as follo NRC staff: 

Total FTE: ~10.7 FTE 

Cost based on Total Hours: ~$1,650,000 USD 

 External (contractors): 

Total Costs: ~$139,000 USD 

Request 8.

Please provide the funding level NRC requested in its budget proposal to carry out its statutorily manda

license application for a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain.ANSWER. 

The President’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposal did not request funds for further review of the license applicati

geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. 
- 9 - 

Request 9. 

Post-Fukushima items have been categorized into 3 tiers, with Tier 1 items carrying the greatest safety bitem in each tier, please provide the level of resources, both funding and staffing levels, budgeted for FY ANSWER. 

The following table provides estimated direct funding and staffing levels of post-Fukushima activities for FY 201

Fukushima Tier CS&T 

($K) 

FTE 

Tier 1 4,731 117.5 Tier 2 

FY 2016 activities 

folded into Tier 1 

rulemaking 

Tier 3 1,400 7 

Total 6,131 124.5 
- 10 - 

Request 10. 

Please provide a graph depicting the amount of fee billed under 10 CFR Part 171 for the last 15 years.

ANSWER. 

338005880

340395240

335364896

343730559

397298530

390267900

378811987

439579640

468216700

470554495

522072435

547070451

550598757.7

559433222.7

519266290

590098654.5

$0.00

$100,000,000.00$200,000,000.00$300,000,000.00$400,000,000.00$500,000,000.00$600,000,000.00$700,000,000.00

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 
- 11 - 

Request 11. 

The NRC has entered into a multi-year study on radiation impacts around nuclear power plants using NaSciences. Please provide the amount of resources spent on this effort to date and the estimated costs feffort. ANSWER. 

Since 2010, the NRC has spent a total of $1.5 million for a two phase project. In Phase 1 of the study, complete

recommended two health study designs and a pilot study to determine the feasibility of using the designs on a nThis was followed by the Phase 2: Pilot Planning Project that was just completed in late December 2014. NAS has recently submitted an $8 million proposal for the implementation of Phase 2: Pilot Execution Study. Tcurrently reviewing proposal and will communicate with the Commission on the next steps in the summer 2015. Request 12.

The CBJ makes reference to some 66 research projects without much clarity as to what level of resourcconsume or why they have been initiated. Please provide a list of all ongoing research projects in the NResearch and any others within the agency. Please indicate how much each project has cost to date, hbudgeted for each project for FY 2016, and an estimate to complete any projects that may extend beyonalso indicate for each project whether it was initiated by NRC staff or as a result of Commission directiolist in terms of quantitative risk reductions. ANSWER. 

In creating the agency’s FY 2016 budget, research projects are aggregated into “product” areas, rather than budindividual project level. Most of the research projects listed in the FY 2016 budget request are aggregated in th

listed in the table below, many of which continue into FY 2017. The table includes historical figures on executiocategory back to FY 2012. The agency budget information for FY 2017 has not yet been formulated. While somCommission-directed, the majority of research activities are initiated through requests for technical support from 

to support regulatory decision-making. While the agency does not calculate risk reduction related to these projeprojects are typically prioritized under a high/medium/low scheme, and the offices work together on a periodic bwork based on emergent needs, resource limitations, and other changes. 
- 12 - 

Products Office

FY 20121 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2

Utilized Utilized Utilized Enac

Bud

$ K FTE $ K FTE $ K FTE $ K 

Fukushima Near-Term Task Force RES N/A 5.1 745 7.4 1,065 6.3 1,651 Generic Issues Program RES N/A 4.7 413 4.9 130 3 225 International Research RES 3,297 5.7 2,696 4.3 434 5 2,946 Reactors Research RES 40,679 138 31,255 126.6 40,084 124 36,689 Advanced Reactors Research RES 1,071 4.2 1,703 2.8 500 1.4 820 New Reactors Research RES 5,043 9.7 3,293 5.2 4,744 3.4 4,031 Waste Research (Decommissioning) RES 190 3.2 75 3.7 270 1.7 0 Materials Research (Fuel Facilities) RES 105 0.2 50 0.1 0 0.1 0 Materials Research (Materials Users) RES 442 3.1 213 3.1 869 2.6 350 Waste Research (Spent Fuel) RES 2,762 3.9 1,992 3.9 2,410 3.7 1,553 Waste Research (Spent Fuel) NMSS 18 6.4 0 2.4 0 2.3 1,435 

Note 1: Utilization data was only collected through FY 2012 due to budget code restructuring that occurred prioacquiring the comparable product-level data a significant challenge. Note 2: FY 2015 budget data includes $22 million of prior-year funding authorized in the FY 2015 appropriatio

Request 13.

In light of the Government Accountability Office’s recent criticism of NRC’s cost estimating capabilitiesa current estimate of the total cost for the industry to implement the regulatory requirements NRC is impFukushima? If so, please provide it.ANSWER. 

The NRC has detailed cost estimates for the revised June 2013 order requiring severe accident capable harden

industry cost to implement the June 2013 order at all 31 U.S. boiling water reactors with Mark I and Mark II contestimated by the NRC to be between $102 and $197 million. 
- 13 - 

The NRC generally agrees with the GAO’s recommendation that the NRC could improve its regulatory analyses implementing improvements consistent with GAO’s recommendation. Recently for informational purposes, the the costs for incorporating these improvements that have been or will be incurred as a result of Order EA-12-04

Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events, Orde

Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation, and related industry initiatives. Thdetailed in a draft regulatory analysis that was prepared for a proposed rulemaking, not yet published, that woulParts 50 and 52 to require mitigation strategies for responding to beyond-design-basis events.1 The NRC estim

actions result in a total present value cost of $1.7 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) and $1.8 billion (using rate. Request 14. 

