AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly 

released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 

licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 

NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 

and information notices; inspection and investigative 

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 

and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, 

and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of Federal Regulations

may also be purchased from one of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Publishing Office

Mail Stop IDCC

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2104

2. The National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Rd., Alexandria, VA 22312-0002

www.ntis.gov

1-800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Administration

Publications Branch

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: distribution.resource@nrc.gov

Facsimile: (301) 415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted 

at NRC’s Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

doc-collections/nuregs are updated periodically and may 

differ from the last printed version. Although references to 

material found on a Web site bear the date the material 

was accessed, the material available on the date cited 

may subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 

journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, 

Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. 

Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports 

and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings 

may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library for reference 

use by the public. Codes and standards are usually 

copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating 

organization or, if they are American National Standards, 

from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

(212) 642-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in 

laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series publications. The 

views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this 

series are not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and administrative reports and books prepared by the staff (NUREG–

XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) 

proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX), (3) reports 

resulting from international agreements (NUREG/IA–XXXX), 

(4) brochures (NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of 

legal decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic 

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’ decisions 

under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations (NUREG–0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account 

of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. 

Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor 

any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, 

or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third 

party’s use, or the results of such use, of any information, 

apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, 

or represents that its use by such third party would not 

infringe privately owned rights.
CONGRESSIONAL 

BUDGET

JUSTIFICATION

FISCAL YEAR

2017

NUREG-1100 

Volume 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | iii

CONTENTS

Executive Summary................................................................................................................vii

Overview of the FY 2017 NRC Congressional Budget Justification ................................ ix

Proposed Fiscal Year 2017 Appropriations Legislation.........................................................1

Salaries and Expenses....................................................................................................1

Office of Inspector General..............................................................................................1

Analysis of Proposed FY 2017 Appropriations Legislation...............................................1

Annual Performance Plan.........................................................................................................7

Relating Resources to Goals ...........................................................................................7

Performance Indicators: FY 2012-FY 2014......................................................................8

Performance Indicators: FY 2015-FY 2017....................................................................11

Verification and Validation of Performance Indicators....................................................15

Strategic Plan Strategies and Supporting Business Lines..............................................34

Nuclear Reactor Safety...........................................................................................................39

Operating Reactors .......................................................................................................41

New Reactors................................................................................................................49

Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety ......................................................................................59

Fuel Facilities................................................................................................................61

Nuclear Materials Users ................................................................................................65

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation.........................................................................71

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste .......................................................................75

Integrated University Program...............................................................................................81

Office of the Inspector General..............................................................................................83

Audits Program............................................................................................................83

Investigations Program..................................................................................................85

NRC OIG’s Strategic Goals, Strategies, and Actions .....................................................86

Inspector General Reform Act Certification for FY 2017 ................................................93

Appendix A: Corporate Support ...........................................................................................95

Acquisitions ...................................................................................................................96

Administrative Services .................................................................................................97

Financial Management ..................................................................................................97

Human Resource Management.....................................................................................98

Information Management...............................................................................................98

Information Technology .................................................................................................98

Outreach .......................................................................................................................99

Policy Support ...............................................................................................................99

Training .........................................................................................................................99

Appendix B: Budget Authority by Function.......................................................................103

Appendix C: Estimated Fee Recovery................................................................................105
TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | iv

Appendix D: Summary of Reimbursable Work ..................................................................107

Appendix E: Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act Requirements...109

Appendix F: Corporate and Office Support Budget Realignment ....................................111

Appendix G: Planned Rulemakings....................................................................................115

Appendix H: Obligations by Control Point.........................................................................121

Appendix I: Report on Drug Testing...................................................................................123

Appendix J: Acronym List...................................................................................................125
TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | v 

FIGURES

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FY 2014-FY 2017 Budget .............................................. vii

Corporate Support Resources Realignment Crosswalk...........................................................113

TABLES

Total NRC Budget Authority by Appropriation ............................................................................ix

Budget Authority and Full-Time Equivalents................................................................................ x 

Alignment of Resources to NRC Goals ....................................................................................... 8 

Nuclear Reactor Safety.............................................................................................................39

Operating Reactors by Product Line .........................................................................................41

New Reactors by Product Line..................................................................................................49

Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety .........................................................................................59

Fuel Facilities by Product Line ..................................................................................................61

Nuclear Materials Users by Product Line ..................................................................................65

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation by Product Line...........................................................71

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste by Product Line .........................................................75

Integrated University Program...................................................................................................81

NRC OIG Budget Authority and Full-Time Equivalents..............................................................83

Audits Budget Authority.............................................................................................................83

Investigations Audits Budget Authority ......................................................................................85

NRC OIG Budget Resources Linked to OIG’s Strategic Goals ..................................................89

Corporate Support by Business Line.........................................................................................95

Corporate Support Budget Authority and Full-Time Equivalents by Product Line ......................96

Total NRC Budget Authority by Function.................................................................................103

Estimated Fee Recovery.........................................................................................................105

Summary of Reimbursable Work ............................................................................................107

NRC IT Table: Major IT Investments .......................................................................................110

Planned Rulemakings .............................................................................................................115

Obligations by Control Point....................................................................................................121

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mission: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses and regulates the Nation’s civilian use of 

radioactive material to protect public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and 

protect the environment.

Strategic Goals:

Safety - ensure the safe use of radioactive materials 

Security - ensure the secure use of radioactive materials

This Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Congressional Budget Justification reflects the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) continued focus on accomplishing its mission; achieving 

resource savings; and improving the agency’s efficiency and effectiveness, while adapting to a 

dynamic environment. 

Between FY 2001 and FY 2010, the NRC grew significantly to enhance the regulatory structure 

for security and incident response and prepare for the projected growth in the use of nuclear 

power in the United States. The level of forecasted nuclear power growth in the nation did not 

occur due to changes in the energy industry, resulting in fewer applications for new nuclear 

power plants and fuel cycle facilities, and earlier decommissioning of some existing plants. 

Consistent with the decline in workload, agency resources, excluding the Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG), have decreased approximately 8 percent from $1,043.9 million, including 

3,741.7 full-time equivalents (FTE), to $970.2 million, including 3,462 FTE, between the 

FY 2014 Enacted budget and the FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification. This represents 

a decrease of $73.7 million, including 279.7 FTE.

3,300

3,400

3,500

3,600

3,700

3,800

$960

$990

$1,020

$1,050

FY 2014 Enacted FY 2015 Enacted FY 2016 Enacted FY 2017 Request

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

FY 2014 - FY 2017 Budget

Excluding Office of the Inspector General 

(Dollars in Millions)

Amount ($M) FTE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | viii

The NRC recognizes the changing environment in the nuclear industry and remains committed 

to using resources effectively and efficiently. To that end, the NRC has initiated a 

transformation initiative, Project Aim, which involves taking a close look at the work we do and 

how we do it, evaluating our organizational structure, and developing a strategic workforce plan 

to ensure we have the right people in the right place at the right time doing the right work. In 

June 2015, as part of Project Aim, the Commission directed actions to further improve the 

agency’s efficiency in its internal processes and reduce corporate support requirements. A key 

action involves rebaselining the agency’s workload. This involves reviewing the agency’s 

current and projected workload and developing a list of lower priority activities that can either be 

shed or performed with fewer resources. As a result of this analysis, the FY 2017 budget 

request reflects significant savings. As the agency continues to review and prioritize its work, 

this process will result in further efficiencies gained and resources saved.

The agency has undertaken a number of other initiatives to improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of its operations, including the centralization of corporate functions and the merger 

of the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management and the Office of 

Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. The NRC contracted with Ernst & Young (EY) in 

February 2015 to review the agency’s overhead functions and to identify ways to further reduce 

costs while continuing to support its mission. Informed by the EY overhead assessment and 

review of other Federal agency practices, the NRC reviewed activities currently categorized as 

overhead/Corporate Support and made improvements to the FY 2017 budget request to 

correctly realign resources in the mission areas they support. The NRC also worked with the 

National Academy of Public Administration to enhance and broaden recommendations such as 

increasing the transparency of fees, improving the operator reactor licensing process; and 

streamlining, standardizing, and clarifying roles and responsibilities in other processes.

While the agency has undertaken considerable steps to identify areas where it can realize 

efficiencies, the FY 2017 budget fully supports the NRC’s safety and security programs, and the 

agency’s primary focus continues to be protecting public health and ensuring the long-term

safety of nuclear materials and facilities as detailed below.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | ix

OVERVIEW OF THE FY 2017 NRC CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION

The NRC’s FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification, including OIG, is $982.3 million, 

including 3,525 FTE. The budget request represents a decrease of $19.8 million or 2 percent

when compared with the FY 2016 Enacted budget. This includes a decrease of 90 FTE.

Total NRC Budget Authority by Appropriation

(Dollars in Millions)

NRC Appropriation

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M $M $M

Salaries and Expenses (S&E)

Budget Authority 990.0 970.2 (19.8)

Offsetting Fees 873.0 851.2 (21.9)

Net Appropriated S&E $117.0 $119.0 $2.0

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

Budget Authority 12.1 12.1 0.0 

Offsetting Fees 10.1 10.0 0.0 

Net Appropriated OIG $2.1 $2.1 $0.0

Total NRC

Budget Authority 1,002.1 982.3 (19.8)

Offsetting Fees 883.1 861.2 (21.9)

Total Net Appropriated $119.0 $121.1 $2.1

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The OIG’s component of the FY 2017 proposed budget is $12.1 million, of which $11.2 million is 

for auditing and investigation activities for NRC programs and $1.0 million is for the auditing and 

investigation activities of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB). These

resources will allow OIG to carry out its mission to independently and objectively conduct audits 

and investigations to ensure the efficiency and integrity of NRC and DNFSB programs and 

operations; to promote cost-effective management and to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and 

abuse.

In accordance with the provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 

(OBRA-90), as amended, the NRC’s FY 2017 budget provides for 90 percent fee recovery, less 

the amounts appropriated for (1) generic homeland security activities and (2) waste incidental to 

reprocessing activities under Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. As discussed in the “Proposed Fiscal Year 2017 

Appropriations Legislation” chapter of this Congressional Budget Justification, the proposed 

FY 2017 legislative language makes clear that DNFSB activities and $5.0 million of the amount 

used for activities related to the development of regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear 

reactor technologies are excluded from OBRA-90’s fee recovery requirement. This is in the 

same manner as the amounts appropriated to the Commission to implement Section 3116 of 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | x

the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 and amounts 

appropriated to the Commission for generic homeland security activities.

Accordingly, $861.2 million of the FY 2017 budget will be recovered from fees assessed to NRC 

licensees. This will result in a net appropriation of $121.1 million, which is an increase of 

$2.1 million in net appropriations when compared with the FY 2016 Enacted budget. In 

accordance with the requirements defined in Section 51.2 of OMB Circular A-11, “Requirements 

for Program Justification,” the NRC is providing the full cost of its programs.

Budget Authority and Full-Time Equivalents

(Dollars in Millions)

Major Programs

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Operating Reactors 589.2 2,157.2 587.5 2,103.6 (1.7) (53.6)

New Reactors 171.3 622.9 169.9 614.6 (1.4) (8.3)

Nuclear Reactor Safety $760.4 2,780.1 $757.4 2,718.2 $(3.0) (61.9)

Fuel Facilities 44.3 172.5 41.5 157.1 (2.9) (15.4)

Nuclear Materials Users 91.6 310.8 92.5 307.9 0.9 (2.9)

Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation 36.1 135.7 37.2 129.3 1.1 (6.5)

Decommissioning and Low-Level 

Waste $42.5 152.9 41.6 149.5 (1.0) (3.3)

Nuclear Materials and 

Waste Safety $214.6 771.9 $212.8 743.8 $(1.8) (28.1)

Program Subtotal $975.0 3,552.0 $970.2 3,462.0 $(4.8) (90.0)

Integrated University Program $15.0 0.0 $0.0 0.0 $(15.0) 0.0 

Subtotal $990.0 3,552.0 $970.2 3,462.0 $(19.8) (90.0)

Inspector General 12.1 63.0 12.1 63.0 0.0 0.0 

Subtotal $1,002.1 3,615.0 $982.3 3,525.0 $(19.8) (90.0)

Reimbursable FTE 12.9 12.4 (0.5)

Total $1,002.1 3,627.9 $982.3 3,537.4 $(19.8) (90.5)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The NRC is focused on becoming more agile in addressing the changing workload and resource 

environment and is committed to becoming more efficient, while at the same time meeting all of 

its regulatory obligations. The NRC has undertaken several initiatives to accomplish its mission 

more effectively over the next several years, while operating with fewer resources. This 

FY 2017 budget request reflects the NRC’s progress in rightsizing the agency while continuing 

to fulfill its important safety and security responsibilities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | xi

Compared with the FY 2016 Enacted budget, the Nuclear Reactor Safety Program decreased 

by $3 million, including a decrease of 61.9 FTE and the Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

Program, decreased by $1.8 million, including a decrease of 28.1 FTE. This budget includes 

$5 million for advanced nuclear reactor technology, which is non-feebillable. No funding for the

Integrated University Program is included in the budget request.

The NRC carries out its safety and security activities through two major programs: (1) Nuclear 

Reactor Safety, consisting of Operating Reactors and New Reactors, and (2) Nuclear Materials 

and Waste Safety, consisting of Fuel Facilities, Nuclear Material Users, Decommissioning and 

Low-Level Waste, and Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation. The agency accomplishes the

mission to ensure safety and security through regulatory activities that include licensing, 

oversight, and rulemaking. Licensees are subject to oversight through inspection, assessment, 

investigation, and enforcement actions. Investigation and enforcement actions are a subset of 

oversight when there are suspected or proven instances of noncompliance with safety and 

security regulations. The NRC’s event response activities prepare the agency to respond to 

emergencies involving radioactive materials.

In addition, the NRC’s safety program evaluates and resolves safety issues at nuclear power 

plants, other nuclear facilities, and materials users that the agency regulates. The research 

program assesses and confirms existing and potential safety issues; supplies independent 

expertise, information, and technical judgments to support timely and realistic regulatory 

decisions; reduces uncertainties in risk assessments; and develops technical regulations and 

standards. The NRC also engages in cooperative research with other government agencies, 

stakeholders, universities, and international partners.

In FY 2017, the NRC will continue licensing and oversight activities for 100 operating 

commercial nuclear power reactors. In FY 2017, activities to address the lessons learned from 

the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan will continue to be a high priority. 

These include completing the implementation of the Mitigating Strategies and Spent Fuel Pool 

Instrumentation Order and continuing the implementation of the Severe Accident Capable 

Hardened Vents Order, as well as reviewing licensee responses to the requests for information 

associated with seismic and flooding hazard reevaluations and emergency preparedness. 

Additionally, the NRC will review three applications for medical isotope production facilities,

including reviewing an operating license for a facility, and conducting environmental and safety 

reviews of construction permits for two facilities. In addition, the NRC will be performing 

oversight of construction of one medical isotope production facility.

The NRC will conduct licensing reviews and oversight activities for decommissioning power 

reactors including Kewaunee Power Station, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, 

Units 2 and 3, Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant, and Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant.

In FY 2017, the NRC expects to continue reviewing three new reactor combined license (COL)

applications in FY 2017. Licensing activities include environmental and safety reviews, which 

encompass emergency preparedness and security plan technical reviews, security-related 

assessments, and financial analyses of COL applicants. Resources also support licensingrelated legal representation and adjudicatory reviews, as well as the information technology and 

regulatory infrastructure required to support licensing activities. Additionally, the NRC oversees 

the construction of four new reactors and carries out the vendor inspection program for both 

new and operating reactors. The NRC expects to begin the review of one small modular reactor 

design certification application. In addition, the budget provides $5 million in non-feebillable
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | xii

activities related to the development of the regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear 

reactor technologies in support of the President’s commitment to Mission Innovation.

The NRC will also complete approximately 2,000 materials licensing actions (new applications, 

amendments, renewals, and terminations) and approximately 900 routine health and safety 

inspections, as well as reciprocity and reactive inspections and the registration and follow-up 

inspection program for certain general licensees. The agency will support continued liaison 

work with stakeholders and professional societies to develop new codes and consensus 

standards and to address petitions for rulemaking. The NRC will conduct oversight of and 

support for Agreement States, which regulate approximately 21,000 specific and 

150,000 general licenses; conduct nine Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program 

reviews; and review 50 Agreement State incidents and events.

During FY 2017, the NRC will conduct licensing actions and inspections for 13 conversion, 

enrichment, and fuel fabrication facilities, as well as for 14 minor licensees under Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear 

Material.” Additionally, the agency will conduct materials rulemakings on security-related topics, 

implement international treaty obligations, and support its work with international and domestic 

counterparts.

To ensure the safe and secure storage of spent nuclear fuel, in FY 2017, the NRC will review 

approximately 65 amendments and license renewal applications for transportation packages, 

4 radioactive material transportation package applications, approximately 20 spent nuclear fuel 

storage applications, and applications for license and certificate renewal. In addition, the NRC 

budget includes resources to conduct the technical, legal, and environmental review of an 

interim consolidated storage facility (ICSF) license application or review a U.S. Department of 

Energy ICSF Topical Safety Analysis Report application. The NRC will also complete 16 safety 

inspections of storage and transportation cask vendors, fabricators, and designers, as well as

pad construction for interim spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs), dry-run operations, initial 

loading operations, and routine operations. The agency will review security activities associated 

with radioactive material in quantities of concern. These will include (1) special nuclear material 

transportation security plan approvals, (2) transportation certification reviews, (3) security 

reviews for onsite storage, (4) issuance of ISFSI security orders, (5) ISFSI security licensing 

reviews, and (6) approved security rulemakings.

In FY 2017, the NRC will continue to support international conventions on safety and treaty 

compliance. These activities include serving as the United States lead for implementing the 

Convention on Nuclear Safety, leading and contributing to multilateral efforts on key nuclear 

safety and security issues, and ensuring appropriate representation at United States-led 

interagency initiatives. The NRC will support a wide range of assistance programs and activities 

to help foreign regulatory counterparts develop or enhance their national regulatory 

infrastructures and programs and strengthen their controls over radioactive sources, consistent 

with the Code of Conduct.

To achieve the broad strategies for FY 2016 through FY 2020 outlined in the NRC’s “Information 

Technology/Information Management Strategic Plan,” the NRC will continue to invest in 

information technology infrastructure, foundation, and core financial systems. Resources have

been adjusted to ensure that adequate funding is provided for operations and maintenance of 

critical infrastructure and core systems that maintain authoritative financial data.
PROPOSED FY 2017 APPROPRIATIONS LEGISLATION

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 1

PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2017 APPROPRIATIONS LEGISLATION

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) proposed appropriation legislation for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 is as follows:

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

For expenses necessary for the Commission in carrying out the purposes of the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, $970,163,000, including official 

representation expenses not to exceed $25,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 

That of the amount appropriated herein, not more than $9,500,000 may be made available for 

salaries, travel, and other support costs for the Office of the Commission, to remain available 

until September 30, 2018: Provided further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 

services, and other services and collections estimated at $851,161,000 in fiscal year 2017 shall 

be retained and used for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 

U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That of the amounts 

appropriated under this heading, not less than $5,000,000 shall be for activities related to the 

development of regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor technologies, and 

$5,000,000 of that amount shall not be available from fee revenues, notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 

2214: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of 

revenues received during fiscal year 2017 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2017 appropriation 

estimated at not more than $119,002,000.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

For expenses necessary for the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the 

Inspector General Act of 1978, $12,129,000, to remain available until September 30, 2018: 

Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and 

collections estimated at $10,044,000 in fiscal year 2017 shall be retained and be available until 

September 30, 2018, for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, notwithstanding 

section 3302 of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 

shall be reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 2017 so as to result in a 

final fiscal year 2017 appropriation estimated at not more than $2,085,000: Provided further, 

That of the amounts appropriated under this heading, $969,000 shall be for Inspector General 

services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, which shall not be available from fee 

revenues.

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED FY 2017 APPROPRIATIONS LEGISLATION

The analysis of the NRC’s proposed appropriations legislation for FY 2017 is as follows:

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

1. FOR EXPENSES NECESSARY FOR THE COMMISSION IN CARRYING OUT THE 

PURPOSES OF THE ENERGY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1974 AND THE ATOMIC 

ENERGY ACT OF 1954:

The NRC was established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (42 United 

States Code (USC) 5841). This act abolished the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and 
PROPOSED FY 2017 APPROPRIATIONS LEGISLATION

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 2

transferred to the NRC all of the AEC’s licensing and related regulatory functions. These 

functions included those of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and the Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards; responsibilities for licensing and regulating nuclear facilities 

and materials; and conducting research for the purpose of confirmatory assessment related to 

licensing, regulation, and other activities, including research related to nuclear materials safety 

and regulation under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC

2011 et seq.).

2. INCLUDING OFFICIAL REPRESENTATION EXPENSES:

47 Comp. Gen. 657, 43 Comp. Gen. 305

This language is required because of the established rule restricting an agency from charging 

appropriations with the cost of official representation unless the appropriations involved are 

specifically available for such purpose. Congress has appropriated funds for official 

representation expenses to the NRC and its predecessor, the AEC, each year since FY 1950.

3. TO REMAIN AVAILABLE UNTIL EXPENDED:

31 USC 1301 provides that no regular, annual appropriation shall be construed to be permanent 

or available continuously unless the appropriation expressly provides that it is available after the 

fiscal year covered by the law in which it appears (or is for specific uses not applicable here).

4. REVENUES FROM LICENSING FEES, INSPECTION SERVICES, AND OTHER SERVICES 

AND COLLECTIONS SHALL BE RETAINED AND USED FOR NECESSARY SALARIES AND 

EXPENSES IN THIS ACCOUNT, NOTWITHSTANDING 31 USC 3302, AND SHALL REMAIN 

AVAILABLE UNTIL EXPENDED:

Under Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952, Public Law (PL) 82-137, 

the NRC is authorized to collect user fees from any person who receives a service or thing of 

value from the Commission. Pursuant to 42 USC 2214 (section 6101 of the Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90)), the NRC is required to assess and collect user fees 

from any person who receives a service or thing of value from the Commission and annual 

charges from NRC licensees and certificate holders, with the exception of the holders of any 

license for a federally owned research reactor used primarily for educational training and 

academic research purposes. In accordance with amendments to 42 USC 2214, enacted in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, and consistent with this appropriations request, the aggregate 

annual amount of collected fees shall approximate 90 percent of the Commission’s budget 

authority, less amounts appropriated to the Commission to implement Section 3116 of the 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, PL 108-375, and 

amounts appropriated to the Commission for generic homeland security activities.

Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

assigned new responsibilities to the NRC for waste determinations and monitoring of waste 

disposal actions for material stored at the U.S. Department of Energy sites in South Carolina 

and Idaho. Section 3116(b)(4) requires that, beginning with the FY 2006 budget, the 

Commission include in its budget justification materials submitted to Congress the amounts 

required, not offset by revenues, for performance of its responsibilities under Section 3116. The 

$1,429,000 requested to implement Section 3116 is excluded from OBRA-90’s fee recovery 

requirement.
PROPOSED FY 2017 APPROPRIATIONS LEGISLATION

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 3

Section 637 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, PL 109-58, modified the NRC’s fee legislation in 

42 USC 2214 to exclude the amounts appropriated to the Commission for homeland security 

activities from OBRA-90’s fee recovery requirement, except for reimbursable costs of 

fingerprinting and background checks and the costs of conducting security inspections. The 

$18,000,000 requested for generic homeland security activities is thus excluded from OBRA90’s fee recovery requirement.

The aggregate amount of license fees and annual charges to be collected for FY 2017

approximates 90 percent of the Commission’s budget authority, less amounts requested to 

implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 and amounts requested for generic homeland security activities pursuant to 

Section 637 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

31 USC 3302 requires the NRC to deposit all revenues collected to miscellaneous receipts of 

the Treasury unless specifically authorized by law to retain and use such revenues.

5. NOT LESS THAN $5,000,000 SHALL BE FOR ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE 

DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ADVANCED NUCLEAR 

REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES, AND $5,000,000 OF THAT AMOUNT SHALL NOT BE 

AVAILABLE FROM FEE REVENUES, NOTWITHSTANDING 42 U.S.C. 2214:

The NRC will be accelerating its activities related to the development of regulatory infrastructure

to prepare for effective and efficient reviews of advanced reactor technologies. The proposed 

statutory language requires the NRC to use at least $5,000,000 for activities related to the 

development of regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor technologies.

Pursuant to 42 USC 2214, the NRC is required to assess and collect user fees from any person 

who receives a service or thing of value from the Commission and annual charges from NRC 

licensees and certificate holders, with the exception of the holders of any license for a federally 

owned research reactor used primarily for educational training and academic research 

purposes. In accordance with amendments to 42 USC 2214, enacted in the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, and consistent with this appropriations request, the aggregate annual amount of 

collected fees shall approximate 90 percent of the Commission’s budget authority, less amounts 

appropriated to the Commission to implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 and amounts appropriated to the Commission 

for generic homeland security activities. This proposed statutory language makes clear that 

$5,000,000 of the amount used for activities related to the development of regulatory 

infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactor technologies is excluded from OBRA-90’s fee 

recovery requirement in the same manner as the amounts appropriated to the Commission to 

implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 and amounts appropriated to the Commission for generic homeland security 

activities.

6. THE SUM HEREIN APPROPRIATED SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF 

REVENUES RECEIVED:

Pursuant to 42 USC 2214, the NRC is required to assess and collect user fees from any person 

who receives a service or thing of value from the Commission and annual charges from NRC 

licensees and certificate holders, with the exception of the holders of any license for a federally 

owned research reactor used primarily for educational training and academic research 
PROPOSED FY 2017 APPROPRIATIONS LEGISLATION

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 4

purposes. In accordance with amendments to 42 USC 2214, enacted in the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, and consistent with this appropriations request, the aggregate annual amount of 

collected fees shall approximate 90 percent of the Commission’s budget authority, less amounts 

appropriated to the Commission to implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 and amounts appropriated to the Commission 

for generic homeland security activities.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

7. FOR EXPENSES NECESSARY FOR THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL IN 

CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT OF 1978:

PL 100-504 amended the Inspector General Act of 1978, PL 95-452, 5 USC app., to establish 

an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in the NRC effective in April 1989, and to require the 

establishment of a separate appropriation account to fund the OIG.

8. TO REMAIN AVAILABLE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 2018:

In order for an appropriation to remain available for 2 fiscal years, 31 USC 1301 requires that 

the appropriation expressly provide that it is available after the fiscal year covered by the law in 

which it appears.

9. REVENUES FROM LICENSING FEES, INSPECTION SERVICES, AND OTHER SERVICES 

AND COLLECTIONS SHALL BE RETAINED AND BE AVAILABLE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 

2018, FOR NECESSARY SALARIES AND EXPENSES IN THIS ACCOUNT, 

NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 3302 OF TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE:

Under 31 USC 9701, the NRC is authorized to collect user fees from any person who receives a 

service or thing of value from the Commission. Pursuant to 42 USC 2214, the NRC is required 

to assess and collect user fees from any person who receives a service or thing of value from 

the Commission and annual charges from NRC licensees and certificate holders, with the 

exception of the holders of any license for a federally owned research reactor used primarily for 

educational training and academic research purposes. In accordance with amendments to 42 

USC 2214, enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and consistent with this appropriations 

request, the aggregate annual amount of collected fees shall approximate 90 percent of the 

Commission’s budget authority, less amounts appropriated to the Commission to implement 

Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

and amounts appropriated to the Commission for generic homeland security activities.

31 USC 3302 requires the NRC to deposit all revenues collected to miscellaneous receipts of 

the Treasury unless specifically authorized by law to retain and use such revenue.

10. THE SUM HEREIN APPROPRIATED SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF 

REVENUES RECEIVED:

Pursuant to 42 USC 2214, the NRC is required to assess and collect user fees from any person 

who receives a service or thing of value from the Commission and annual charges from NRC 

licensees and certificate holders, with the exception of the holders of any license for a federally 

owned research reactor used primarily for educational training and academic research 

purposes. In accordance with amendments to 42 USC 2214, enacted in the Energy Policy Act 
PROPOSED FY 2017 APPROPRIATIONS LEGISLATION

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 5

of 2005, and consistent with this appropriations request, the aggregate annual amount of

collected fees shall approximate 90 percent of the Commission’s budget authority, less amounts 

appropriated to the Commission to implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 and amounts appropriated to the Commission 

for generic homeland security activities.

11. AMOUNTS APPROPRIATED FOR INSPECTOR GENERAL SERVICES FOR THE 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD, WHICH SHALL NOT BE AVAILABLE 

FROM FEE REVENUES:

Pursuant to 42 USC 2214, the NRC is required to assess and collect user fees from any person 

who receives a service or thing of value from the Commission and annual charges from NRC 

licensees and certificate holders, with the exception of the holders of any license for a federally 

owned research reactor used primarily for educational training and academic research 

purposes. In accordance with amendments to 42 USC 2214, enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, and consistent with this appropriations request, the aggregate annual amount of collected 

fees shall approximate 90 percent of the Commission’s budget authority, less amounts 

appropriated to the Commission to implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 and amounts appropriated to the Commission 

for generic homeland security activities. This proposed statutory language makes clear that the 

$969,000 requested to provide Inspector General Services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board is excluded from OBRA-90’s fee recovery requirement in the same manner as the 

amounts appropriated to the Commission to implement Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 and amounts appropriated to the 

Commission for generic homeland security activities. PL 113-76 and PL 113-235 authorize the 

NRC’s Inspector General to exercise the same authorities with respect to the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board, as determined by the NRC’s Inspector General, as the Inspector 

General exercises under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 USC App.) with respect to the 

NRC.

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 7

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published its strategic plan for fiscal years 

(FYs) 2014–2018 in September 2014. The plan lists the agency’s strategic goals and the 

objectives associated with them. This chapter of the NRC’s Performance Budget provides the

performance goals and performance indicators and criteria associated with the plan.

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act (GPRAMA) of 2010 

requires a more integrated framework for planning and performance management that 

demonstrates a governance structure showing better connection of plans, programs, and 

performance information in the Performance Budget. More specifically, the law requires an 

agency to describe how the performance goals contained in its performance plan contribute to 

the goals and objectives established in the agency’s strategic plan. These are reflected in the 

performance indicators for FY 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017 contained in this section.1

 

Because the NRC’s mission is to protect public health and safety, the trends for progress on the 

agency’s strategic objectives are to be at either zero or very low levels. 

The NRC’s FY 2015 Performance and Accountability Report includes a discussion of the 

external factors affecting the agency’s mission (pages 17–19), the research and program 

evaluations used to develop the performance plan (pages 78–80), and the reliability of 

performance data (pages 80-82).

FY 2017 Strategic Goals

Goal 1: Safety: Ensure the safe use of radioactive materials.

Safety Objective 1: Prevent and mitigate accidents and ensure radiation safety.

Goal 2: Security: Ensure the secure use of radioactive materials.

 Security Objective 1: Ensure protection of nuclear facilities and radioactive materials.

 Security Objective 2: Ensure protection of classified and Safeguards Information.

RELATING RESOURCES TO GOALS

The following table shows the alignment of the NRC’s fully costed Nuclear Reactor Safety 

Program and Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program with the safety and security goals. 

The full cost includes an allocation of the agency’s infrastructure and support costs to specific 

programs.

 1 The Office of Management and Budget has allowed the NRC to be exempt from the GPRAMA requirement for 

establishing agency or cross-agency priority goals. This is because of the NRC’s statutory mission to be an 

independent regulator of the civilian use of radioactive materials. Thus, no such goals are included in this narrative.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 8

Alignment of Resources to NRC Goals

(Dollars in Millions)

(Excludes Office of the Inspector General)

Major Programs

FY 2016 FY 2017

Enacted Request

Safety

$M

Security

$M

Total

$M

Safety

$M

Security

$M

Total

$M

Nuclear Reactor Safety 721.4 39.1 760.4 710.2 47.2 757.4 

Nuclear Materials and Waste 

Safety 189.3 25.2 214.6 189.1 23.6 212.8 

Total $910.7 $64.3 $975.0 $899.3 $70.9 $970.2

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: FY 2012–FY 2014

Listed below are the performance indicators that the NRC used before the agency issued its 

FY 2014–2018 Strategic Plan. As a result, these have been replaced by new indicators 

beginning in FY 2015, which are listed in the next section. 

Goal 1: Safety: Ensure the safe use of radioactive materials.

1 Number of New Conditions Evaluated as Red by the NRC’s Reactor Oversight 

Process*

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target ≤ 3 ≤ 3 ≤ 3 Discontinued**

Actual 1 0 0

*This indicator is the number of new red inspection findings and the number of new red performance indicators during the FY. 

Programmatic issues at multiunit sites that result in red findings for each individual unit are considered separate conditions for 

purposes of reporting for this indicator. A red performance indicator and a red inspection finding that are caused by an issue with 

the same underlying causes also are considered separate conditions for purposes of reporting for this indicator. Red inspection 

findings are included in the FY in which the final significance determination was made. Red performance indicators are included 

in the FY in which the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) external Web page was updated to show the red indicator.

**Indicator replaced by Safety Performance Goal 4.

2 Number of Significant Accident Sequence Precursors* of a Nuclear Reactor Accident

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target ≤ 0 ≤ 0 Discontinued**

Actual 0 0

*Significant accident sequence precursor (ASP) events have a conditional core damage probability or ΔCDP of greater than 

1x10-3. Such events have a 1/1000 (1x10-3) or greater probability of leading to a reactor accident involving core damage. An 

identical condition affecting more than one plant is counted as a single ASP event if a single accident initiator would have 

resulted in a single reactor accident.

**Indicator replaced by Safety Performance Goal 4.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 9

3 Number of Operating Reactors with Integrated Performance That Entered the Multiple 

or Repetitive Degraded Cornerstone Column or the Unacceptable Performance 

Column of the Reactor Oversight Process Action Matrix or the Inspection Manual 

Chapter 0350 Process Is ≤ 3 with No Performance Leading to the Initiation of an 

Accident Review Group*

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target ≤ 3 ≤ 3 Discontinued**

Actual 0 0

*This indicator is the number of plants that have entered the process in Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0350, “Oversight of 

Reactor Facilities in a Shutdown Condition due to Significant Performance and/or Operational Concerns,” dated 

December 15, 2006; the multiple or repetitive degraded cornerstone column; or the unacceptable performance column during the 

FY (i.e., were not in these columns or process the previous FY). Data for this indicator are obtained from the NRC’s external 

Web Action Matrix Summary page, which provides a matrix of the five columns, with the plants listed within their applicable 

column, and which notes the plants in the IMC 0350 process. For reporting purposes, plants that are the subject of an approved 

deviation from the action matrix are included in the column or process in which they appear on the Web page. The target value 

is set based on the expected addition of several indicators and a change in the long-term trending methodology (which will no 

longer be influenced by the earlier data and will be more sensitive to changes in current performance).