Please provide a list of all reactor power uprates reviewed by the NRC. Please include the duration of thof the approval, the number of Requests for Additional Information issued, the cost billed to the applicaand the NRC's costs including corporate support for each one. ANSWER. 

Effective and efficient review of power uprate applications is a high priority for the agency. The NRC staff has b

inform the Commission of technical or timeliness issues that arise related to power uprates. The NRC continuededicated to the power uprate program, which includes maintaining related procedures, guidance, and timelinesactivities help ensure the efficiency and predictability of the power uprate program, and continued attention by NThe NRC has established goals for reviewing power uprate applications as follows: 9 months for a measuremerecapture power uprate (power increase of less than 2%), 12 months for a stretch power uprate (power increase months for an extended power uprate (power increase as high as 20%). The goals provide an appropriate safebased on application complexity, support management oversight of the review activities, and meet industry need

The tables below provide review durations for approved power uprate applications and also indicate the type of facilitate comparison between the review goals and the review duration. 

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Draft Regulatory Analysis: Proposed Rulemaking to Address Mitigation of Beyond-Design-B

2015, ADAMS Accession No. ML15068A284. 
- 14 - 

The NRC maintains a public website for power uprates2 that includes some of the information requested. The w

listing of all 156 power uprates that have been approved, including their approval date, and provides information 

licensee’s provide high quality applications. Requests for additional information (RAIs) are needed when the application does not contain sufficient technica

NRC staff to complete its independent safety review and make the requisite regulatory findings. The staff make

itself to one round of RAIs per technical review area, but has issued additional RAIs when information is needed 

make the necessary regulatory findings to support issuance of the power uprate license amendment. The NRC readily accessible records of all RAI letters issued on power uprate applications since the first uprate was approHowever, for the 89 of the NRC-approved power uprate amendments, the NRC public website for power upratereferences to all licensee correspondence, including responses to requests for additional information. Thereforeapplicant RAI letter responses is provided for each uprate, where known. Table 1 below provides information on all NRC-approved power uprates, except capacity recapture power upratoperating licenses3. For each power uprate, the table lists the date the power uprate was approved, type of po

duration of the review, and the number of applicant RAI letter responses. Table 2 provides information on powe

which were either withdrawn or denied since 2003. Information on withdrawn or denied power uprate applicationot readily available. Table 1: Approved Power Uprate Applications

Plant Name TYPE (Note 1)

Review 

Duration 

(months)

(Note 2) 

DATE 

APPROVED 

Applicant RAI 

Letter Responses

Co

(N

Calvert Cliffs 1 S 6 9/9/77 3 (NCalvert Cliffs 2 S 3 10/19/77 2Millstone 2 S 6 6/25/79 UnavailableH. B. Robinson S 64 6/29/79 UnavailableFort Calhoun S 13 8/15/80 UnavailableCrystal River 3 S 32 7/21/81 14St. Lucie 1 S 12 11/23/81 11

2 http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates.html 3 The following plants were approved for capacity recapture power uprates: Haddam Neck (1969), Oyster Creek (1971), Pa

(1972), Maine Yankee (1989), and Indian Point 2 (1990) 
- 15 - 

Plant Name TYPE (Note 1)

Review 

Duration 

(months)

(Note 2) 

DATE 

APPROVED 

Applicant RAI 

Letter Responses

Co

(N

St. Lucie 2 S 40 3/1/85 UnavailableDuane Arnold S 7 3/27/85 UnavailableSalem 1 S 6 2/6/86 UnavailableNorth Anna 1 S 15 8/25/86 4North Anna 2 S 15 8/25/86 4Callaway S 12 3/30/88 5Three Mile Island 1 S 3 7/26/88 UnavailableFermi 2 S 12 9/9/92 2Vogtle 1 S 13 3/22/93 6Vogtle 2 S 13 3/22/93 6Wolf Creek S 10 11/10/93 1Susquehanna 2 S 5 4/11/94 2Peach Bottom 2 S 16 10/18/94 14Limerick 2 S 14 2/16/95 7Susquehanna 1 S 7 2/22/95 UnavailableNine Mile Point 2 S 21 4/28/95 UnavailableColumbia S 22 5/2/95 9Peach Bottom 3 S 25 7/18/95 14Surry 1 S 12 8/3/95 10Surry 2 S 12 8/3/95 10Hatch 1 S 7 8/31/95 2Hatch 2 S 7 8/31/95 2Limerick 1 S 25 1/24/96 7V. C. Summer S 8 4/12/96 5 Palo Verde 1 S 4 5/23/96 3 Palo Verde 2 S 4 5/23/96 3 
- 16 - 

Plant Name TYPE (Note 1)

Review 

Duration 

(months)

(Note 2) 

DATE 

APPROVED 

Applicant RAI 

Letter Responses

Co

(N

Palo Verde 3 S 4 5/23/96 3 Turkey Point 3 S 9 9/26/96 5 Turkey Point 4 S 9 9/26/96 5 Brunswick 1 S 7 11/1/96 Unavailable $Brunswick 2 S 7 11/1/96 Unavailable $Fitzpatrick S 54 12/6/96 Unavailable $Farley 1 S 14 4/29/98 17 $Farley 2 S 14 4/29/98 17 $Browns Ferry 2 S 11 9/8/98 15 $Browns Ferry 3 S 11 9/8/98 15 $Monticello E 26 9/16/98 12 $Hatch 1 E 14 10/22/98 6 $Hatch 2 E 14 10/22/98 6 $Comanche Peak 2 MU 9 9/30/99 7 $LaSalle 1 S 10 5/9/00 9 $LaSalle 2 S 10 5/9/00 9 $Perry S 9 6/1/00 3 $River Bend S 15 10/6/00 5 $Diablo Canyon 1 S 10 10/26/00 5 $Watts Bar 1 MU 7 1/19/01 6 $Byron 1 S 10 5/4/01 8 $Byron 2 S 10 5/4/01 8 $Braidwood 1 S 10 5/4/01 8 $Braidwood 2 S 10 5/4/01 8 $Salem 1 MU 6 5/25/01 6 Salem 2 MU 6 5/25/01 6 
- 17 - 

Plant Name TYPE (Note 1)

Review 

Duration 

(months)

(Note 2) 

DATE 

APPROVED 

Applicant RAI 

Letter Responses

Co

(N

San Onofre 2 MU 3 7/6/01 5 San Onofre 3 MU 3 7/6/01 5 Susquehanna 1 MU 9 7/6/01 4 Susquehanna 2 MU 9 7/6/01 4 Hope Creek MU 7 7/30/01 3 $Beaver Valley 1 MU 8 9/24/01 11 Beaver Valley 2 MU 8 9/24/01 11 Shearon Harris S 12 10/12/01 15 $Comanche Peak 1 MU 6 10/12/01 3 Comanche Peak 2 MU 6 10/12/01 3 $Duane Arnold E 12 11/6/01 24 $Dresden 2 E 12 12/21/01 36 $Dresden 3 E 12 12/21/01 36 $Quad Cities 1 E 12 12/21/01 34 $Quad Cities 2 E 12 12/21/01 34 $Waterford 3 MU 6 3/29/02 3 $Clinton E 10 4/5/02 28 $South Texas 1 MU 8 4/12/02 5 $South Texas 2 MU 8 4/12/02 5 $Arkansas Nuclear 2 E 16 4/24/02 38 $Sequoyah 1 MU 5 4/30/02 1 $Sequoyah 2 MU 5 4/30/02 1 $Brunswick 1 E 9 5/31/02 32 $Brunswick 2 E 9 5/31/02 32 $Grand Gulf MU 9 10/10/02 5 $H. B. Robinson MU 6 11/5/02 5 $
- 18 - 

Plant Name TYPE (Note 1)

Review 

Duration 

(months)

(Note 2) 

DATE 

APPROVED 

Applicant RAI 

Letter Responses

Co

(N

Peach Bottom 2 MU 6 11/22/02 4 Peach Bottom 3 MU 6 11/22/02 4 Indian Point 3 MU 6 11/26/02 2 $Point Beach 1 MU 7 11/29/02 5 Point Beach 2 MU 7 11/29/02 5 Crystal River 3 S 6 12/4/02 5 $D.C. Cook 1 MU 6 12/20/02 5 $River Bend MU 8 1/31/03 5 $D.C. Cook 2 MU 6 5/2/03 2 Pilgrim MU 10 5/9/03 8 $Indian Point 2 MU 5 5/22/03 2 $Kewaunee MU 6 7/8/03 6 $Hatch 1 MU 9 9/23/03 6 Hatch 2 MU 9 9/23/03 6 Palo Verde 2 S 21 9/29/03 13 $Kewaunee S 9 2/27/04 6 $Palisades MU 12 6/23/04 3 $Indian Point 2 S 6 10/27/04 7 $Seabrook S 8 2/28/05 12 $Indian Point 3 S 7 3/24/05 5 $Waterford 3 E 13 4/15/05 33 $1Palo Verde 1 S 16 11/16/05 12 $Palo Verde 3 S 16 11/16/05 12 Vermont Yankee E 25 3/2/06 44 $2
- 19 - 

Plant Name TYPE (Note 1)

Review 

Duration 

(months)

(Note 2) 

DATE 

APPROVED 

Applicant RAI 

Letter Responses

Co

(N

Seabrook MU 6 5/22/06 2 $Ginna E 11 7/11/06 12 $1Beaver Valley 1 E 12 7/19/06 25 $Beaver Valley 2 E 12 7/19/06 25 $Browns Ferry 1 S 5 3/6/07 1 $Crystal River 3 MU 5 12/26/07 5 $Susquehanna 1 E 12 1/30/08 37 $Susquehanna 2 E 12 1/30/08 37 $Vogtle 1 MU 3 2/27/08 4 $Vogtle 2 MU 3 2/27/08 4 $Hope Creek E 19 5/14/08 39 $2Comanche Peak 1 S 8 6/27/08 12 $Comanche Peak 2 S 8 6/27/08 12 $Cooper MU 6 6/30/08 4 $Davis-Besse MU 13 6/30/08 9 $Millstone 3 S 10 8/12/08 35 $1Calvert Cliffs 1 MU 10 7/22/09 9 $Calvert Cliffs 2 MU 10 7/22/09 9 $North Anna 1 MU 5 10/22/09 3 $North Anna 2 MU 5 10/22/09 3 $Prairie Island 1 MU 6 8/18/10 3 $Prairie Island 2 MU 6 8/18/10 3 $LaSalle 1 MU 6 9/16/10 2 $LaSalle 2 MU 6 9/16/10 2 $Surry 1 MU 6 9/24/10 2 $
- 20 - 