**Indicator replaced by Safety Performance Goal 4.

4 Number of Significant Adverse Trends in Industry Safety Performance is ≤ 1*

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 Discontinued**

Actual 0 0 0

*Considering all indicators qualified for use in reporting.

**Indicator discontinued with the adoption of the indicators for the FY 2014–2018 Strategic Plan.

5 Number of Events with Radiation Exposures to the Public or Occupational Workers 

That Exceed Abnormal Occurrence (AO) Criterion I.A.3*

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Reactors Target 0 0 0 Discontinued**

Reactors Actual 0 0 0

Materials Target ≤ 2 ≤ 2 ≤ 2 Discontinued**

Materials Actual 0 0 1

Waste Target 0 0 0 Discontinued**

Waste Actual 0 0 0

*Releases for which a 30-day report under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 20.2203(a) (3) is required.

**Indicator replaced by Safety Performance Goal 1.

6 Number of Radiological Releases to the Environment That Exceed Applicable 

Regulatory Limits*

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Reactors Target 0 0 0 Discontinued**

Reactors Actual 0 0 0

Materials Target ≤ 2 ≤ 2 ≤ 2 Discontinued**

Materials Actual 0 0 0

Waste Target 0 0 0 Discontinued**

Waste Actual 0 0 0

*With no event exceeding AO Criterion 1.B.

**Indicator replaced by Safety Performance Goal 2.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 10

Goal 2: Security: Ensure the secure use of radioactive materials.

1 Unrecovered Losses of Risk-Significant* Radioactive Sources

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 0 0 0 Discontinued**

Actual 0 0 0

*“Risk-significant” is defined as any unrecovered, lost, or abandoned sources that exceed the values listed in Appendix P, 

“Category 1 and 2 Radioactive Material,” to 10 CFR Part 110, “Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material.” Excluded 

from reporting under this criterion are those events involving sources that are lost or abandoned under the following conditions: 

(1) sources abandoned in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 39.77(c), (2) recovered sources with sufficient indication 

that doses in excess of the reporting thresholds specified in AO Criteria I.A.1 and I.A.2 did not occur during the time that the 

source was missing, (3) unrecoverable sources lost under such conditions that doses in excess of the reporting thresholds 

specified in AO Criteria I.A.1 and I.A.2 were not known to have occurred, (4) other sources that are lost or abandoned and 

declared unrecoverable, (5) a source for which the agency has made a determination that its risk significance is low based on its 

location (e.g., water depth) or its physical characteristics (e.g., half-life and housing) and its surroundings, (6) cases in which all 

reasonable efforts have been made to recover the source, and (7) the determination was made that the source is not recoverable 

and will not be considered a realistic safety or security risk under this indicator. (This includes licenses under the Agreement 

States.)

**Indicator replaced by Security Performance Goal 1.

2 Number of Substantiated* Cases of Actual Theft or Diversion of Licensed, 

Risk-Significant Radioactive Sources or Formula Quantities** of Special Nuclear 

Material or Attacks That Result in Radiological Sabotage***

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 0 0 0 Discontinued****

Actual 0 0 0

*“Substantiated“ means a situation in which an indication of loss, theft, or unlawful diversion, such as an allegation of diversion, 

report of lost or stolen material, statistical processing difference, or other indication of loss of material control or accountability, 

cannot be refuted following an investigation and requires further action on the part of the agency or other proper authorities.

**A formula quantity of special nuclear material is defined in 10 CFR 70.4, “Definitions.”

***“Radiological sabotage” is defined in 10 CFR 73.2, “Definitions.”

****Indicator replaced by Security Performance Goal 1.

3 Number of Substantiated Losses of Formula Quantities of Special Nuclear Material or 

Substantiated Inventory Discrepancies of Formula Quantities of Special Nuclear 

Material That Are Judged To Be Caused by Theft or Diversion or by Substantial 

Breakdown of the Accountability System

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 0 0 0 Discontinued*

Actual 0 0 0

*Indicator replaced by Security Performance Goal 1.

4 Number of Substantial Breakdowns* of Physical Security or Material Control 

(i.e., Access Control, Containment, or Accountability Systems) That Significantly 

Weakened the Protection against Theft, Diversion, or Sabotage

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target ≤ 1 ≤ 1 ≤ 1 Discontinued**

Actual 0 0 0

*A “substantial breakdown” is defined as a red finding in the security cornerstone of the ROP or any plant or facility that is 

determined to either have overall unacceptable performance or be in a shutdown condition (inimical to the effective functioning of 

the Nation’s critical infrastructure) as a result of significant performance problems or operational events.

**Indicator replaced by Security Performance Goal 2.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 11

5 Number of Significant Unauthorized Disclosures* of Classified or Safeguards 

Information

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 0 0 0 Discontinued**

Actual 0 0 0

*“Significant unauthorized disclosure” is defined as a disclosure that harms national security or public health or safety.

**Replaced by Security Performance Goal 3.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: FY 2015–FY 2017

The following performance indicators were developed in conjunction with the development of 

the agency’s FY 2014–2018 Strategic Plan. 

Safety Objective 1: Prevent and mitigate accidents and ensure radiation safety.

Performance Goal 1: Prevent radiation exposures that significantly exceed regulatory 

limits.

Performance Indicator: Number of radiation exposures that meet or exceed AO

Criteria I.A.1 (unintended radiation exposure to an adult), I.A.2

(unintended radiation exposure to a minor), or I.A.3 (radiation 

exposure that has resulted in unintended permanent functional 

damage to an organ or physiological system)2

Timeframe: Annual

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Operating Reactors Target 0 0 0

Operating Reactors Actual 0

New Reactors Target 0 0 0

New Reactors Actual 0

Fuel Facilities Target 0 0 0

Fuel Facilities Actual 0

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Target 0 0 0

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Actual 0

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Target 0 0 0

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Actual 0

Nuclear Materials Users Target < 3 < 3 < 3

Nuclear Materials Users Actual 2

Performance Goal 2: Prevent releases of radioactive materials that significantly exceed 

regulatory limits.

Performance Indicator: Number of releases of radioactive materials that meet or exceed 

AO Criterion I.B (discharge or dispersal of radioactive material 

from its intended place of confinement, which results in releases 

of radioactive material)

Timeframe: Annual

 2 All references to the AO criteria in this section refer to the definitions in Appendix A of the FY 2014 Abnormal 

Occurrence Report to Congress.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 12

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Operating Reactors Target 0 0 0

Operating Reactors Actual 0

New Reactors Target 0 0 0

New Reactors Actual 0

Fuel Facilities Target 0 0 0

Fuel Facilities Actual 0

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Target 0 0 0

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Actual 0

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Target 0 0 0

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Actual 0

Nuclear Materials Users Target 0 0 0

Nuclear Materials Users Actual 0

Performance Goal 3: Prevent the occurrence of any inadvertent criticality events.

Performance Indicator: Number of instances of unintended nuclear chain reactions 

involving NRC-licensed radioactive materials 

Timeframe: Annual

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Operating Reactors Target 0 0 0

Operating Reactors Actual 0

Fuel Facilities Target 0 0 0

Fuel Facilities Actual 0

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Target 0 0 0

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Actual 0

Performance Goal 4: Prevent accident precursors and reductions of safety margins at 

commercial nuclear power plants (operating or under construction) 

that are of high safety significance.

Performance Indicator: Number of malfunctions, deficiencies, events, or conditions at 

commercial nuclear power plants (operating or under construction) 

that meet or exceed AO Criteria II.A–II.D (events at commercial 

nuclear power plant licensees)

Timeframe: Annual

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Operating Reactors Target < 3 < 3 < 3

Operating Reactors Actual 0

New Reactors Target < 3 < 3 < 3

New Reactors Actual 0

Performance Goal 5: Prevent accident precursors and reductions of safety margins at 

nonreactor facilities or during transportation of nuclear materials 

that are of high safety significance.

Performance Indicator: Number of malfunctions, deficiencies, events, or conditions at 

nonreactor facilities or during transportation of nuclear materials 

that meet or exceed AO Criteria III.A or III.B (events at facilities 

other than nuclear power plants and all transportation events)

Timeframe: Annual
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 13

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Fuel Facilities Target 0 0 0

Fuel Facilities Actual 0

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Target 0 0 0

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste Actual 0

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Target 0 0 0

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Actual 0

Performance Goal 6: Prevent medical events involving radioactive materials that result 

in death or have a significant unintended impact on patient health.

Performance Indicator: Number of medical events that meet or exceed a revised version 

of AO Criterion III.C.3 (events involving the medical use of 

radioactive materials in patients or human research subjects) 

Timeframe: Annual

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Nuclear Materials Users Target N/A Discontinued

Nuclear Materials Users Actual

*This indicator has been discontinued because the Commission approved alternate metrics in FY 2015 and did not 

approve the addition of Criterion III.C.3.

Security Objective 1: Ensure protection of nuclear facilities and radioactive materials

Performance Goal 1: Prevent sabotage, theft, diversion, or loss of risk-significant 

quantities of radioactive material.

Performance Indicator: Number of instances of sabotage, theft, diversion, or loss of 

risk-significant quantities of radioactive material that meet or 

exceed AO Criteria I.C.1 (unrecovered lost, stolen, or abandoned 

sources), I.C.2 (substantiated case of actual theft or diversion), 

and the portion of Criterion I.C.3 (substantiated loss of a formula 

quantity) concerning theft or diversion of special nuclear material

(SNM)

Timeframe: Annual

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

All Business Lines Target 0 0 0

All Business Lines Actual 0

Performance Goal 2: Prevent substantial breakdowns of physical security, cyber 

security, or material control and accountability.

Performance Indicator: Number of substantial breakdowns of physical security, cyber 

security, or material control and accountability that meet or exceed 

a revised version of AO Criterion I.C.4 (substantial breakdown of 

physical security or materials control) that will include breakdowns 

of cyber security and the portion of AO Criterion I.C.3

(substantiated loss of a formula quantity) concerning breakdowns 

of the accountability system for SNM

Timeframe: Annual
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 14

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

All Business Lines Target ≤1 ≤1 ≤1

All Business Lines Actual 0

Security Objective 2: Ensure protection of classified and Safeguards Information

Performance Goal 3: Prevent significant unauthorized disclosures of classified or 

Safeguards Information.

Performance Indicator: Number of significant unauthorized disclosures of classified or 

Safeguards Information by licensees as defined by AO 

Criterion I.C.5 (significant unauthorized disclosures of classified 

information) and by NRC employees or contractors, as defined by 

analogous NRC internal criteria

Timeframe: Annual

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

All Business Lines Target 0 0 0

All Business Lines Actual 0

Management Objective 1: People: Attract, develop, and retain a high-performing, diverse, 

and engaged workforce with the skills needed to carry out the 

NRC’s mission now and in the future.

Performance Goal: Maintain an organizational culture that supports a healthy 

environment for raising concerns and internal safety culture.

Performance Indicator: Safety Culture and Climate Survey (SCCS) scores in the 

Sustained Engagement Index, as well as indices reflecting 

Training and Development and Leadership (comprising Senior 

Management, Office/Region Management, and Management 

categories)

Timeframe: SCCS score for the area that measures the environment for 

raising concerns and internal safety culture. Data will be available 

in FY 2016 and every 3 years thereafter. 

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Corporate Support Target N/A Discontinued*

Corporate Support Actual N/A

*This indicator has been discontinued because the SCCS is only conducted every 3 years. The results of this 

survey will be tracked through an internal indicator starting in FY 2016.

Performance Goal: Maintain favorable employee attitudes. 

Performance Indicator: NRC’s annual average rank among top agencies across the 

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) human capital 

indices on the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)3

Timeframe: Annual

 3 FEVS indices related to Human Capital include: Employee Engagement Index, Global Satisfaction 

Index, and Diversity and Inclusion Index. 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 15

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Corporate Support Target ≤5 ≤5 ≤5

Corporate Support Actual 4

Performance Goal: Sustain a successful overall human capital program that allows 

the NRC to attract, develop, and maintain the workforce needed to 

accomplish its strategic objectives now and in the future. 

Performance Indicator: Percentage of key human capital indicators met4

Timeframe: Annual

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Corporate Support Target ≥75% ≥75% ≥75%

Corporate Support Actual 75%

Management Objective 2: Information Management (IM) and Information Technology (IT): 

Make it easier for the NRC staff to perform the mission and obtain 

the information it needs from authoritative sources anytime, 

anywhere, on any device.

Performance Goal: Improve employee views of the extent to which the agency’s IT/IM 

programs and services are helping them to perform the mission 

and obtain the information they need. 

Performance Indicator: Score on the FEVS question, “I can easily find and obtain the 

information I need to do my job?” 

Timeframe: Annual

Business Line FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Corporate Support Target 5% increase from 

FY 2014 FEVS 

results

Determine target 

for FY 2016

based on 

FY 2015 FEVS 

results

Determine target 

for FY 2017 based 

on FY 2016 FEVS 

results

Corporate Support Actual 1% increase from 

FY 2014 FEVS 

results

*May be subject to revision pending OPM’s issuance of guidance for FY 2016 and beyond.

VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Goal 1: Safety: Ensure the safe use of radioactive materials.

Nuclear Reactor Safety

Safety Objective 1: Prevent and mitigate accidents and ensure radiation safety.

 4 Examples include retention of professional hires within 3 years, FEVS participation, percent of veterans and 

employees with targeted disabilities hired, percentage of attrition, iLearn user satisfaction, and percentage of 

participants completing development programs. 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 16

Performance Indicators:

FY 2012–2014: Number of new conditions evaluated as red by the NRC’s Reactor 

Oversight Process (ROP)

FY 2015–2017: Number of malfunctions, deficiencies, events, or conditions at 

commercial nuclear power plants (operating or under construction) 

that meet or exceed AO Criteria II.A–II.D (events at commercial 

nuclear power plant licensees)5

Reactor Safety Target: Less than or equal to three

Verification: The data for this performance indicator are collected in two ways 

as part of the NRC’s ROP. NRC inspectors collect inspection 

findings at least quarterly. Inspectors use formal detailed 

inspection procedures to review plant operations and 

maintenance. NRC managers review inspection findings to 

assess their significance as part of the ROP’s significance 

determination process. Licensees collect the data for 

performance indicators and submit them to the NRC at least 

quarterly. The significance of the data is determined by 

thresholds for each indicator. The NRC conducts inspections of 

licensee processes for collecting and submitting the data to 

ensure completeness, accuracy, consistency, timeliness, and 

validity.

The NRC enhances the quality of its inspections through inspector 

feedback and periodic reviews of results. The inspectors are 

trained through a rigorous qualification program. The quality of 

performance indicators is improved through continuous feedback 

from licensees and inspectors that is incorporated into guidance 

documents. The NRC publishes the inspection findings and 

performance indicators on the agency’s Web site and incorporates 

feedback received from all stakeholders, as appropriate.

Validation: The inspection findings and performance indicators that the ROP 

uses cover a broad range of plant operations and maintenance. 

NRC managers review significant issues that are identified, and 

inspectors conduct supplemental inspections of selected aspects 

of plant operations, as appropriate. Plants that are identified as 

having performance issues, as well as a self-assessment of the 

ROP, are reviewed by senior agency managers on an annual 

basis, and the results are reported to the Commission.

FY 2012–2014: Number of significant accident sequence precursors (ASPs) of a 

nuclear accident

FY 2015–2017: Number of malfunctions, deficiencies, events, or conditions at 

commercial nuclear power plants (operating or under construction) 

that meet or exceed AO Criteria II.A–II.D (events at commercial 

nuclear power plant licensees)

Reactor Safety Target: Less than or equal to three

 5 This FY 2015-2017 performance indicator replaces three FY 2012–2014 performance indicators. The description of 

the other two replaced FY 2012–2014 performance indicators follows.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 17

Verification: The data for this performance indicator are collected in two ways 

as part of the NRC’s ROP. NRC inspectors collect inspection 

findings at least quarterly. Inspectors use formal detailed 

inspection procedures to review plant operations and 

maintenance. NRC managers review inspection findings to 

assess their significance as part of the ROP’s significance 

determination process. Licensees collect the data for 

performance indicators and submit it to the NRC at least quarterly. 

The significance of the data is determined by thresholds for each 

indicator. The NRC conducts inspections of licensee processes 

for collecting and submitting the data to ensure completeness, 

accuracy, consistency, timeliness, and validity.

The NRC enhances the quality of its inspections through inspector 

feedback and periodic reviews of results. The inspectors are 

trained through a rigorous qualification program. The quality of 

performance indicators is improved through continuous feedback 

from licensees and inspectors that is incorporated into guidance 

documents. The NRC publishes the inspection findings and 

performance indicators on the agency’s Web site and incorporates 

feedback received from all stakeholders, as appropriate.

Validation: The inspection findings and performance indicators that the ROP 

uses cover a broad range of plant operations and maintenance. 

NRC managers review significant issues that are identified, and 

inspectors conduct supplemental inspections of selected aspects 

of plant operations, as appropriate. Plants that are identified as 

having performance issues, as well as a self-assessment of the 

ROP, are reviewed by senior agency managers on an annual 

basis, and the results are reported to the Commission.