Plant Name TYPE (Note 1)

Review 

Duration 

(months)

(Note 2) 

DATE 

APPROVED 

Applicant RAI 

Letter Responses

Co

(N

Surry 2 MU 6 9/24/10 2 $Limerick 1 MU 11 4/8/11 11 $Limerick 2 MU 11 4/8/11 11 $Point Beach 1 E 18 5/3/11 100 $1Point Beach 2 E 18 5/3/11 100 $Nine Mile Point 2 E 31 12/22/11 27 $1Shearon Harris 1 MU 10 5/30/12 15 $Turkey Point 3 E&MU 15 6/15/12 70 $1Turkey Point 4 E&MU 15 6/15/12 70 $St. Lucie 1 E&MU 16 7/9/12 85 $2Grand Gulf 1 E 19 7/18/12 47 $2St. Lucie 2 E&MU 15 9/24/12 67 $1McGuire 1 MU 13 5/16/13 9 $McGuire 2 MU 13 5/16/13 9 $Monticello E 60 12/9/13 71 $2Braidwood 1 MU 29 2/7/14 19 $Braidwood 2 MU 29 2/7/14 19 $Byron 1 MU 29 2/7/14 19 $Byron 2 MU 29 2/7/14 19 $Fermi 2 MU 10 2/10/14 5 $Peach Bottom 2 E 17 8/25/14 28 $1Peach Bottom 3 E 17 8/25/14 28 $1
- 21 - 

Table 2: Withdrawn or Denied Power Uprate Applications

Plant Name Type (Note 1) Review Duration (months) (Note 2) Final Action Cost B

(Note 

Fort Calhoun MU 6 (Note 5) $1Browns Ferry 1 E 113 Withdrawn 10/2/14 $2,1Browns Ferry 2 E 113 Withdrawn 10/2/14 $1,3Browns Ferry 3 E 113 Withdrawn 10/2/14 $1,2Hope Creek E 3 Withdrawn 2/10/06 $1Susquehanna 1 E 2 Withdrawn 5/18/06 $Susquehanna 2 E 2 Withdrawn 5/18/06 $Calvert Cliffs 1 MU 30 Withdrawn 9/27/07 $1Calvert Cliffs 2 MU 30 Withdrawn 9/27/07 $1Fort Calhoun MU 28 Denied 9/27/07 $1Monticello E 3 Withdrawn 6/25/08 $2St. Lucie 1 E 4 Withdrawn 8/13/10 $4Crystal River 3 E 15 Withdrawn 2/7/13 $2,2

Notes
- 22 - 

1. MU = measurement uncertainty recapture power uprate; S = stretch power uprate; and E = extended 2. Currently, the NRC review duration for power uprates is the time from acceptance of the application 

approval or final action and is the measure for the power uprate timeliness goals. The NRC accepts 

has determined that sufficient information has been provided by the licensee for the staff to begin the For applications received prior to 2005, a formal acceptance was not common so the review duration estimated as the time from the date of application until the date of approval. For applications that webeing accepted by the NRC, the duration is determined as the time from the date of application until action. In some cases reviews have been put on hold due to significant delays in licensee responsesreview duration does not account for these delays. 

3. Cost estimates are based on NRC staff review of the hours billed to licensees and do not include ins

associated with implementation of the power uprate approval. The amount shown is equal to NRC c

corporate support. 

4. Fee billing records are no longer available for power uprates prior to early 1996. Government record 

requirements dictate that NRC only keep records in this area from 2008 forward. 

5. NRC staff approved a measurement uncertainty recapture power uprate for Fort Calhoun on January 

Subsequently, the licensee, Omaha Public Power District, was informed by Westinghouse that the po

inaccuracies in the Advanced Measurement and Analysis Group ultrasonic flow meter would not allothe power uprate. The NRC amended the license to withdraw approval of the power uprate on May duration is for the original approval and not the withdrawal. 

Request 15.

Please provide a list of all reactor license extensions reviewed by the NRC. Please include the duration date of the approval, the number of requests for additional information issued, the cost billed to the appreview, and the NRC’s costs including corporate support for each one.ANSWER. 

The NRC has completed the review of 47 license renewal applications involving 77 nuclear power plant units sinapplication for a renewed license was submitted on April 10, 1998.* The median duration of an application revie

months. The renewed license issue date, application review time, number of letters requesting additional inform

to applicants are provided in the table below. 
- 23 - 

Plant Name and Unit(s) 

Renewed 

License 

Issuance 

Date 

License 

Renewal 

Application 

Review Time 

(Months) 

No. of Request for 

Additional 

Information 

Letters Issued 

Cost Bi

Applica

Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2 03/23/2000 23 38 $2,504,1Oconee 1, 2, & 3 05/23/2000 23 41 $2,279.Arkansas Nuclear One 1 06/20/2001 17 9 $2,326,5Turkey Point 3 & 4 06/06/2002 21 16 $2,905,Edwin I. Hatch 1 & 2 06/15/2002 28 4 $1,935,8North Anna 1 & 2 and Surry 1 & 2*** 03/20/2003 22 8 $3,066,Peach Bottom 2 & 3 05/07/2003 22 12 $2,753,St. Lucie 1 & 2 10/02/2003 22 6 $2,608,Fort Calhoun 11/04/2003 22 2 $1,818,
- 24 - 

Plant Name and Unit(s) 

Renewed 

License 

Issuance 

Date 

License 

Renewal 

Application 

Review Time 

(Months) 

No. of Request for 

Additional 

Information 

Letters Issued 

Cost Bi

Applica

McGuire 1 & 2 and Catawba 1 & 2 12/05/2003 30 17 $3,794,H.B. Robinson 2 04/19/2004 22 2 $2,357,V.C. Summer 04/23/2004 21 21 $3,108,4R.E. Ginna 05/19/2004 22 4 $2,113,Dresden 2 & 3 and Quad Cities 1 & 2 10/28/2004 22 12 $2,487,Joseph M. Farley 1 & 2 05/12/2005 20 18 $1,173,Arkansas Nuclear One 2 06/30/2005 21 13 $2,420,D.C. Cook 1 & 2 08/30/2005 22 21 $2,220,4Millstone 2 & 3 11/28/2005 22 5 $2,726,
- 25 - 

Plant Name and Unit(s) 

Renewed 

License 

Issuance 

Date 

License 

Renewal 

Application 

Review Time 

(Months) 

No. of Request for 

Additional 

Information 

Letters Issued 

Cost Bi

Applica

Point Beach 1 & 2 12/22/2005 22 27 $3,409,4Browns Ferry 1, 2 & 3 05/04/2006 28 27 $4,739,Brunswick 1 & 2 06/26/2006 20 5 $3,754,Nine Mile Point 1 & 2 10/31/2006 29 32 $4,050,Monticello 11/08/2006 20 13 $2,805,4Palisades 01/17/2007 22 28 $2,245,FitzPatrick 09/08/2008 26 11 $3,386,Wolf Creek 1 11/20/2008 26 18 $3,325,Shearon Harris 1 12/17/2008 25 12 $2,147,Oyster Creek 04/08/2009 45 16 $4,601,4
- 26 - 

Plant Name and Unit(s) 

Renewed 

License 

Issuance 

Date 

License 

Renewal 

Application 

Review Time 

(Months) 

No. of Request for 

Additional 

Information 

Letters Issued 

Cost Bi

Applica

Vogtle 1 & 2 06/03/2009 24 6 $2,508,Three Mile Island 1 10/22/2009 22 13 $2,188,2Beaver Valley 1 & 2 11/05/2009 27 25 $2,773,Susquehanna 1 & 2 11/17/2009 38 39 $3,019,Cooper 11/29/2010 26 22 $4,030,Duane Arnold 12/16/2010 27 12 $3,098,Kewaunee 02/24/2011 30 19 $3,313,Vermont Yankee 03/21/2011 62 15 $4,350,Palo Verde 1, 2, & 3 04/22/2011 28 20 $4,227,4Prairie Island 1 & 2 06/27/2011 38 21 $3,708,
- 27 - 

Plant Name and Unit(s) 

Renewed 

License 

Issuance 

Date 

License 

Renewal 

Application 

Review Time 

(Months) 

No. of Request for 

Additional 

Information 

Letters Issued 

Cost Bi

Applica

Salem 1 & 2 06/30/2011 22 35 $3,480,Hope Creek 1 07/20/2011 23 25 $2,509,2Columbia Generating Station 05/22/2012 28 42 $4,919,Pilgrim 1 05/29/2012 76 18 $3,489,Crystal River 3 **** 50 27 $4,390,Limerick 1 & 2 10/20/2014 40 35 $5,369,Callaway 1 03/06/2015 39 32 $6,862.

*The NRC has approved 46 license renewal applications and renewed 76 licenses. **This amount is equal to NRC costs, including corporate support. ***North Anna 1 & 2 and Surry 1 & 2 submitted individual license renewal applications on May 29, 20NRC reviewed the applications jointly and issued one safety evaluation report for both sites. 

 ****The Crystal River 3 application was withdrawn by the applicant on February 6, 2013. 

Request 16.
- 28 - 

Please provide a list of all reactor design certifications reviewed by the NRC since 2000. Please include review, the date of the approval or estimated date for completion, the number of Requests for Additionaissued, the cost billed to the applicant for each review and the NRC’s costs including corporate support ANSWER. 

The NRC considers an application to be “under review” once the application has been docketed, or accepted fodocketing of an application, the application is provided a docket number to be associated with all review activitie

going forward. Therefore, the project duration only includes the review time after the project was docketed. In r16, the NRC has prepared the attached spreadsheet that contains all reactor design certification applications unNRC since 2000 including: the approval or estimated completion dates, number of requests for additional inform

total cost billed to each applicant. The total cost billed to the applicant may contain pre-application charges that the official review of the application. These costs were included for completeness. See attached spreadsheet titled “Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s New Reactor Projects Information Since 20information. The total cost billed to the applicant includes the amount that is equal to the total NRC costs, includsupport. Request 17.

Please provide a list of all reactor construction and operating license applications reviewed by the NRC include the duration of the review, the date of the approval or estimated date for completion, the numbeAdditional Information issued, the cost billed to the applicant for each review, and the NRC’s costs inclusupport for each one. ANSWER. 