FY 2012–2014: Number of operating reactors with integrated performance that 

entered the multiple or repetitive degraded cornerstone column or 

the unacceptable performance column of the ROP action matrix, 

or the IMC 0350 process is less than or equal to 3, with no 

performance leading to the initiation of an Accident Review Group

FY 2015–2017: Number of malfunctions, deficiencies, events, or conditions at 

commercial nuclear power plants (operating or under construction) 

that meet or exceed AO Criteria II.A–II.D (events at commercial 

nuclear power plant licensees)

Reactor Safety Target: Less than or equal to three

Verification: The data for this performance indicator are collected in two ways 

as part of the NRC’s ROP. NRC inspectors collect inspection 

findings at least quarterly. Inspectors use formal detailed 

inspection procedures to review plant operations and 

maintenance. NRC managers review inspection findings to 

assess their significance as part of the ROP’s significance 

determination process. Licensees collect the data for 

performance indicators and submit it to the NRC at least quarterly. 

The significance of the data is determined by thresholds for each 

indicator. The NRC conducts inspections of licensee processes 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 18

for collecting and submitting the data to ensure completeness, 

accuracy, consistency, timeliness, and validity.

The NRC enhances the quality of its inspections through inspector 

feedback and periodic reviews of results. The inspectors are 

trained through a rigorous qualification program. The quality of 

performance indicators is improved through continuous feedback 

from licensees and inspectors that is incorporated into guidance 

documents. The NRC publishes the inspection findings and 

performance indicators on the agency’s Web site and incorporates 

feedback received from all stakeholders, as appropriate.

Validation: The inspection findings and performance indicators that the ROP 

uses cover a broad range of plant operations and maintenance. 

NRC managers review significant issues that are identified, and 

inspectors conduct supplemental inspections of selected aspects 

of plant operations, as appropriate. Plants that are identified as 

having performance issues, as well as a self-assessment of the 

ROP, are reviewed by senior agency managers on an annual 

basis, and the results are reported to the Commission. 

FY 2012–2014: Number of significant adverse trends in industry safety 

performance is less than or equal to 1

FY 2015–2017: Indicator discontinued with the adoption of the indicators for the 

FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan

Target: Less than or equal to one

Verification: Data for this performance indicator are derived from data supplied 

by all power plant licensees in licensee event reports (LERs), 

monthly operating reports, and performance indicator data 

submitted for the ROP. These data are required by Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.73, “Licensee 

Event Report System,” or plant-specific technical specifications, or 

they are submitted by all plants as part of the ROP. Detailed NRC 

guidelines and procedures are in place to control each of these 

reporting processes. The NRC reviews these procedures for 

appropriateness, both periodically and in response to licensee 

feedback. The NRC also conducts periodic inspections of 

licensees’ processes for collecting and submitting the data to 

ensure completeness, accuracy, consistency, timeliness, and 

validity.

All licensees report the data at least quarterly. The NRC staff 

reviews all of the data and conducts inspections to verify 

safety-significant information. The NRC also employs a contractor 

to review the data that licensees submit, input the data into a 

database, and compile the data into various indicators. Quality 

assurance processes for this work have been established and 

included in the contract statement of work. The experience and 

training of key personnel are controlled through administration of 

the contract. The contractor identifies discrepancies to licensees 

and the NRC for resolution. The NRC reviews the indicators and 

publishes them on the agency’s Web site quarterly. The agency 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 19

also incorporates feedback from licensees and the public, where 

appropriate. The target value is set based on the expected 

addition of several indicators and a change in the long-term 

trending methodology.

Validation: The data and indicators that support reporting against this 

performance indicator provide a broad range of information on 

nuclear power plant performance. The NRC staff tracks indicators 

and applies statistical techniques to indicate whether industry 

performance is improving, steady, or degrading over time. If the 

staff identifies any adverse trends, the NRC addresses the 

problem through its processes for addressing generic safety 

issues and issuing generic communications to licensees. The 

NRC is developing additional, risk-informed indicators to enhance 

the current set of indicators. In doing so, the staff considers the 

costs and benefits of collecting the data through ongoing, 

extensive interactions with industry about the indicators. Senior 

agency managers review the Industry Trends Program annually 

and report the results to the Commission.

FY 2012–2014: Number of events with radiation exposures to the public and

occupational workers from nuclear reactors that exceed former

AO Criterion I.A.3 (releases for which a 30-day report under 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(10 CFR) 20.2203(a)(3) is required)

FY 2015–2017: Number of radiation exposures that meet or exceed AO 

Criteria I.A.1 (unintended radiation exposure to an adult), I.A.2

(unintended radiation exposure to a minor), or I.A.3 (radiation 

exposure that has resulted in unintended permanent functional 

damage to an organ or physiological system)

Reactor Safety Target: Zero

Verification: Licensees report overexposures through the LER process, which 

are then entered into a searchable database. The database is 

used to identify those LERs that report overexposures. NRC 

resident inspectors stationed at each nuclear power plant provide 

a high degree of assurance that all events meeting reporting 

criteria are reported to the NRC. In addition, the NRC conducts 

inspections if there is any indication that an exposure exceeded, 

or could have exceeded, a regulatory limit. Finally, areas of the 

facility that may be subject to radiation contamination have 

monitors that record radiation levels. These monitors would 

immediately reveal any instances in which high levels of radiation 

exposure occurred. 

Validation: Given the nature of the process of using radioactive materials to 

generate power, overexposure to radiation is a potential danger 

from the operation of nuclear power plants. Such exposure to 

radiation in excess of the applicable regulatory limits may 

potentially occur through either a nuclear accident or other 

malfunctions at the plant. Consequently, tracking the number of 

overexposures that occur at nuclear reactors is an important 

indicator of the degree to which safety is being maintained.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 20

FY 2012–2014: Number of radiological releases to the environment from nuclear 

reactors that exceed applicable regulatory limits

FY 2015–2017: Number of releases of radioactive materials that meet or exceed 

AO Criterion I.B (discharge or dispersal of radioactive material 

from its intended place of confinement that results in releases of 

radioactive material)

Reactor Safety Target: Zero

Verification: Licensees report environmental releases of radioactive materials 

that are in excess of regulations or license conditions through the 

LER process, which are entered into a searchable database. The 

database is used to identify those LERs reporting releases, and 

the number of reported releases is then applied to this indicator. 

The NRC also conducts periodic inspections of licensees to 

ensure that they properly monitor and control releases to the 

environment through effluent pathways. In addition, onsite 

monitors would record any instances in which a plant releases 

radiation into the environment. If the inspections or the monitors 

reveal any indication that an accident or inadvertent release has 

occurred, the NRC conducts follow-up inspections.

Validation: The generation of nuclear power creates radioactive materials that 

are released into the environment in a controlled manner. These 

radioactive discharges are subject to regulatory controls that limit 

the amount discharged and the resultant dose to members of the 

public. Consequently, the NRC tracks all releases of radioactive 

materials in excess of regulatory limits as a performance indicator,

because large releases in excess of regulatory limits have the 

potential to endanger public safety or harm the environment. The 

NRC inspects every nuclear power plant for compliance with 

regulatory requirements and specific license conditions related to 

radiological effluent releases. The inspection program includes 

enforcement actions that must be taken for violations of the 

regulations or license conditions, based on the severity of the 

event. This performance indicator includes dose values that are 

classified as being as low as is reasonably achievable in 

Appendix I, “Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting 

Conditions for Operation To Meet the Criterion ‘As Low As Is 

Reasonably Achievable’ for Radioactive Material in 

Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents,” to 

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

Facilities,” and the public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, 

“Standards for Protection against Radiation.”

FY 2015–2017: Number of instances of unintended nuclear chain reactions 

involving NRC-licensed radioactive materials

Reactor Safety Target: Zero

Verification: An accidental criticality is defined in 10 CFR 70.52(a). Each NRC 

office reviews event documents for its specific program area to 

identify events as potential AOs.

The program office or regional AO coordinators will assess an 

event to determine if it meets the AO criteria. If an event meets 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 21

the AO criteria, the program office or regional AO coordinator will 

develop a potential AO event description. The potential AO event 

description will include the applicable AO criteria and contain the 

information specified in Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization 

Act of 1974, such as the nature and probable consequences of 

the event. The AO coordinator in the NRC’s Office of Nuclear 

Regulatory Research coordinates with the program office and 

regional AO coordinators regarding incidents and events, 

identified as potential AOs, that are receiving interest from the 

Executive Director for Operations (EDO). 

Validation: The agency is required to submit a “Report to Congress on 

Abnormal Occurrences” each FY for those events that, by

Commission determination, meet the AO criteria. These AO 

criteria have been developed and revised over several decades, 

with extensive review by both the Commission and the public. In

SECY-95-083, “Revised Abnormal Occurrence Criteria,” the staff

described the basis of the AO criteria as follows: 

The AO reporting policy has been developed to comply with the 

legislative intent of Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act 

of 1974, as amended, to keep Congress and the public informed 

of unscheduled incidents or events which the Commission 

considers significant from the standpoint of public health and 

safety....The thresholds are generally above the normal level of 

reporting events by licensees to NRC to exclude those events 

which involve some variance from regulatory limits, but are not 

significant enough from the standpoint of public health and safety 

to be reported to Congress. 

For each event that meets the AO criteria, the NRC includes in the 

report a description of the incident or event, as well as any action 

taken to prevent recurrence. Such actions include those taken by 

licensees, as well as more programmatic actions deemed 

necessary by the Commission to prevent recurrence across a 

class or classes of licensees. Establishing performance indicators 

at the threshold levels described by the AO criteria is appropriate 

and consistent with the principle that the NRC’s regulatory 

processes (e.g., licensing, oversight, enforcement) are adequate 

to address a wide scope of infractions against regulatory 

requirements and do not generally warrant a focused reevaluation 

of the programs associated with those processes for every 

infraction. Therefore, only significant deviations from the 

regulatory requirements or unacceptable frequencies of 

occurrence of such deviations should be indicators of the need to 

reevaluate regulatory strategies and programs. This principle has 

been central to the staff’s selection of performance goals and 

performance indicator thresholds for determining whether the 

NRC’s performance in ensuring the safe and secure use of 

radioactive material has been adequate. 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 22

Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety 

Safety Objective 1: Prevent and mitigate accidents and ensure radiation safety.

Performance Indicators:

FY 2012–2014: Number of events with radiation exposures to the public and 

occupational workers from radioactive material that exceed former 

AO Criterion I.A.3 (releases for which a 30-day report under 

10 CFR 20.2203(a)(3) is required)

FY 2015–2017: Number of radiation exposures that meet or exceed AO 

Criteria I.A.1 (unintended radiation exposure to an adult), I.A.2 

(unintended radiation exposure to a minor), or I.A.3 (radiation 

exposure that has resulted in unintended permanent functional

damage to an organ or physiological system)

Materials Safety Target: Less than or equal to three (beginning in FY 2015)

Waste Safety Target: Zero

Verification: This performance indicator includes any event involving licensed 

radioactive materials that results in significant radiation exposures 

to members of the public or occupational workers that exceed the 

dose limits in the AO reporting criteria. Because of the extremely 

high doses used during medical applications of radioactive 

materials, it is also appropriate to use a radiation exposure that 

results in unintended permanent functional damage to an organ or 

a physiological system to a radiation therapy patient, as 

determined by a physician, as a criterion for this indicator. AO 

Criterion I.A.3 is used as the basis for this indicator. 

Should an event meeting this threshold occur, it would be reported 

to the NRC or Agreement States, or both, through a number of 

sources but primarily through required licensee notifications. 

These events are summarized in event notifications and 

preliminary notifications, which are used to widely disseminate the 

information to internal and external stakeholders. 

The fuel facilities, nuclear materials users, spent fuel storage and 

transportation, decommissioning, and LLW programs contain 

elements that verify the completeness and accuracy of licensee 

reports. The Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation 

Program (IMPEP) also provides a mechanism to verify that 

Agreement States and NRC regions are consistently collecting 

and reporting such events as received from the licensees and 

entering them into the Nuclear Materials Event Database (NMED).

The NRC has taken a number of steps to improve the timeliness 

and completeness of materials event data. These steps include 

assessment of the NMED data during monthly staff reviews; 

emphasis and analysis during the IMPEP reviews; NMED training 

in headquarters (HQ), the regions, and Agreement States; and 

discussions at all Agreement State and Conference of Radiation 

Control Program Directors (CRCPD) meetings. 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 23

Validation: The NRC provides regulatory controls that limit or prevent

radiation exposures to the public and occupational workers from 

radioactive material that exceed AO Criterion I.A. An event is 

considered an AO if it is determined to be significant from the 

standpoint of public health or safety. The NRC’s regulatory 

process, including licensing, inspection, guidance, regulations, 

and enforcement activities, is designed to mitigate the likelihood of 

an event that would exceed AO Criterion I.A.3.

Events of this magnitude are rare. In the unlikely event that an 

AO should occur, the NRC or Agreement State technical 

specialists will confirm whether the criteria were met, with input 

provided by expert consultants, as necessary.

The NRC does not use statistical sampling of data to determine 

results. Rather, all event data are reviewed to determine whether 

the performance indicator has been met. There are two important 

data limitations in determining this performance indicator. These 

include delay time for receiving information and failure to inform

the NRC of an event that causes significant radiation exposures to 

the public or occupational workers. The NRC regulations 

associated with event reporting include specific requirements for 

timely notifications; there is a lag time separating the occurrence 

of an event and its known consequences. 

The NRC believes the probability of not being aware of an event 

that causes significant radiation exposures to the public or 

occupational workers is very small. Periodic licensee inspections 

and regulatory reporting requirements are sufficient to ensure that 

an event of this magnitude would become known. If such an 

event occurred, it would result in a prompt and thorough 

investigation of the event, its consequences, its root causes, and 

the necessary actions by the licensee and the NRC to mitigate the 

situation and prevent recurrence. In addition to these immediate 

actions, the NRC holds periodic meetings, in which staff and 

management validate the occurrence of these events.

FY 2012–2014: Number of radiological releases to the environment that exceed 

applicable regulatory limits

FY 2015–2017: Number of releases of radioactive materials that meet or exceed 

AO Criterion I.B (discharge or dispersal of radioactive material 

from its intended place of confinement that results in releases of 

radioactive material)

Materials and Waste Safety 

Target: Zero

Verification: This performance indicator is defined as any release to the 

environment from the following activities: fuel facilities, nuclear 

materials users, spent fuel storage and transportation, 

decommissioning, and LLW activities that exceed applicable 

regulations, as defined in 10 CFR 20.2203(a)(3). A 30-day written 

report is required on such releases. 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 24

Should an event meeting this threshold occur, it would be reported 

to the NRC or Agreement States, or both, through a number of 

sources but primarily through required licensee notifications. 

These events are summarized in event notifications and 

preliminary notifications, which are used to widely disseminate the 

information to internal and external stakeholders. 

The fuel facilities, nuclear materials users, spent fuel storage and 

transportation, decommissioning, and LLW programs contain 

elements that verify the completeness and accuracy of licensee 

reports. The IMPEP also provides a mechanism to verify that 

Agreement States and NRC regions are consistently collecting 

and reporting such events, as received from the licensees, and 

entering them into NMED.

The NRC has taken a number of steps to improve the timeliness 

and completeness of materials event data. These steps include 

assessment of the NMED data during monthly staff reviews; 

emphasis and analysis during the IMPEP review; NMED training 

in HQ, the regions, and Agreement States; and discussions at all 

Agreement State and CRCPD meetings. 

Validation: The NRC provides regulatory controls to limit radiation releases to 

ensure protection of the environment. The regulations in 

10 CFR Part 20 provide standards for protection against radiation. 

Releases subject to a 30-day reporting requirement in 

10 CFR 20.2203(a)(3)(ii) serve as a performance indicator for 

ensuring the protection of the environment. The NRC’s regulatory 

process, including licensing, inspection, guidance, regulations, 

and enforcement activities, is sufficient to ensure that releases of 

radioactive materials that exceed regulatory limits are infrequent. 

In the unlikely event that a release to the environment exceeds 

regulatory limits, the NRC, Agreement State technical specialists, 

or agency consultants will confirm whether the criteria were met, 

with input provided by expert consultants, as necessary. 

The NRC does not look at statistical sampling of data to determine 

results; instead, all event data are reviewed to determine whether 

the performance indicator has been met. There are two important 

data limitations in determining this performance indicator. These 

include delay time for receiving information or the failure to inform

the NRC of an event that causes environmental impacts. The 

NRC regulations associated with event reporting include specific 

requirements for timely notifications. There is a lag time 

separating the occurrence of an event and its known 

consequences. 

The NRC believes the probability of not being aware of an event 

that causes a radiological release to the environment that exceeds 

applicable regulations is very small. Periodic licensee inspections 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 25

and regulatory reporting requirements are sufficient to ensure that 

an event of this magnitude would become known. 

If such an event occurred, it would result in a prompt and thorough 

investigation of the event, its consequences, its root causes, and 

the necessary actions by the licensee and the NRC to mitigate the 

situation and prevent recurrence. In addition to these immediate 

actions, the NRC holds periodic meetings, in which staff and 

management validate the occurrence of these events.

FY 2015–2017: Number of instances of unintended nuclear chain reactions 

involving NRC-licensed radioactive materials

Materials Safety Target: Zero

Verification: An accidental criticality is defined in 10CFR 70.52(a). Each NRC 

office reviews event documents for its specific program area to 

identify events that meet or exceed AO Criteria III.A.1. 

The program office or regional AO coordinators will assess an 

event to determine if it meets the AO criteria. If an event meets 

the AO criteria, the program office or regional AO coordinator will 

develop a potential AO event description. The potential AO event 

description will include the applicable AO criteria and contain the 

information specified in Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization 

Act of 1974, such as the nature and probable consequences of 

the event. 