The NRC considers an application to be “under review” once the application has been docketed. Upon docketin

the application is provided a docket number to be associated with all review activities for that project going forwaproject duration only includes the review time after the project was docketed. In response to Question 17, the Nattached spreadsheet that contains all combined license applications and one operating license application undsince 2000 including the approval or estimated completion dates, number of requests for additional information 

cost billed to each applicant. The total cost billed to the applicant may contain pre-application charges that took official review of the application. These costs were included for completeness. See attached spreadsheet titled “Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s New Reactor Projects Since 2000” for detaitotal cost billed to the applicant includes the amount that is equal to the total NRC costs, including corporate sup
- 29 - 

Request 18. 

Please provide a list of all reactor early site permit applications reviewed by the NRC since 2000. Please duration of the review, the date of the approval or estimated date for completion, the number of RequesInformation issued, the cost billed to the applicant for each review, and the NRC’s costs including corpoeach one. ANSWER. 

The NRC considers an application to be “under review” once the application has been docketed. Upon docketin

the application is provided a docket number to be associated with all review activities for that project going forwaproject duration only includes the review time after the project was docketed. In response to Question 18, the Nattached spreadsheet that contains all early site permit applications under review by the NRC since 2000; includ

estimated completion dates, number of requests for additional information (RAIs), and the total cost billed to eactotal cost billed to the applicant may contain pre-application charges which took place prior to the official review These costs were included for completeness. See attached spreadsheet titled “Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s New Reactor Projects Since 2000” for detaitotal cost billed to the applicant includes the amount that is equal to the total NRC costs, including corporate sup

Nuclear Regulatory Commission's New Reactor Projects Information Since 200
- 30 - 

Name 

Date 

Approved 

or 

Estimated 

Completion 

Date 

Current Status 

Project 

Duration 

(months) 

N

R

Iss

Issued Design 

Certifications 

(DCs) and DC 

Amendments 

South Texas Project ABWR DC Rule Amendment 12/16/2011 Approved 29 

Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) 01/27/2006 Approved 45 Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) Amendment 09/2011 Approved 35 Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor 10/15/2014 Approved 109 5

DCs Currently 

Under Review 

U.S. EPR N/A 

Review Suspended 

by Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

U.S. Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor (US-APWR) N/A 

Review Delayed by 

Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 1

ABWR DC Renewal (Toshiba) N/A 

Review Delayed by 

Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

ABWR DC Renewal (GEH) N/A 

Review Delayed by 

Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

Advanced Power Reactor 1400 (APR1400) 06/03/2019 Under Review 53 

Issued Combined 

Licenses (COLs) 

V.C. Summer Unit 2 03/30/2012 Approved 48 

V.C. Summer Unit 3 03/30/2012 Approved Vogtle Unit 3 02/10/2012 Approved 46 Vogtle Unit 4 02/10/2012 Approved 
- 31 - 

Name 

Date 

Approved 

or 

Estimated 

Completion 

Date 

Current Status 

Project 

Duration 

(months) 

N

R

Iss

COL 

Applications 

Received 

Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant 

04/2016 

(for FEIS 

only)

Safety Review Suspended by 

Applicant / 

Environmental 

Under Review 

N/A 

Bellefonte Nuclear Station Unit 3 N/A 

Review Suspended 

by Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

Bellefonte Nuclear Station Unit 4 N/A 

Review Suspended 

by Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

Callaway Plant Unit 2 N/A 

Review Suspended 

by Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 N/A 

Review Suspended 

by Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

Comanche Peak Unit 3 N/A 

Review Suspended 

by Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

Comanche Peak Unit 4 N/A 

Review Suspended 

by Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 
- 32 - 

Name 

Date 

Approved 

or 

Estimated 

Completion 

Date 

Current Status 

Project 

Duration 

(months) 

N

R

Iss

Fermi Unit 3 02/04/20154 Under Review 77 Grand Gulf Unit 3 N/A 

Review Suspended 

by Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

COL 

Applications 

Received 

(Cont.)

Levy County Unit 1 01/29/2016 Under Review 89 

Levy County Unit 2 01/29/2016 Under Review Nine Mile Point Unit 3 N/A Withdrawn by Applicant N/A North Anna Unit 3 07/29/2016 Under Review 104 River Bend Station Unit 3 N/A 

Review 

Suspended by 

Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

Shearon Harris Unit 2 N/A 

Review 

Suspended by 

Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

Shearon Harris Unit 3 N/A 

Review 

Suspended by 

Applicant - 

Currently Not 

Scheduled 

N/A 

South Texas Project Unit 3 01/29/2016 Under Review 100 1

4 The staff’s effort was complete on February 4, 2015, with completion of the mandatory hearing. Issuance of a combined 

Commission decision. 
- 33 - 

Name 

Date 

Approved 

or 

Estimated 

Completion 

Date 

Current Status 

Project 

Duration 

(months) 

N

R

Iss

South Texas Project Unit 4 01/29/2016 Under Review Turkey Point Unit 6 02/28/2017 Under Review 91 Turkey Point Unit 7 02/28/2017 Under Review Victoria County Station Unit 1 N/A Withdrawn by Applicant N/A Victoria County Station Unit 2 N/A Withdrawn by Applicant N/A Williams States Lee III Unit 1 04/29/2016 Under Review 100 Williams States Lee III Unit 2 04/29/2016 Under Review 

Operating 

License Watts Bar Unit 2 07/2015 Under Review 96 

Issued Early 

Site Permits 

(ESPs) 

Clinton ESP Site 03/15/2007 Approved 41 5

Grand Gulf ESP Site 04/05/2007 Approved 41 1North Anna ESP Site 11/27/2007 Approved 50 8Vogtle ESP Site 08/26/2009 Approved 36 1