The AO coordinator in the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory 

Research coordinates with the program office and regional AO 

coordinators regarding incidents and events, identified as potential 

AOs, that are receiving interest from the EDO.

Validation: The agency is required to submit a “Report to Congress on 

Abnormal Occurrences” each FY for those events that, by

Commission determination, meet the AO criteria. These AO 

criteria have been developed and revised over several decades

with extensive review by both the Commission and the public. In

SECY-95-083, “Revised Abnormal Occurrence Criteria,” the staff

described the basis of the AO criteria as follows: 

The AO reporting policy has been developed to comply with the 

legislative intent of Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act 

of 1974, as amended, to keep Congress and the public informed 

of unscheduled incidents or events which the Commission 

considers significant from the standpoint of public health and 

safety....The thresholds are generally above the normal level of 

reporting events by licensees to NRC to exclude those events 

which involve some variance from regulatory limits, but are not 

significant enough from the standpoint of public health and safety 

to be reported to Congress. 

For each event that meets the AO criteria, the NRC includes in the 

report a description of the incident or event, as well as any action 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 26

taken to prevent recurrence. Such actions include those taken by 

licensees, as well as more programmatic actions deemed

necessary by the Commission to prevent recurrence across a 

class or classes of licensees. Establishing performance indicators 

at the threshold levels described by the AO criteria is appropriate 

and consistent with the principle that the NRC’s regulatory 

processes (e.g., licensing, oversight, enforcement) are adequate 

to address a wide scope of infractions against regulatory 

requirements and do not generally warrant a focused reevaluation 

of the programs associated with those processes for every 

infraction. Therefore, only significant deviations from the 

regulatory requirements or unacceptable frequencies of 

occurrence of such deviations should be indicators of the need to 

reevaluate regulatory strategies and programs. This principle has 

been central to the staff’s selection of performance goals and 

performance indicator thresholds for determining whether the 

NRC’s performance in ensuring the safe and secure use of 

radioactive material has been adequate. 

FY 2015–2017: Number of malfunctions, deficiencies, events, or conditions at 

nonreactor facilities or during transportation of nuclear materials 

that meet or exceed AO Criteria III.A or III.B (events at facilities 

other than nuclear power plants and all transportation events)

Materials Safety Target: Zero

Verification: An accidental criticality is defined in 10 CFR 70.52(a). Each NRC 

office reviews event documents for its specific program area to 

identify events as potential AOs.

The program office or regional AO coordinators will assess an 

event to determine if it meets the AO criteria. If an event meets 

the AO criteria, the program office or regional AO coordinator will 

develop a potential AO event description. The potential AO event 

description will include the applicable AO criteria and contain the 

information specified in Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization 

Act of 1974, such as the nature and probable consequences of 

the event. 

The AO coordinator of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Regulatory 

Research coordinates with the program office and regional AO 

coordinators regarding incidents and events, identified as potential 

AOs, that are receiving interest from the EDO. 

Validation: The agency is required to submit a “Report to Congress on 

Abnormal Occurrences” each FY for those events that the 

Commission has determined to meet the AO criteria. These AO 

criteria have been developed and revised over several decades

with extensive review by both the Commission and the public. In

SECY-95-083, “Revised Abnormal Occurrence Criteria,” the staff

described the basis of the AO criteria as follows: 

The AO reporting policy has been developed to comply with the 

legislative intent of Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 27

of 1974, as amended, to keep Congress and the public informed 

of unscheduled incidents or events which the Commission 

considers significant from the standpoint of public health and 

safety....The thresholds are generally above the normal level of 

reporting events by licensees to NRC to exclude those events 

which involve some variance from regulatory limits, but are not 

significant enough from the standpoint of public health and safety 

to be reported to Congress. 

For each event that meets the AO criteria, the NRC includes in the 

report a description of the incident or event, as well as any action 

taken to prevent recurrence. Such actions include those taken by 

licensees, as well as more programmatic actions deemed 

necessary by the Commission to prevent recurrence across a 

class or classes of licensees. Establishing performance indicators 

at the threshold levels described by the AO criteria is appropriate 

and consistent with the principle that the NRC’s regulatory 

processes (e.g., licensing, oversight, enforcement) are adequate 

to address a wide scope of infractions against regulatory 

requirements and do not generally warrant a focused reevaluation 

of the programs associated with those processes for every 

infraction. Therefore, only significant deviations from the 

regulatory requirements or unacceptable frequencies of 

occurrence of such deviations should be indicators of the need to 

reevaluate regulatory strategies and programs. This principle has 

been central to the staff’s selection of performance goals and 

performance indicator thresholds for determining whether the 

NRC’s performance in ensuring the safe and secure use of 

radioactive material has been adequate. 

Goal 2: Security: Ensure the secure use of radioactive materials.

Nuclear Reactor and Nuclear Materials and Waste Security

Security Objective 1: Ensure protection of nuclear facilities and radioactive materials.

Performance Indicators:

FY 2012–2014: Number of unrecovered losses or thefts of risk-significant 

radioactive sources

FY 2015–2017: Number of substantial breakdowns of physical security, 

cybersecurity, or material control and accountability that meet or 

exceed a revised version of AO Criterion I.C.4 (substantial 

breakdown in physical security or material control) that will include 

breakdowns of cybersecurity and the portion of AO Criterion I.C.3 

(substantiated loss of a formula quantity) concerning breakdowns 

of the accountability system for SNM

Target: Less than or equal to one

Under AO Criterion I.C.1, the agency counts any unrecovered lost, 

stolen, or abandoned sources that exceed the values listed in 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 28

Appendix P, “Category 1 and 2 Radioactive Material,” to 

10 CFR Part 110, “Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and 

Material.” Excluded from reporting under this criterion are those

events involving sources that are lost, stolen, or abandoned under 

certain conditions, specifically, (1) sources abandoned in 

accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 39.77(c), (2) sealed 

sources contained in labeled, rugged source housings, 

(3) recovered sources with sufficient indication that doses in 

excess of the reporting thresholds specified in AO Criteria I.A.1 

and I.A.2 did not occur during the time the source was missing, 

(4) unrecoverable sources lost under such conditions that doses in 

excess of the reporting thresholds specified in AO Criteria I.A.1 

and I.A.2 were not known to have occurred, and (5) unrecoverable

sources (sources that have been lost and for which a reasonable 

attempt at recovery has been made without success) lost under 

such conditions that doses in excess of the reporting thresholds 

specified in AO Criteria I.A.1 and I.A.2 are not known to have 

occurred and the agency has determined that the risk of theft or 

diversion is acceptably low.

Verification: Losses or thefts of radioactive material greater than or equal to 

1,000 times the quantity specified in Appendix C, “Quantities of 

Licensed Material Requiring Labeling,” to 10 CFR Part 20 must be 

reported (in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2201(a)) by telephone to 

the NRC HQ Operations Center or Agreement State immediately 

(interpreted as within 4 hours) if the licensee believes that an 

exposure could result to persons in unrestricted areas. If an event 

meeting the thresholds described above occurs, it would be

reported through a number of sources but primarily through this 

required licensee notification. Events that are publicly available 

are then entered and tracked in NMED, which is an essential 

system used to collect and store information on such events. 

Separate methods are used to track events that are not publicly 

available. Additionally, licensees must meet the reporting and 

accounting requirements in 10 CFR Part 73, “Physical Protection 

of Plants and Materials,” and 10 CFR Part 74, “Material Control 

and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material.”

The NRC’s inspection programs are key elements in verifying the 

completeness and accuracy of licensee reports. The IMPEP also 

provides a mechanism to verify that Agreement States and the 

NRC regions are consistently collecting and reporting such events 

as received from the licensees and are entering these events in 

NMED. In some cases, upon receiving a report, the NRC or 

Agreement State initiates an independent investigation that 

verifies the reliability of the reported information. When 

performed, these investigations enable the NRC or Agreement 

State to verify the accuracy of the reported data. 

The regulation at 10 CFR 20.2201(b) requires a 30-day written 

report for lost or stolen sources that are greater than or equal to 

10 times the quantity specified in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20 if 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 29

the source is still missing at that time. Furthermore, 

10 CFR 20.2201(d) requires an additional written report within 

30 days of a licensee learning any additional substantive 

information. The NRC interprets this requirement as including 

reporting recovery of sources.

The NRC issued guidance in Regulatory Issue Summary

(RIS) 2005-21, “Clarification of the Reporting Requirements in 

10 CFR 20.2201,” dated November 14, 2005, to clarify the current 

requirement in 10 CFR 20.2201(d) for reporting recovery of a 

risk-significant source. The NRC asked the Agreement States to 

send copies of RIS 2005-21 (or an equivalent document) to its 

licensees. The NRC issued the National Source Tracking System 

(NSTS) final rule in November 2006. On January 31, 2009, NRC 

licensees and Agreement State licensees were required to begin 

reporting information on source transactions to the NSTS. 

Implementation of this system creates an inventory of 

risk-significant sources. This rulemaking established reporting 

requirements for risk-significant sources (including reporting 

timeframes) by adding specific requirements to 10 CFR 20.2201, 

“Reports of Theft or Loss of Licensed Material,” for risk-significant 

sources, including a requirement for licensees to report within 

30 days the recovery of a risk-significant source. 

Validation: Events collected under this performance indicator are actual 

losses, thefts, or diversions of materials described above. Such 

events could compromise public health and safety, the 

environment, and the common defense and security. Events of 

this magnitude are rare. The information reported under 

10 CFR Part 73 and 10 CFR Part 74 is required so that the NRC 

is aware of events that could endanger public health and safety or 

national security. Any failures at the level of the strategic plan 

would result in immediate investigation and follow-up.

If an event subject to the reporting requirements described above 

occurs, it would result in a prompt and thorough investigation of 

the event, its consequences, its root causes, and the necessary 

actions by the licensee, the NRC, or an Agreement State to 

mitigate the situation and prevent recurrence.

FY 2012–2014: Number of substantiated cases of theft or diversion of licensed 

risk-significant radioactive sources or formula quantities of SNM or 

attacks that result in radiological sabotage

FY 2015–2017: Number of instances of sabotage, theft, diversion, or loss of 

risk-significant quantities of radioactive material that meet or 

exceed AO Criteria I.C.1 (unrecovered lost, stolen, or abandoned 

sources), I.C.2 (substantiated case of actual theft or diversion), 

and the portion of Criterion I.C.3 (substantiated loss of a formula 

quantity) concerning theft or diversion of SNM

Target: Zero 

Verification: In AO Criterion I.C.2, “substantiated” means a situation that 

requires additional action by the agency or other proper authorities 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 30

because of an indication of loss, theft, or unlawful diversion—such 

as an allegation of diversion, report of lost or stolen material, 

statistical processing difference, or other indication of loss of 

material control or accountability—that cannot be refuted following 

an investigation. A formula quantity of SNM is defined in 

10 CFR 70.4. Radiological sabotage is defined in 10 CFR 73.2. 

Licensees subject to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 73 must call 

the NRC within 1 hour of an occurrence to report any breaches of 

security or other event that may potentially lead to theft or 

diversion of material or to sabotage at a nuclear facility. The 

NRC’s safeguards requirements are described in 10 CFR 73.71, 

“Reporting of Safeguards Events”; Appendix G, “Reportable 

Safeguards Events,” to 10 CFR Part 73; and 10 CFR 74.11, 

“Reports of Loss or Theft or Attempted Theft or Unauthorized 

Production of Special Nuclear Material.” 

The information assessment team composed of NRC HQ and 

regional staff members would conduct an immediate assessment 

for any significant events to determine any further actions needed, 

including coordination with the intelligence community and law 

enforcement. In accordance with 10 CFR 73.71(d), the licensee 

must also file a written report within 60 days of the incident that

describes the event and the steps that the licensee took to protect 

the nuclear facility. This information will enable the NRC to 

assess whether radiological sabotage has occurred. 

Validation: Events subject to reporting requirements are those that endanger 

public health and safety and the environment through deliberate 

acts of theft or diversion of material or through sabotage directed 

against the nuclear facilities that the agency licenses. Events of 

this type are extremely rare. If such an event occurs, it would 

result in a prompt and thorough investigation of the event, its 

consequences, its root causes, and the necessary actions by the 

licensee or the NRC to mitigate the situation and prevent 

recurrence. The investigation ensures the validity of the 

information and assesses the significance of the event.

FY 2012–2014: Number of substantiated losses of formula quantities of SNM or 

substantiated inventory discrepancies of a formula quantity of 

SNM that are judged to be caused by theft, diversion, or 

substantial breakdown of the accountability system

FY 2015–2017: Number of instances of sabotage, theft, diversion, or loss of 

risk-significant quantities of radioactive material that meet or 

exceed AO Criteria I.C.1 (unrecovered lost, stolen, or abandoned 

sources), I.C.2 (substantiated case of actual theft or diversion), 

and the portion of Criterion I.C.3 (substantiated loss of a formula 

quantity) concerning theft or diversion of SNM

Target: Zero

Verification: Licensees must record events associated with AO Criterion I.C.3 

within 24 hours of the identified event in a safeguards log that the 

licensee maintains. The licensee must retain the log as a record

for 3 years after the last entry is made or until termination of the 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 31

license. The NRC relies on its safeguards inspection program to 

ensure the reliability of recorded data. The NRC makes a 

determination of whether a substantiated breakdown has resulted 

in a vulnerability to radiological sabotage, theft, diversion, or 

unauthorized enrichment of SNM. When making substantiated 

breakdown determinations, the NRC evaluates the materials event 

data to ensure that licensees are reporting and collecting the 

proper event data. 

Validation: “Substantiated” means a situation that requires additional action 

by the agency or other proper authorities because of an indication 

of loss, theft, or unlawful diversion—such as an allegation of 

diversion, report of lost or stolen material, statistical processing 

difference, other system breakdown closely related to the material 

control and accounting program (such as an item control system 

associated with the licensee’s facility information technology

system), or other indication of loss of material control or 

accountability—that cannot be refuted following an investigation. 

A formula quantity of SNM is defined in 10 CFR 70.4. 

Events collected under this performance indicator may indicate a 

vulnerability to radiological sabotage, theft, diversion, or loss of 

SNM. Such events could compromise public health and safety, 

the environment, and the common defense and security. The 

NRC relies on its safeguards inspection program to help validate 

the reliability of recorded data and to determine whether a 

breakdown of a physical protection or material control and 

accounting system has actually resulted in a vulnerability.

FY 2012–2014: Number of substantial breakdowns of physical security or material 

control (i.e., access control containment or accountability systems) 

that significantly weaken the protection against theft, diversion, or 

sabotage

FY 2015–2017: Number of substantial breakdowns of physical security, cyber 

security, or material control and accountability that meet or exceed 

a revised version of AO Criterion I.C.4 (substantial breakdown in 

physical security or materials control) that will include breakdowns 

of cyber security and the portion of AO Criterion I.C.3

(substantiated loss of a formula quantity) concerning breakdowns 

of the accountability system for SNM

Target: Less than or equal to one

Verification: In AO Criterion I.C.4, a “substantial breakdown” is defined as a 

red finding in the security cornerstone of the ROP or significant 

performance problems or operational events resulting in a 

determination of overall unacceptable performance or in a 

shutdown condition (inimical to the effective functioning of the 

Nation’s critical infrastructure). Radiological sabotage is defined 

in 10 CFR 73.2. Licensees are required to report to the NRC, 

immediately after the occurrence becomes known, any known 

breakdowns of physical security, based on the requirements in 

10 CFR 73.71 and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 73. If a licensee 

reports such an event, the HQ operations officer prepares an 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 32

official record of the initial event report. The NRC begins 

responding to such an event immediately upon notification with 

the activation of its information assessment team. A licensee 

must follow its initial telephone notification with a written report 

submitted to the NRC within 30 days.

The licensee records breakdowns of physical protection resulting 

in a vulnerability to radiological sabotage, theft, diversion, or loss 

of SNM or radioactive waste within 24 hours in a safeguards log 

that the licensee maintains. The licensee must retain the log as a 

record for 3 years after the last entry is made or until termination 

of the license. Licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 73 must also 

meet the reporting requirements detailed in 10 CFR 73.71. The 

NRC evaluates all of the reported events, based on the criteria in 

10 CFR 73.71 and Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 73. The NRC also 

maintains and relies on its safeguards inspection program to 

ensure the reliability of recorded and reported data. 

Validation: Events assessed under this performance indicator are those that 

threaten nuclear activities by deliberate acts, such as radiological 

sabotage, directed against facilities. If a licensee reports such an 

event, the information assessment team evaluates and validates 

the initial report and determines any further actions that may be 

necessary. Tracking breakdowns of physical security indicates 

whether the licensee is taking the necessary security precautions 

to protect the public, given the potential consequences of a 

nuclear accident attributable to sabotage or the inappropriate use 

of nuclear material either in this country or abroad.

Events collected under this performance indicator may indicate a 

vulnerability to radiological sabotage, theft, diversion, or loss of 

SNM or radioactive waste. Such events could compromise public 

health and safety, the environment, and the common defense and 

security. The NRC relies on its safeguards inspection program to 

help validate the reliability of recorded data and to determine 

whether a breakdown of a physical protection or material control 

and accounting system has actually resulted in a vulnerability. 

Security Objective 2: Ensure protection of classified and Safeguards Information

FY 2012–2014: Number of significant unauthorized disclosures of classified or 

Safeguards Information

FY 2015–2017: Number of significant unauthorized disclosures of classified or 

Safeguards Information by licensees, as defined by AO 

Criterion I.C.5 (significant unauthorized disclosures of classified 

information), and by NRC employees or contactors, as defined by 

analogous NRC internal criteria

Target: Zero

Verification: In regard to AO Criterion I.C.5, any alleged or suspected violations 

by NRC licensees of the Atomic Energy Act, Espionage Act, or 

other Federal statutes related to classified or Safeguards 

Information must be reported to the NRC under the requirements 
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 33

in 10 CFR 95.57(a) (for classified information), 10 CFR Part 73 

(for Safeguards Information), and NRC orders (for Safeguards 

Information subject to modified handling requirements). However, 

for performance reporting, the NRC would only count those 

disclosures or compromises that actually cause damage to 

national security or to public health and safety. 

Such events would be reported to the cognizant security agency 

(i.e., the security agency with jurisdiction) and the regional 

administrator of the appropriate NRC regional office, as listed in 

Appendix A, “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offices and 

Classified Mailing Addresses,” to 10 CFR Part 73. The regional

administrator would then contact the Division of Security 

Operations at NRC HQ, which would assess the violation and 

notify other NRC offices and Government agencies, as 

appropriate. A determination would be made as to whether the 

compromise damaged national security or public health and 

safety. Any unauthorized disclosures or compromises of 

classified or Safeguards Information that damaged national 

security or public health and safety would result in immediate 

investigation and follow-up by the NRC. In addition, NRC 

inspections will verify that licensees’ routine handling of classified 

information and Safeguards Information (including Safeguards 

Information subject to modified handling requirements) conforms 

to established security information management requirements.

Any alleged or suspected violations of this performance indicator 

by NRC employees, contractors, or other personnel would be 

reported, in accordance with NRC procedures, to the Director of 

the Division of Facilities and Security at NRC HQ. The NRC 

maintains a strong system of controls over national security and 

Safeguards Information, including (1) annual required training for 

all employees, (2) safe and secure document storage, and 

(3) physical access control in the form of guards and badged 

access.

Validation: Events collected under this performance indicator are 

unauthorized disclosures of classified information or Safeguards 

Information that damage the national security or public health and 

safety. Events of this magnitude are not expected and would be 

rare. If such an event occurs, it would result in a prompt and 

thorough investigation, including consequences, root causes, and 

necessary actions by the licensees and the NRC to mitigate the 

consequences and prevent recurrence. NRC investigation teams 

also validate the materials event data to ensure that licensees are 

reporting and collecting the proper event data. 

Management Objective 1: People: Attract, develop, and retain a high-performing, diverse, 

and engaged workforce, with the skills needed to carry out the 

NRC’s mission now and in the future.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 34

FY 2015–2017: NRC’s annual average rank against the top agencies across the 

OPM human capital indices on the FEVS

Target: Top five ranking

Verification: At the end of August of each year, OPM releases the FEVS 

results to agencies. Agency rankings are a matter of public 

record. 

Validation: The FEVS, which OPM administers, is a powerful management 

tool that helps agency senior leaders and managers drive change. 

The data OPM receives from employees surveyed shows what is 

working and what can be improved.

FY 2015–2017: Percent of key human capital indicators met.

Target: At least 75 percent

Verification: The agency human capital records system provides most of the 

data to support reported outcomes. 

Validation: Regular reports and briefings on human capital matters take 

place. 

Management Objective 2: Information Management and Information Technology: Make it 

easier for NRC staff to perform the mission and obtain the 

information it needs from authoritative sources anytime, anywhere, 

on any device, while managing the risk and compromise of 

sensitive information.

FY 2015–2017: Score on the FEVS question, “I can easily find and obtain the 

information I need to do my job” 

Target: Five percent increase from FY 2014 FEVS results

Verification: At the end of August of each year, OPM releases the FEVS 

results to agencies. Agency rankings are a matter of public 

record. 

Validation: The FEVS, which OPM administers, is a powerful management 

tool that helps agency senior leaders and managers drive change. 

The data OPM receives from employees surveyed shows what is 

working and what can be improved.

STRATEGIC PLAN STRATEGIES AND SUPPORTING BUSINESS LINES

The FY 2014–2018 Strategic Plan identifies the strategies needed for the NRC to achieve its 

Strategic Goals and Objectives, Cross-Cutting Strategies, and Management Objectives. The 

following table shows which agency business lines support each strategy. The Strategic Plan 

may be viewed at this link: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1614/v6/.

Strategy Business Line

Safety Strategy 1: Continue to enhance the 

NRC’s regulatory programs, as appropriate,

using lessons learned from domestic and 

international operating experience and other 

sources.

Decommissioning and LLW; Fuel Facilities; 

New Reactors; Nuclear Materials Users; 

Operating Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 35

Strategy Business Line

Safety Strategy 2: Enhance the 

risk-informed and performance-based 

regulatory framework in response to 

advances in science and technology, policy 

decisions, and other factors.

Decommissioning and LLW; Fuel Facilities; 

New Reactors; Nuclear Materials Users; 

Operating Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation

Safety Strategy 3: Ensure the effectiveness 

and efficiency of licensing and certification 

activities to maintain both quality and 

timeliness of licensing and certification 

reviews.

Decommissioning and LLW; Fuel Facilities; 

New Reactors; Nuclear Materials Users; 

Operating Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation

Safety Strategy 4: Maintain effective and 

consistent oversight of licensee performance 

to drive continued licensee compliance with 

NRC safety requirements and license 

conditions.

Decommissioning and LLW; Fuel Facilities; 

New Reactors; Nuclear Materials Users; 

Operating Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation

Safety Strategy 5: Ensure the NRC’s 

readiness to respond to incidents and 

emergencies involving NRC-licensed 

facilities and radioactive materials and other 

events of domestic and international interest.

Corporate Support; Decommissioning and 

LLW; Fuel Facilities; New Reactors; Nuclear 

Materials Users; Operating Reactors; Spent 

Fuel Storage and Transportation

Safety Strategy 6: Ensure that nuclear 

facilities are constructed in accordance with 

approved designs and that there is an 

effective transition from oversight of 

construction to oversight of operation.

Fuel Facilities; New Reactors; Operating 

Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation

Safety Strategy 7: Ensure that the 

environmental and site safety regulatory 

infrastructure is adequate to support the 

issuance of new nuclear licenses.

New Reactors, Operating Reactors

Security Strategy 1: Ensure the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory 

framework, using information gained from 

operating experience and external and 

internal assessments, and in response to 

technology advances and changes in the 

threat environment.

Decommissioning and LLW; Fuel Facilities; 

New Reactors; Nuclear Materials Users; 

Operating Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation

Security Strategy 2: Maintain effective and 

consistent oversight of licensee performance 

to drive continued licensee compliance with 

NRC security requirements and license 

conditions.

Decommissioning and LLW; Fuel Facilities; 

New Reactors; Nuclear Materials Users; 

Operating Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation

Security Strategy 3: Support U.S. national 

security interests and nuclear 

nonproliferation policy objectives within the 

NRC’s statutory mandate through 

cooperation with domestic and international 

partners.

Corporate Support; Fuel Facilities; New 

Reactors; Nuclear Materials Users; Operating 

Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 36

Strategy Business Line

Security Strategy 4: Ensure material 

control and accounting for special nuclear 

materials.

Fuel Facilities; Operating Reactors; Spent Fuel 

Storage and Transportation

Security Strategy 5: Protect critical digital 

assets.

Fuel Facilities; New Reactors; Nuclear 

Materials Users; Operating Reactors

Security Strategy 6: Ensure timely 

distribution of security information to 

stakeholders and international partners.

Corporate Support; Decommissioning and 

LLW; Fuel Facilities; New Reactors; Operating 

Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation

Security Strategy 7: Ensure that programs 

for the handling and control of classified and 

Safeguards Information are effectively 

implemented at the NRC and at licensee 

facilities.

Corporate Support; Decommissioning and 

LLW; Fuel Facilities; New Reactors; Nuclear 

Materials Users; Operating Reactors; Spent 

Fuel Storage and Transportation

Regulatory Effectiveness 1: Proactively 

identify, assess, understand, and resolve 

safety and security issues.

Decommissioning and LLW; Fuel Facilities; 

New Reactors; Nuclear Materials Users; 

Operating Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation

Regulatory Effectiveness 2: Regulate in a 

manner that effectively and efficiently 

manages known risks and threats, clearly 

communicates requirements, and ensures 

that regulations are consistently applied, are 

practical, and accommodate technology 

changes in a timely manner.

Corporate Support; Decommissioning and 

LLW; Fuel Facilities; New Reactors; Nuclear 

Materials Users; Operating Reactors; Spent 

Fuel Storage and Transportation

Regulatory Effectiveness 3: Integrate 

safety and security programs to identify and 

avoid unintended consequences.

Decommissioning and LLW; Fuel Facilities; 

New Reactors; Nuclear Materials Users; 

Operating Reactors; Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation

Openness 1–Transparency: Make clear 

information about the NRC’s responsibilities 

and activities accessible to stakeholders.

Corporate Support; Decommissioning and 

LLW; Fuel Facilities; New Reactors; Nuclear 

Materials Users; Operating Reactors; Spent 

Fuel Storage and Transportation

Openness 2–Participation: Enhance 

interaction with the public and other 

stakeholders through use of social media 

and further enable opportunities for 

meaningful participation in, and mutual 

understanding of, NRC regulatory 

processes.

Corporate Support; Decommissioning and 

LLW; Fuel Facilities; New Reactors; Nuclear 

Materials Users; Operating Reactors; Spent 

Fuel Storage and Transportation

Openness 3–Collaboration: Promote 

domestic and global nuclear safety and 

security by creating and taking advantage of 

opportunities to increase collaboration and 

share best practices with other Federal 

agencies, with State, local, and Tribal 

governments, and with the international 

regulatory community.

Corporate Support; Decommissioning and 

LLW; Fuel Facilities; New Reactors; Nuclear 

Materials Users; Operating Reactors; Spent 

Fuel Storage and Transportation
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 37

Strategy Business Line

Human Capital 1: Maintain qualified and 

flexible staff and close skill gaps in 

mission-critical occupations

Corporate Support

Human Capital 2: Hire the best talent to 

achieve a high-performing, diverse, and 

engaged workforce with the skills needed to 

carry out the NRC's mission now and in the 

future and close skill gaps in mission-critical 

occupations.

Corporate Support

Human Capital 3: Improve knowledge 

management by identifying and capturing 

critical knowledge from employees,

transferring it to those who need it now, and 

making it accessible for the future.

Corporate Support

Human Capital 4: Promote a strong NRC 

internal safety culture with an open 

collaborative work environment.

Corporate Support

Human Capital 5: Enhance employee 

learning opportunities and optimize the use 

of training resources from an agencywide 

perspective to meet the agency’s current 

and future critical skill needs.

Corporate Support

Human Capital 6: Strengthen workforce 

diversity and inclusion.

Corporate Support

Information Management and Information 

Technology (IT) 1: Better enable NRC’s 

staff and external stakeholders to easily find 

and use the information they need.

Corporate Support

Information Management and IT 2: 

Develop a flexible technology infrastructure 

that provides the foundation to consistently 

deliver the IT solutions customers need.

Corporate Support

Information Management and IT 3:

Improve the business value of the NRC’s IT 

solutions by providing the right products and 

services when and where needed.

Corporate Support

Information Management and IT 4:

Improve enterprise IT planning, budgeting, 

and performance management to effectively 

manage resources.

Corporate Support

NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 39

NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

Nuclear Reactor Safety

(Dollars in Millions)

Business Line

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Operating Reactors 589.2 2,157.2 587.5 2,103.6 (1.7) (53.6)

New Reactors 171.3 622.9 169.9 614.6 (1.4) (8.3)

Total $760.4 2,780.1 $757.4 2,718.2 $(3.0) (61.9)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The Nuclear Reactor Safety Program of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

encompasses licensing, regulating, and overseeing civilian nuclear power, research and test 

reactors, and medical isotope facilities in a manner that adequately protects public health and 

safety and the environment. This program also provides high assurance of the physical security 

of facilities and protection against radiological sabotage. This program contributes to the NRC’s 

Safety and Security strategic goals through the activities of the Operating Reactors and New 

Reactors Business Lines that regulate existing and new nuclear reactors to ensure their safe 

operation and physical security.

Overall resources requested in the fiscal year (FY) 2017 budget for the Nuclear Reactor Safety 

Program are $757.4 million, including 2,718.2 full-time equivalents (FTE). This funding level 

represents an overall funding decrease of $3 million, including a decrease of 61.9 FTE, when 

compared with the FY 2016 Enacted budget. This budget includes $5 million for advanced 

nuclear reactor technology, which is non-feebillable.

NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 41

OPERATING REACTORS

Operating Reactors by Product Line

(Dollars in Millions)

Product Line

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Licensing 123.8 568.2 118.9 547.3 (4.9) (20.9)

Oversight 161.4 783.0 160.0 754.5 (1.4) (28.5)

Rulemaking 12.9 64.7 13.8 68.9 0.9 4.2 

Research 75.0 184.5 73.9 186.7 (1.1) 2.3 

International Activities 5.6 30.3 5.7 30.2 0.1 (0.1)

Generic Homeland 

Security 2.8 14.7 3.0 15.2 0.2 0.5 

Event Response 15.9 55.1 18.3 57.2 2.4 2.1 

Subtotal $397.4 1,700.5 $393.7 1,660.0 $(3.7) (40.5)

Corporate Support 191.8 456.7 193.9 443.6 2.1 (13.1)

Total $589.2 2,157.2 $587.5 2,103.6 $(1.7) (53.6)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The Operating Reactors Business Line encompasses the regulation of 1006 operating civilian 

nuclear power reactors and 31 research and test reactors (RTRs) in a manner that adequately 

protects the health and safety of the public and the environment and provides high assurance of 

physical security. Under the regulatory oversight of NRC, the amount of safe electrical power 

generated from the 100 domestic nuclear power plants now contributes approximately 

19 percent of the Nation’s electrical production.

The NRC establishes regulatory requirements for the design, construction, operation, and 

security of nuclear power plants, RTRs, and medical isotope production facilities, in accordance 

with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Through the Operating 

Reactors Business Line activities, the NRC ensures the fundamental tenets of its Safety and 

Security strategic goals in protecting both the public and workers from the radiation hazards of 

nuclear reactors. To ensure plants are operating safely within the NRC’s requirements, the 

NRC licenses the plants to operate, licenses the personnel who operate the plants, and 

establishes technical specifications for the operation of each plant. The NRC also supports

nuclear safety through rulemaking and research efforts, enforcement, and international 

activities. The NRC provides continuing oversight of civilian nuclear reactors and verification of 

operator adherence to the NRC’s rules and regulations. The NRC has established 

requirements to bolster the security of the Nation’s nuclear facilities. Nuclear power plants must 

be able to defend successfully against a set of hypothetical threats that the agency refers to as 

the design-basis threat. These hypothetical threats challenge a plant’s physical security, 

personnel security, and cybersecurity. The agency continuously evaluates this set of 

hypothetical threats against real-world intelligence to ensure safety and security.

 6 The number of 100 reactors includes the startup operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, in FY 2016. 

The number of reactors will be 99 sometime in FY 2017, when the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

permanently ceases operations, as indicated by the licensee.
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 42

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET 

In FY 2017, resources decrease because of the declining or completed workload in the following 

areas: Fukushima Near-Term Task Force recommendations, including the Mitigation Strategies 

for Beyond Design-Basis Events Rulemaking; Generic Safety Issue-191, “Assessment of Debris 

Accumulation on PWR Sump”; resolution of NRC Bulletin 2012-01, “Design Vulnerability in 

Electric Power System”; National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)-805 license amendment 

requests; and license renewals. Additionally, reductions occurred in reactor safety research in 

areas including: resolution of emergent component integrity issues, development and 

maintenance of regulatory guidance, technical basis development for subsequent license 

renewal applications, risk analysis, and severe accident research. These decreases are 

partially offset by increases to support the Waterford and River Bend license renewal reviews; 

medical isotope production facility application reviews; the final phase of cybersecurity program 

implementation for operating reactors; the Decommissioning Rulemaking; potassium iodide (KI)

replenishment requested by 12 states; and information technology support that includes

implementation of the Replacement Reactor Program System and associated interfaces with 

other agency systems, the development of streamlined data interfaces to support the Master 

Data Management Program, and hardware purchases for the Emergency Response Data 

System.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES

The major activities within the Operating Reactors Business Line include the following:

• Ensure that licensed operating nuclear power reactors operate safely and securely, and 

in accordance with the NRC’s rules, regulations, and license requirements. The Reactor 

Oversight Process uses both NRC inspection findings and performance indicators from 

licensees to assess the safety performance of each plant within a regulatory framework 

of seven cornerstones of safety and security. 

• Conclude license renewal reviews for seven units at four operating reactor sites, 

continue to support activities for license renewal reviews for two sites, and prepare for 

subsequent license renewal applications.

• Continue to implement the Tier 1 and applicable Tier 2 lessons learned from the 

Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan. These resources will 

support the completion of implementing the Mitigating Strategies and Spent Fuel Pool 

Instrumentation Order and continued implementation of the Severe Accident-Capable 

Hardened Vents Order. Resources will also support reviews of licensee responses to 

the requests for information associated with seismic and flooding hazard reevaluations 

and emergency preparedness. Appropriate regulatory actions will continue for the 

remaining Tier 2 and Tier 3 recommendations.

• Complete 900 licensing actions, including the review of approximately seven power 

uprates and approximately three ongoing NFPA-805 licensing actions for the 

approximately 31 reactors that will be transitioning to a risk-informed, 

performance-based set of fire protection requirements.