ESP 

Applications 

Received 

Victoria County Station N/A Withdrawn by Applicant N/A 

PSEG Site 01/29/2016 Under Review 68 

*The RAIs for the projects listed are estimates based on the NRC staff's search. The actual numbers could be higher tha

new reactor program has an automated system for tracking the resolution of particular topics where additional input from 

needed, as opposed to the number of letters sent to applicants requesting additional information. Each item in this system

request for additional information (RAI), comprises one or more questions related to a single topic. This table provides th

tracked RAIs rather than the total number of letters sent to applicants. 
- 34 - 

**The RAIs for these projects represent a portion of the NRC staff's requests for additional information regarding the enviThe RAIs for the safety review were not able to be retrieved due to the review period being completed prior to the use of t

RAI tracking system. ***Total cost billed to applicant includes corporate support. 

Request 19.

The NRC has begun reviewing an application to certify a foreign design, the KHNP-1400. Please provide NRC budgeted for this review for fiscal years 2015 and 2016, and the costs estimated to be billed to the 2015. ANSWER. 

The amount budgeted in FY 2015 is $8,778K (19 FTE and $5,681K). The amount requested in the FY 2016 President’s Budget is $7,111K (18.9 FTE and $3,973K). The amount estimated to be billed to the applicant for FY 2015 is roughly $8,696K (24 FTE and $2,000K) Request 20.

How often has the Commission imposed regulatory changes based on a Backfit analysis in which qualitdetermined to override the result [of] quantitative analysis? ANSWER. 

Table 1. List of Final Rules Since 2005 Where Backfit Analysis Addressed Both Quantitative and Qualitative Fa

Conclusion Was Based Upon a Determination that the Qualitative Factors Result Overrode the Quantitative Fac
- 35 - 

5 NRC Docket ID not assigned at this time. 

Title Publication Date FR Citation RIN # Docket ID Backfit Analysis ADAMS Accession No. Qualitative Justif

Fitness for Duty Programs 3/31/2008 73 FR 16966 3150–AF125 ML080580135 

Benefits were identified as: 

1. Strengthening the effectiveness o

programs through fatigue manage

2. Enhancing regulatory consistency 

and other related Federal rules an

3. Improving effectiveness and effici

alcohol testing programs (e.g., an

4. Improving clarity in the organizatio

CFR Part 26; 

5. Eliminating or modifying unnecess6. Enhancing FFD program integrity 

individual rights; and 

7. Improving consistency between th

and access authorization program

Benefits were not quantified because oquantitative information on the risks of power plant’s protected area due to woundetected use of drugs or alcohol, or inconsistencies between the FFD and programs. Quantification of any of the

required estimation of factors such as tresults of damage that occurred before and would occur after the rule went into quantified certain costs, as described i“Backfit Analysis ADAMS Accession N

Power Reactor Security 

Requirements 

Regulatory Guide 5.75, 

Training and 

Qualification of Security 

Personnel at 

Nuclear Power Reactor 

Facilities 

3/27/2009 

74 FR 13926

3150–AG63 

NRC–2008–0019 

ML083390372 (final rule 

regulatory analysis and backfit 

analysis) 

ML091690037 (implementing 

regulatory guide) 

Benefits were identified as: 

1. Safeguards and security: increas

nuclear power plants are safeguaincluding the design basis threat f

2. Regulatory efficiency: enhanced 

regulatory and compliance improvindustry's planning efforts and in Nefforts; 

3. Public health (accident): reduced 

affected by radiological releases r

sabotage; 

4. Occupational health (accident): re

health will be affected by radiolog

radiological sabotage; 

5. Off-site property: reduced risk tha
- 36 - 

affected by radiological releases rsabotage; and 

6. On-site property: reduced risk tha

affected by radiological releases rsabotage. 

Benefits were not quantified because oquantitative information on risk of a secoutcomes to which the regulation was rulemaking). Quantification would hav

factors such as: (1) the frequency of asabotage, (2) the frequency with which attempts were (i.e., pre-rule) and would successful, and (3) the impacts of succattempts. The NRC quantified certain analysis listed in the “Backfit Analysis Acolumn of this table. 

Enhancements to 

Emergency Preparedness 

Regulations 

11/23/2011 

76 FR 72560

3150-AI10 

NRC-2008-0122 ML112971541 

Benefits were identified as: 

1. Reduced risk that public health an

affected by radiological releases r

emergencies, including hostile acsite and on-site property will be afreleases resulting from emergenc

by improving the response to initiasevere accidents in the absence o

2. Enhanced regulatory efficiency th

compliance improvements, includplanning efforts and in NRC's revi

Benefits were not quantified because oquantitative information and NRC’s inaas: (1) the frequency of various types emergency events, including hostile acconsequences of such emergencies; aimpacts associated with such emergencertain costs, as described in the analyAnalysis ADAMS Accession No.” colum
- 37 - 

Request 21. 

Please provide a list of licensing actions and reviews that have been delayed due to Fukushima-related delays continue as the NRC proceeds on Tier 3 post-Fukushima issues? If so, please explain. ANSWER. 

Currently, a total of 137 licensing actions and reviews have taken longer than 12 months since the onset of Fuk

Of these, 48 actions remain open, are under review, and are listed below. Some of these delays are directly relrelated work competing for the same critical skill sets; however, the NRC continues to prioritize all licensing acti

accordance with their safety significance, ensuring that resources are available for the highest priority actions, rcomplex actions can require longer than typical review times. The NRC has reallocated resources from lower p

the Reactor Safety Program to stabilize and begin to recover the backlog and mitigate delays in licensing reviewtimeliness of reviews will continue to recover to pre-Fukushima performance in the coming years, and do not ansignificant delays related work on Tier 3 post-Fukushima issues. MCGUIRE 2 – Technical Specifications (TS) 3.7.7 Nuclear Service Water System 

MCGUIRE 1 - TS 3.7.7 Nuclear Service Water System CATAWBA 1 - Moderator Temp Coeff Surveillance Requirements (SR) changes TS 3.1.3 and 5.6.5 CATAWBA 2 - Moderator Temp Coeff SR changes TS 3.1.3 and 5.6.5 MCGUIRE 1 - Moderator Temp Coeff SR changes TS 3.1.3 and 5.6.5 MCGUIRE 2 - Moderator Temp Coeff SR changes TS 3.1.3 and 5.6.5 INDIAN POINT 3 - Emergency Diesel Generator Fuel Oil System RIVER BEND 1 – River Bend Station Heavy Load Movement Over Fuel Assemblies PALO VERDE 3 - Palo Verde Application for TS Change Regarding Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) STAR Program (TSTF-486, TSTF-406) PALO VERDE 2 - Palo Verde Application for TS Change Regarding MTC Surveillance for STAR Program (techtask force (TSTF)-486, TSTF-406) PALO VERDE 1 - Palo Verde Application for TS Change Regarding MTC Surveillance for STAR Program (TST
- 38 - 

BYRON 1 - Clarification of Licensing Basis Assumptions for a Natural Circulation Cooldown Event BRAIDWOOD 1 - Clarification of Licensing Basis Assumptions for a Natural Circulation Cooldown Event BYRON 2 - Clarification of Licensing Basis Assumptions for a Natural Circulation Cooldown Event BRAIDWOOD 2 - Clarification of Licensing Basis Assumptions for a Natural Circulation Cooldown Event BYRON 2 - License Amendment Request (LAR) for the use of an Auxiliary Feedwater Cross-tie Between Units BRAIDWOOD 1 - License Amendment Request for the use of an Auxiliary Feedwater Cross-tie Between Units BRAIDWOOD 2 - License Amendment Request for the use of an Auxiliary Feedwater Cross-tie Between Units BYRON 1 - License Amendment Request for the use of an Auxiliary Feedwater Cross-tie Between Units PRAIRIE ISLAND 1 – License Amendment Request to Revise TS 3.5.3 ' ECCS – Shutdown’ PRAIRIE ISLAND 2 - LAR to Revise TS 3.5.3 ' Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) – Shutdown’ ARKANSAS NUCLEAR 2 - Adoption of TSTF-422, Revision 2, "Change in Technical Specifications End States OCONEE 1 - Add Emergency Power (KHU) Electrical Frequency Requirements to Technical Specifications OCONEE 2 - Add Emergency Power (KHU) Electrical Frequency Requirements to Technical Specifications OCONEE 3 - Add Emergency Power (KHU) Electrical Frequency Requirements to Technical Specifications ROBINSON 2 - Robinson Unit 2: LAR to Modify TS 3.1.7 to Delete the Monthly Rod Position Indication SurveillaSEQUOYAH 1 - Modify Ice Condenser TSs to Address Revisions In Westinghouse Mass and Energy Release CSEQUOYAH 2 - Modify Ice Condenser TSs to Address Revisions In Westinghouse Mass and Energy Release CBROWNS FERRY 3 - Tech Spec Changes to Revise the Leak Rate through MSIVs (TS-485) SEQUOYAH 2 - Custom TS Conversion to Standard ITS, NUREG-1431, Rev. 4 (SQN-TS-11-10) 
- 39 - 

CATAWBA 1 - Methodology Report DPC-NE-3001-P, Revision 1, Multidimensional Reactor Transients and SafeSEQUOYAH 1 - Custom TS Conversion to Standard ITS, NUREG-1431, Rev. 4 (SQN-TS-11-10) BROWNS FERRY 2 - Tech Spec Changes to Revise the Leak Rate through MSIVs (TS-485) BROWNS FERRY 1 - Tech Spec Changes to Revise the Leak Rate through MSIVs (TS-485) MCGUIRE 2 - Methodology Report DPC-NE-3001-P, Revision 1, Multidimensional Reactor Transients and SafeCATAWBA 2 - Methodology Report DPC-NE-3001-P, Revision 1, Multidimensional Reactor Transients and SafeMILLSTONE 3 - TS Changes to Refueling Water Storage Tank Allowable Temperatures WATERFORD 3 - Review & Approval of Change to UFSAR Clarifying Pzr Heaters Function for Natural CirculatiMCGUIRE 1 - Methodology Report DPC-NE-3001-P, Revision 1, Multidimensional Reactor Transients and SafePERRY 1 - Full Implementation of Alternative Accident Source Term (L-13-306) DRESDEN 2 - Amendment to TS Section 5.6.5, "Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)" DRESDEN 3 - Amendment to TS Section 5.6.5, "Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)" QUAD CITIES 1 - Amendment to TS Section 5.6.5, "Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)" QUAD CITIES 2 - Amendment to TS Section 5.6.5, "Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)" CALVERT CLIFFS 1 - Atmospheric Dump Valves TS CALVERT CLIFFS 2 - Atmospheric Dump Valves TS