• Perform project management activities and ensure that operators are qualified and 

licensed to perform their duties for the existing 31 licensed operating RTRs and the 100 

power reactors.

• Review three applications for medical isotope production facilities, including the review 

of an operating license application for a medical isotope production facility. This will 
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 43

include conducting environmental and safety reviews of construction permits for two 

medical isotope production facilities and oversight of construction of a medical isotope 

production facility.

• Support 17 rulemaking activities (including the Decommissioning Rulemaking). 

• Complete 500 other licensing tasks and related activities, including Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 2.206 petitions, Task Interface Agreements, 

public hearings, preapplication reviews, and quality assurance and emergency plan 

reviews.

• Support KI replenishment that has been requested by 12 states.

• Support cybersecurity guidance development and program and policy development for 

full implementation of the cybersecurity program. 

• Support the assessment program to include baseline and Force-on-Force inspections.

• Conduct research activities on: (1) seismic and structural issues, (2) fire safety, 

(3) probabilistic risk assessment, (4) digital instrumentation and control equipment, 

(4) technical basis development for subsequent license renewal, (5) materials 

performance, (6) probabilistic assessment of reactor component integrity, (7) aging 

management of operating reactors, (8) fuel performance, (9) codes and standards, 

(10) development and maintenance of analytical tools that support radiation protection 

and health studies, as well as risk, severe accident, consequence, and thermal-hydraulic 

assessments, (11) evaluation of operational experience, (12) evaluation of generic 

issues, (13) environmental transport, and (14) human factors. 

• Satisfy international treaty and convention obligations, as well as statutory 

mandates. This includes serving as the U.S. lead for implementing the Convention on 

Nuclear Safety; leading and/or contributing to multilateral efforts on key nuclear safety 

and security issues; and ensuring appropriate representation at U.S.-led interagency 

initiatives.

• Support a wide range of cooperative programs, including, participating in international 

nuclear safety peer review missions (e.g., Integrated Regulatory Review Service) and 

exchanging information, including regulatory best practices, with established 

counterparts bilaterally and multilaterally to mutually enhance our respective programs, 

as well as participating and/or providing leadership in international nuclear safety 

research activities.

OTHER INDICATORS

LICENSING

Number of License Renewal Applications (Units) on which Final Decision Has Been Made (OR-01)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 1 2 0 7** 7 7

Actual 2 None* 0 5***

*Final decisions for license renewal applications were delayed throughout FY 2013 and FY 2014 because of the Waste 

Confidence Decision.

**FY 2015 Congressional Budget Justification target was shown as 9 in error. 

***Byron 1 and 2 and Braidwood 1 and 2 rescheduled for FY 2016. 
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 44

Number of Licensing Actions Completed* (OR-02)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 950 950 900 900 900 900

Actual 770** 668*** 607  792** ***

*As limited by the number of licensing action requests submitted or accepted the previous FY.

**802 license amendment requests were submitted in FY 2012.

***936 license amendment requests were submitted in FY 2013.

 737 license amendment requests were submitted in FY 2014.

** ***736 license amendment requests were submitted in FY 2015. 

Percentage of Licensing Actions Completed in 1 Year or Less* (OR-03)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 95 95 95 95 95 95

Actual 95.8 95 87** 88**

*Excludes improved standard technical specifications (STS) conversions, licensing actions associated with the Fukushima Near‐

Term Task Force (NTTF) recommendations (beginning in FY 2014), and power uprates. Also excludes license amendment 

requests that are unusually complex.

**Because of redirection of resources to process the Fukushima-related licensing actions and other licensing tasks, which have 

completion schedules extending into 2017, the indicator target was not met. The NRC has developed a staffing strategy to 

identify resources and critical skills needed to address the gap between the budgeted number of staff and those who are

currently on board.

Percentage of Licensing Actions Completed in 2 Years or Less* (OR-04)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 99.9 100 99** 99**

*Excludes improved STS conversions, licensing actions associated with the Fukushima NTTF recommendations (beginning in 

FY 2014), and power uprates. Also excludes license amendment requests that are unusually complex.

**Because of redirection of resources to process the Fukushima-related licensing actions and other licensing tasks, which both 

also have completion schedules extending into 2017, the indicator target was not met. The NRC has developed a staffing 

strategy to identify resources and critical skills needed to address the gap between the budgeted number of staff and those who 

are currently on board.

Percentage Increase in the 12-month Average Percent of Licensing Actions Less Than 1-Year Old for FY

2017 Compared with the Percent of Licensing Actions Less Than 1-Year Old on September 30, 2016 (OR05)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 2 2

Actual

This target will not apply if the inventory of licensing actions less than 1-year old on September 30 is 93 percent or greater.

Number of Other Licensing Tasks Completed* (OR-06)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 600 600 500 500 500 500

Actual 674** 529*** 765  461** ***

*As limited by the number of other licensing task requests submitted or accepted the previous FY.

**577 other licensing tasks submitted in FY 2012.

***1,002 other licensing tasks submitted in FY 2013.

 577 other licensing tasks submitted in FY 2014.

** ***599 other licensing tasks submitted in FY 2015. 
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 45

Percentage of Other Licensing Tasks Completed in 1 Year or Less* (OR-07)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 90 90 90 90 90 60**

Actual 94.6 97.6 87 87

*Excludes multiplant actions, licensing tasks associated with the Fukushima NTTF recommendations (beginning in FY 2014), 

and other unusually complex licensing tasks. 

**Because of redirection of resources to process the Fukushima-related licensing actions and other licensing tasks, which also 

have completion schedules extending into 2017, the indicator target was not met. The NRC has developed a staffing strategy to 

identify resources and critical skills needed to address the gap between the budgeted number of staff and those who are

currently on board.

Percentage of Other Licensing Tasks Completed in 2 Years or Less* (OR-08)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 99** 97**

*Excludes multiplant actions, licensing tasks associated with the Fukushima NTTF recommendations (beginning in FY 2014), 

and other unusually complex licensing tasks.

** Because of redirection of resources to process the Fukushima-related licensing actions and other licensing tasks, which also 

have completion schedules extending into 2017, the indicator target was not met. The NRC has developed a staffing strategy to 

identify resources and critical skills needed to address the gap between the budgeted number of staff and those who are

currently on board.

Percentage Increase in the 12-month Average Percent of Other Licensing Tasks less than 1-Year old for 

FY 2017 Compared with the Percent of Other Licensing Tasks Less Than 1-Year old on September 30, 2016

(OR-09)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 2 2

Actual

This target will not apply if the inventory of licensing actions less than 1-year old on September 30, 2016, is 88 percent or 

greater.

Number of Initial Operator Licensing Examination Sessions (OR-10)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 55 55 55 53** 46** 47**

Actual 49* 55 55 42***

*There were only 49 requests for initial operator licensing examination sessions for FY 2012. 

**Targets are based upon the nuclear industry’s projected demand for initial operator licensing examination sessions. 

***Only 42 requests for examination sessions were received in FY 2015. 

Number of Generic Fundamentals Examination Sessions Administered (OR-11)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 4 4 4 4 4 2*

Actual 4 4 4 4

*Targets are based upon the nuclear industry’s projected demand for generic fundamentals examination sessions. 
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 46

OVERSIGHT

Number of Plants for which All Required Baseline Inspection Procedures Are Completed* (OR-12)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 104 104 100 99*** 100  100

Actual 104 100**  100 99

*The baseline inspection program metric includes the number of reactors in operation.

**100 operating reactors in FY 2013; four entered the decommissioning phase.

***A 5th operating reactor entered the decommissioning phase at the beginning of FY 2015.

****The increase from 99 to 100 accounts for the startup operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, in FY 2016.

Percentage of Final Significance Determinations Made within 90 Days for All Potentially 

Greater-Than-Green Findings (OR-13)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 90* 90 90 90 90 90

Actual 100 100 86** 88***

*Target mistakenly reported to be 100% in 2012 Congressional Budget Justification. 

**Target was exceeded by 1 day because of one especially complicated issue. 

***Target not met because of the complexity of the flooding issues associated with Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2.

Percentage of Technical Allegation Reviews Completed in 150 Days or Less (OR-14)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 90 90 90 90 90 90

Actual 98 95 97 98

Percentage of Technical Allegation Reviews Completed in 180 Days or Less (OR-15)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 95 95 95 95 95 95

Actual 99 99 99 99

Percentage of Technical Allegation Reviews Completed in 360 Days or Less (OR-16)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100

Percentage of Enforcement Actions Where No Investigation Is Involved, Completed in 160 Days or Less

(OR-17)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 87*

*Increased sensitivity and early identification of inspection and enforcement cases that are likely to involve complex technical 

analyses or differing views amongst various program offices. Staff will collaborate to identify challenges in resolving such issues. 

In FY 2015, three cases missed the metric.
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 47

Percentage of Enforcement Actions Where Investigation Is Involved, Completed in 330 Days or Less 

(OR-18)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 86*

*Increased sensitivity and early identification of inspection and enforcement cases that are likely to involve complex technical 

analyses or differing views amongst various program offices. Staff will collaborate to identify challenges in resolving such issues. 

In FY 2015, once case missed the metric.

Percentage of Investigations That Developed Sufficient Information To Reach a Conclusion Regarding 

Wrongdoing, Completed in 12 Months or Less*** (OR-19)

FY 2012* FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 80 80 80 80 80 80

Actual 89 61** 84 98

*Target for FY 2012 was 10 months or less and for FY 2013 and FY 2014, it was 9 months or less. 

**The metric was challenged because of several high profile cases, workload of agents, and large turnover of staff working on these

cases.

***The increase of time from 9 to 12 months is a reflection of implementing added quality assurance checks during an investigation 

and to ensure that due professional care is used in conducting investigations and preparing related reports, as outlined in the 

Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Quality Standards for Investigations. Additionally, the Office of 

Investigations has implemented a more robust mentoring program with specialized training and development strategies because of 

high turnover through mandatory retirements of over 50% of Special Agents and Special Agents in Charge during FY 2013, FY 

2014, and FY 2015. 

Percentage of Investigations in Time To Initiate Civil and/or Criminal Enforcement Action (OR-20)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100

RULEMAKING

Percentage of Proposed Final Rules Completed in Accordance with Schedules Approved by the 

Commission (OR-21)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 80 80

Actual

RESEARCH

Percentage of Major Milestones for Critical Research Programs Completed on or Before Their Due Date* 

(OR-22)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 90 90 90 90 90 90

Actual 100 100 100 100

*Critical research programs typically respond to high-priority needs from the Commission and the NRC’s licensing organizations. 

Critical research programs will be the highest priority needs identified at the beginning of each FY.
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 48

Combined Score on a Scale of 1–5 for the Technical Quality of Agency Research Technical Products*

(OR-23)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 3.5 3.5 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75

Actual 4.5 4.32 4.42 4.66

*The NRC has developed a process to measure the quality of research products on a 5‐point scale, using surveys of end‐users 

to determine the usability and value added to the products. As appropriate, the NRC will develop and add other mechanisms to 

this process to measure the quality of research products.

EVENT RESPONSE

Percentage Assessment of the Agency's Readiness to Respond to a Nuclear or Terrorist Emergency 

Situation, or Other Events of National Interest* (OR-24)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100

*This performance index provides a single overall performance indicator of the agency’s readiness to respond to a nuclear or 

terrorist emergency situation, or other events of national interest. The index measures several activities within the Incident 

Response Program that are critical to support the agency’s preparedness and response ability.

GENERIC HOMELAND SECURITY

Percentage of Team Advisories Issued within 24 hours of Notification (OR-25)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 90 90

Actual
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 49

NEW REACTORS

New Reactors by Product Line

(Dollars in Millions)

Product Line

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Licensing 76.7 305.1 70.8 294.8 (5.9) (10.3)

Oversight 28.3 151.6 28.2 151.3 (0.2) (0.3)

Rulemaking 1.8 9.7 1.6 8.9 (0.3) (0.8)

Research 7.2 14.9 11.0 20.4 3.7 5.4 

International Activities 1.8 9.7 1.8 9.5 0.0 (0.2)

Subtotal $115.9 491.0 $113.2 485.0 $(2.7) (6.0)

Corporate Support 55.4 131.9 56.6 129.6 1.3 (2.3)

Total $171.3 622.9 $169.9 614.6 $(1.4) (8.3)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The New Reactors Business Line is responsible for the regulatory activities associated with 

siting, licensing, and overseeing construction of new nuclear power reactors. The NRC reviews 

new nuclear power reactor design certification (DC), combined license (COL), and early site 

permit (ESP) applications, consistent with 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and 

Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” and industry’s projected plans and schedules. The NRC 

also reviews new nuclear power reactor construction permit and operating license applications,

consistent with 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

The new reactors activities ensure that new civilian nuclear power reactor facilities are

developed in a manner that protects the health and safety of the public and the environment and 

provides a high assurance of security.

The NRC has streamlined the application process for new reactors under 10 CFR Part 52. By 

issuing a COL, the NRC authorizes the licensee to construct and, with specified conditions, 

operate a nuclear power plant at a specific site. The application process regulated under 

10 CFR Part 50—which was implemented for all currently operating reactors—involves separate 

applications for the issuance of construction permits and operating licenses.

The NRC continues to perform technical reviews of large, light-water reactors (LLWRs) and 

provides oversight of construction activities. These activities include conducting inspections of 

plants under construction and of component suppliers. In addition, the NRC expects to begin 

reviewing small modular reactor (SMR) applications. The NRC continues to interact with 

vendors regarding prospective advanced reactor applications.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources decrease because of the projected completion of the review of the 

following three COL applications for LLWRs: Lee, Levy, and South Texas Project. Resources 

continue to decrease for the Bell Bend COL application review (U.S. Evolutionary Power 

Reactor [EPR] design), as the safety review is still on hold due to applicant resource constraints, 
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 50

and the application for the Calvert Cliffs COL (U.S. EPR design) has been withdrawn by the 

applicant. FY 2017 resources will support ongoing reviews of the Advanced Power Reactor 

(APR)-1400 and US-Advanced Pressurized-Water Reactor (APWR) DC applications, as well as 

the start of the NuScale SMR DC application review. Resources will also support the ongoing 

review of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Clinch River SMR ESP application and 

activities related to the development of regulatory infrastructure for advanced nuclear 

technologies. Resources also decrease because of the anticipated completion of several 

activities associated with LLWR and SMR reviews, such as the adaptive automation long-term 

research project and the majority of the work for effluent modeling for SMRs, the control room 

habitability analysis computer code update, and the majority of the thermal-hydraulics and 

severe accident model development for the APR-1400 LLWR and one SMR design.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES

The major activities within the New Reactors Business Line include the following:

• Continue ongoing review of three COL applications (North Anna, Turkey Point, and Bell 

Bend), funded at a rate commensurate with applicant requests.

• Continue ongoing review of two DC applications (US-APWR and APR-1400) and begin 

the review of one SMR DC application (NuScale).

• Continue ongoing review of one DC renewal application (GE-Hitachi Advanced BoilingWater Reactor [ABWR]) and begin the review of a second DC renewal application 

(Toshiba ABWR).

• Continue ongoing review of one SMR ESP application (TVA Clinch River) and begin the 

review of one LLWR ESP application (Blue Castle).

• Accelerate research and development activities to prepare for effective and efficient 

reviews of advanced reactor technologies. This would include licensing infrastructure 

revisions, technical preparation, and outreach to stakeholders.

• Review license amendments for post-COL activities. The NRC anticipates that a 

significant percentage of amendments will be for important or significant design changes 

associated with resolving first-of-a-kind construction issues.

• Perform construction inspection activities at the four reactors under construction (Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plants, Units 3 and 4, and Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 and 3).

• Conduct inspections of vendors supplying products and services for new reactors and 

support the continued implementation of a formal agencywide program to monitor and 

evaluate counterfeit, fraudulent, and suspect items.

• Continue to support the 10 CFR Part 50 rulemaking to amend financial qualification 

requirements for reactor licensing to reduce the regulatory burdens for merchant plant 

applicants.

• Provide research support for LLWR and SMR DC reviews and analysis, including the 

development of new reactor plant risk models, seismic and structural engineering 

reviews, independent assessment of flooding hazards, independent assessment of 

thermal-hydraulics system responses and severe accidents, digital instrumentation and 

control capabilities, revised dose coefficients to align the NRC’s dose methodology with 

the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and control room 

habitability. Resources also support the development of guidance for human factors 

reviews, the technical basis for materials performance and component integrity issues, 

and efforts to maintain existing codes and models.
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 51

• Provide international support for the continued participation in the Multinational Design 

Evaluation Program, which will continue international exchanges of licensing and 

construction inspection activities that will potentially enhance safety at U.S. sites.

• Continue to implement strategic bilateral cooperation with countries on the regulatory 

oversight of construction of AP1000 reactors. The program also supports International 

Atomic Energy Agency activities related to generic SMR issues and Nuclear Energy 

Agency activities related to advanced reactor designs.

OTHER INDICATORS

LICENSING

Review ESP Applications on the Schedules Negotiated with the Applicants (NR-01)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

Review 

Victoria

and PSEG

applications.*

Continue 

Victoria

and PSEG 

reviews. 

Begin

review of Blue

Castle and

Callaway 

applications.***

Continue

Victoria and

PSEG 

reviews.

Continue 

PSEG

ESP 

application

review and 

begin

reviewing 

Blue

Castle ESP

application.*** Discontinued**

Actual

Continued

review of the

PSEG ESP

application. 

The

Victoria 

County

ESP 

application

was 

withdrawn in 

August 2012.

Continued 

review

of the PSEG 

ESP

application. 

The

Victoria 

County

ESP 

application

was withdrawn 

in

August 2012.

Completed 

review

of the PSEG 

ESP

application. 

The

Victoria 

County

ESP 

application

was 

withdrawn in

August 2012.

All scheduled 

milestones 

completed.

*Change in previously reported FY 2012 caused by resource planning changes.

**Indicator replaced with “Percentage of early site permit review interim milestones completed on time” to provide an improved 

indication of accomplishment.

***The Blue Castle ESP applicant is experiencing delays in its development of an ESP application and currently plans to submit 

its application during FY 2017. The applicant for Callaway COL application requested to withdraw its application in August 2015 

and currently has no plans to develop an ESP application for the Callaway site.

Percentage of Early Site Permit Review Interim Milestones Completed on Time (NR-02)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 85 85

Actual
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 52

Review DC Applications on the Schedules Negotiated with the Applicants (NR-03)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

Complete

rulemaking

activities for

AP1000

amendment 

and

ESBWR and

ABWR AIA

amendment. 

Complete 

review

of U.S. EPR 

design.

Begin

rulemaking

activities for 

the U.S. EPR 

and the 

US-APWR.*

Begin review 

of KEPCO 

DC.

Complete

milestones

necessary to

support one

ABWR

DC renewal.

Complete

rulemaking 

for the EPR 

and the 

US-APWR.*

Continue 

review

of US-APWR,

KEPCO, and 

one ABWR 

DC renewal. 

Begin

milestones

necessary to

support the

second 

ABWR DC

renewal. 

Complete 

review of the 

U.S. EPR

design and

rulemaking. 

Continue

rulemaking 

activities for 

the 

US-APWR.

Complete

reviews of 

U.S. EPR and 

US-APWR

DC 

applications. 

Continue 

review of

one ABWR 

DC renewal

application. 

Begin review 

of second 

ABWR DC

renewal

application. Discontinued**

Actual

Completed

AP1000 DC

amendment 

and the 

ABWR

amendment. 

Continued the

ESBWR, 

U.S. EPR,

and 

US-APWR 

DC

application

reviews. 

Completed 

review of the 

DC 

application 

for the 

ESBWR 

design. 

Continued 

review of DC 

application 

for U.S. EPR 

design and 

(US-APWR) 

design. 

KEPCO DC 

application 

not accepted 

for review. 

All scheduled 

milestones 

completed.

*Change to previously reported FY 2012 and FY 2013 target is because of applicant’s inability to provide complete and timely 

submittals to allow the staff to complete safety reviews on the previously agreed-upon schedules, which has led to the need to 

revise completion dates associated with the ESBWR, U.S. EPR, and US-APWR.

**Indicator replaced with “Percentage of design certification review interim milestones completed on time” to provide an improved 

indication of accomplishment. 
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 53

Percentage of Design Certification Review Interim Milestones Completed on Time (NR-04)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 85 85

Actual

Review COL Applications on the Schedules Negotiated with the Applicants (NR-05)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

Complete

milestones

associated 

with

conducting 

10*

continuing 

COL

application

reviews.

Complete

milestones

associated 

with

conducting 

10

continuing 

COL

application

reviews.

Complete

milestones

associated 

with

conducting 

10

continuing 

COL

application

reviews.

Complete

milestones

associated 

with

the continued

review of 9 

COL

applications. Discontinued**

Actual

Completed

milestones

associated 

with

10 active 

COL

application

reviews. 

Continued 10

active COL

application

reviews. The

Harris COL

review was

suspended at 

the

applicant’s

request on 

May 2, 2013.

Completed

milestones

associated 

with

conducting 9

continuing 

COL

application

reviews. Bell 

Bend COL 

review 

suspended at 

applicant’s 

request in 

March 2014. 

Completed 

milestones for 

5 out of 6 

COL 

applications.

*Change to previously reported FY 2012 target because of resource planning changes. Excludes Watts Bar 2, Bellefonte 1, and 

Clinch‐River.

**Indicator replaced with “Percentage of COL applications for which milestones reviews of new 9 COLs are completed” to provide 

an improved indication of accomplishment. 

Percentage of Milestones for COL Application Reviews Completed in Accordance with the Schedules 

Agreed Upon with the Applicants (NR-06)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 85 85

Actual
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 54

Review Small Modular Reactor DC Applications on the Schedules Negotiated with the Applicants (NR-07)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

New 

indicator in 

FY 2013.

Complete

milestones

necessary to

support the

review of two

SMR DC 

applications.

Complete

milestones

necessary to

support the

review of two

SMR DC

Applications.

Complete

milestones

necessary to

support the

review of two

SMR DC

Applications. Discontinued*

Actual

Completed 

draft

designspecific

review 

standard

(DSRS), 

working

towards final

documentation 

to support the

mPower DC

review. 

Began

work on the 

draft

NuScale 

DSRS, which 

will support its

DC.

Completed 

draft or final 

sections of 

DSRS for 

both the 

mPower 

design and 

NuScale 

design.

No 

milestones 

established in 

FY 2015. 

*Indicator replaced with “Percentage of small modular reactor design certification review interim milestones completed on time” to 

provide an improved indication of accomplishment. 

Percentage of Interim Milestones for SMR DC Reviews That Are Completed in Accordance with the 

Schedules Agreed upon with the Applicants (NR-08)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 85 85

Actual
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 55

Identify and Resolve Policy and Key Technical Issues Facing the Review of SMR Applications; Implement 

Resolutions through Rule Changes or Guidance Development (NR-09)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

New 

indicator in

FY 2013

Complete 90% 

of

milestones

necessary to

support the

resolution of

policy and key 

technical 

issues.

In addition,

complete 90% 

of

milestones

necessary to

support

implementation 

of solutions.

Complete

100% of

milestones

necessary to

support the

resolution of

policy and key

technical 

issues.

In addition,

complete

milestones

necessary to

support

implementation

of resolutions.

Complete

100% of

milestones

necessary to

support the

resolution of

policy and key

technical 

issues.

In addition,

complete

milestones

necessary to

support

implementation

of resolutions.

Complete

100% of

milestones

necessary to

support the

resolution of

policy and key 

technical 

issues.

In addition,

complete

milestones

necessary to

support

implementation

of resolutions.

Complete

100% of

milestones

necessary to

support the

resolution of

policy and key

technical 

issues.

In addition,

complete

milestones

necessary to

support

implementation

of resolutions.

Actual

Policy and

technical 

issues

were identified

for the review 

of SMRs. The 

NRC 

developed a 

plan to

address 48

technical 

issues

by revising

Standard 

Review

Plan (SRP)

sections or to

create interim

staff guidance. 

Fifty

technical 

issues

were 

completed, 

achieving 

104%.

All milestones 

completed, as 

appropriate. 

All milestones 

completed, as 

appropriate. 
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 56

Review SMR Preapplication Submittals on the Schedules Agreed upon with the Applicants (NR-10)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

New indicator 

in FY 2013.

Begin 

preapplication

interactions 

with

prospective 

DC

applicants.

Complete

milestones

necessary to

support 

preapplication

activities for 

two DC 

applications.

Complete

milestones

necessary to

support 

preapplication

activities for 

two DC 

applications. Discontinued*

Actual

Continued 

preapplication

activities with

applicants.

Held 

preapplication 

meetings with 

SMR vendors 

to discuss 

technical 

topics 

associated 

with these 

designs. 

Conducted 

reviews of 

both technical 

and topical 

reports 

submitted by 

SMR vendors.

All milestones 

completed as 

appropriate.

*Indicator replaced with “Percentage of SMR preapplication review interim milestones completed on time for two DC applications” 

to provide an improved indication of accomplishment. 

Percentage of SMR Preapplication Review Interim Milestones Completed in Accordance with the Schedule 

Agreed upon with the Applicants for Two DC Applications (NR-11)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 85 85

Actual
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 57

Review SMR COL and Construction Permit Applications on the Schedules Negotiated with the 

Applicants (NR-12)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

New indicator 

in FY 2013

Complete

milestones

necessary to

support the

review of the

TVA 

construction

permit

application.

Complete

milestones

necessary to

support the

review of the

TVA 

construction

permit

application.

Complete

milestones

necessary to

support the

review of the

TVA 

construction

permit

application. Discontinued*

Actual

No 

applications

were 

submitted;

thus, the NRC 

did not 

develop any

interim 

schedule

milestones.

All milestones 

completed as 

appropriate.

All milestones 

completed as 

appropriate.

*Indicator replaced with “Percentage of SMR COL and construction permit applications review interim milestones completed on 

time” to provide an improved indication of accomplishment. 

Percentage of Interim Milestones for SMR COL and Construction Permit Application Reviews Completed in 

Accordance with the Schedule Agreed upon with the Applicants (NR-13)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 85 85

Actual

Percentage of License Amendment Reviews Completed on the Schedules Agreed upon with the Licensee 

(within NRC's control) (NR-14)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 85 85

Actual

OVERSIGHT

Number of Domestic and International Vendor Inspections Completed (NR-15)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 15 15 30 30 30 35

Actual 27 35 36 39

RULEMAKING

Percentage of Proposed Final Rules Completed in Accordance with the Schedule Approved by the 

Commission (NR-16)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 80 80

Actual
NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 58

RESEARCH

Timeliness of Completing Actions on Critical Research Program* (NR-17)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2015

90% of major

milestones 

met

on or before

their due date

90% of major

milestones 

met

on or before

their due date

90% of major

milestones 

met

on or before

their due date

Actual N/A**

*Critical research programs typically respond to high- priority needs from the Commission and the NRC’s licensing organizations. 

Critical research programs will be the highest priority needs identified at the beginning of each FY. 

**No critical research program actions completed in FY 2015. 

Acceptable Technical Quality of Agency Research Technical Products* (NR-18)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2015 3.75 3.75 3.75

Actual N/A**

*The NRC has developed a process to measure the quality of research products on a 5‐point scale, using surveys of end‐users 

to determine the usability and value added to the products. As appropriate, the NRC will develop and add other mechanisms to 

this process to measure the quality of research products.

**No technical quality surveys requested in FY 2015. 
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 59

NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety

(Dollars in Millions)

Business Line

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$ M FTE $ M FTE $ M FTE

Fuel Facilities 44.3 172.5 41.5 157.1 (2.9) (15.4)

Nuclear Materials Users 91.6 310.8 92.5 307.9 0.9 (2.9)

Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation 36.1 135.7 37.2 129.3 1.1 (6.5)

Decommissioning and LowLevel Waste 42.5 152.9 41.6 149.5 (1.0) (3.3)

Total $214.6 771.9 $212.8 743.8 $(1.8) (28.1)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety Program reflects the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC’s) effort to license, regulate, and oversee nuclear materials in a manner 

that adequately protects the public health and safety and the environment. This program 

provides assurance of physical security of the most risk-significant7 materials and waste and 

protection against radiological sabotage, theft, or diversion of nuclear materials. Through this 

program, the NRC regulates uranium processing and fuel facilities; research and pilot facilities; 

nuclear materials users (medical, industrial, research, and academic); and spent fuel storage; 

spent fuel and material transportation packaging, decontamination and decommissioning of 

facilities, and low-level and high-level radioactive waste. The program contributes to the NRC’s 

Safety and Security strategic goals through the activities of the Fuel Facilities, Nuclear Materials 

Users, and Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation and Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste 

(LLW) Business Lines.

Overall resources requested in the fiscal year (FY) 2017 budget for the Nuclear Materials and 

Waste Safety Program are $212.8 million, including 743.8 full-time equivalents (FTE). This 

funding level represents an overall funding decrease of $1.8 million, including a decrease of 

28.1 FTE, when compared with the FY 2016 Enacted budget.

 7 “Risk-significant” is defined as any unrecovered, lost, or abandoned sources that exceed the values listed in 

Appendix P, “Category 1 and 2 Radioactive Materials,” to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 110, 

“Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material.”

NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 61

FUEL FACILITIES

Fuel Facilities by Product Line

(Dollars in Millions)

Product Line

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Licensing 9.1 45.5 9.2 44.6 0.2 (0.9)

Oversight 11.7 59.3 10.8 53.4 (0.9) (5.9)

Rulemaking 2.6 13.3 1.6 8.6 (1.0) (4.7)

Research 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 (0.1) (0.5)

International Activities 1.8 9.7 1.8 9.9 0.1 0.2 

Generic Homeland Security 3.2 4.8 3.0 5.0 (0.2) 0.2 

Event Response 0.6 2.9 0.5 2.5 (0.1) (0.4)

Subtotal $29.0 136.0 $27.0 124.0 $(2.0) (12.0)

Corporate Support 15.3 36.5 14.5 33.1 (0.9) (3.4)

Total $44.3 172.5 $41.5 157.1 $(2.9) (15.4)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The Fuel Facilities Business Line activities ensure that fuel cycle facilities are licensed and 

operated in a manner that adequately protects the health and safety of the public and the 

environment and promotes the common defense and security. Once uranium ore has been 

mined and milled (extraction of uranium from the ore), it moves on to conversion, enrichment, 

and fuel fabrication facilities. Conversion of the uranium changes it into a form suitable for 

enrichment. The enrichment process converts the uranium to a level and type suitable for 

nuclear fuel used to make fuel assemblies for nuclear reactors.

The NRC licenses, oversees, and regulates fuel cycle facilities-—such as conversion, 

enrichment, and fuel fabrication facilities—as well as research and pilot facilities. The Fuel 

Facilities Business Line also provides licensing and oversight support for a number of additional 

licensees that possess greater-than-critical-mass quantities of special nuclear material (SNM),

such as universities and research and test facilities.

The NRC will continue to evaluate routine license amendments to support changes in the plans 

for construction of approved facilities and in the operation of existing licensed facilities. 

Licensed fuel facilities possess SNM, such as plutonium and enriched uranium. These SNM 

licensees verify and document their inventories and material transfers in the Nuclear Material 

Management and Safeguard System database. The Fuel Facilities Business Line activities also 

include the Nuclear Materials Information Program and the interagency agreement with the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for certification and accreditation of classified computer 

systems at enrichment facilities. Other activities include environmental, safety, security, 

safeguards, and emergency preparedness, licensing reviews; legal advice and representation; 

adjudicatory hearing-related activities; independent review and advice; inspection oversight; 
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 62

allegations and enforcement activities; rulemaking; international cooperation and assistance; 

International Atomic Energy Agency missions; export and import licensing; and treaties, 

agreements, and conventions.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources decrease primarily because of a declining workload in the Fuel Facilities 

Oversight Program; a reduction in Revised Fuel Cycle Oversight Process activities; the 

completion of the post-Fukushima Near-Term Task Force actions for fuel facilities (e.g., Generic 

Letter on Natural Phenomena Hazards); a slowdown in the rulemaking on Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 73, “Physical Protection of Plants and Materials,” and 

10 CFR Part 26, “Fitness for Duty Programs”; the completion of rulemakings in previous years 

(e.g., 10 CFR Part 74, “Material Control and Accounting of Special Nuclear Material”); and 

reductions or delays in licensing submittals (e.g., Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility).

MAJOR ACTIVITIES

The major activities within the Fuel Facilities Business Line include the following:

• Conduct licensing actions and inspection oversight for 13 conversion, enrichment, and 

fabrication facilities and one deconversion facility in the United States. 

• Support regulation of 14 smaller licensees, such as universities, test and research 

facilities under 10 CFR Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material.” 

• Conduct rulemakings in security-related areas, including enhanced security at fuel cycle 

facilities and cybersecurity.

• Implement international treaty obligations in accordance with the Treaty on the 

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the U.S. International Atomic Energy Agency 

Safeguards Agreement, and the U.S. additional protocol for all NRC licensees.

• Conduct inspections, force-on-force, and readiness reviews. 

• Perform activities that support the NRC’s work with international counterparts, including 

obligation tracking reviews, approvals, and treaty compliance activities; import/export 

license application reviews; DOE 10 CFR Part 810, “Assistance to Foreign Atomic 

Energy Activities,” import/export of technology and equipment reviews; and bilateral 

visits regarding physical protection with other countries possessing or obtaining SNM of 

U.S. origin.

• Support the Nuclear Material Management and Safeguard System database, the 

Nuclear Materials Information Program, and a contract with the U.S. Department of the 

Army to monitor the domestic transport of classified technology.
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 63

OTHER INDICATORS

LICENSING

Percentage of "Complex" Fuel Cycle Licensing Actions Completed on a Timely Basis in 1.5 Years or Less 

from the Date of Acceptance, Excluding Request for Additional Information with an Assumption of 30‐Day 

Response to a Request for Additional Information (FF-01)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 Discontinued ***

Actual 96* 93** 100

*The late licensing action resulted from the management decision to focus on higher priority licensing work, the complex nature 

of the safety and environmental reviews, extensive stakeholder interactions, and changes in the depth and detail of the safety 

evaluation report. The staff developed and implemented lessons learned to improve the process for license renewal reviews and 

other significant licensing actions.

**For FY 2013, five complex licensing actions missed the timeliness metric. One complex licensing action (Babcock & Wilcox 

Nuclear Operations Group license amendment) was completed in the first quarter and four others (Honeywell Pond closure 

request and license renewals for National Institute of Standards and Technology, Purdue University, and Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute) were completed in the fourth quarter.

***Indicator discontinued in FY 2015 and replaced with the new indicator “Complete Fuel Cycle and Safety Safeguards Licensing 

Reviews within Timeliness Goals” (below) to be more consistent with licensing metrics reported in the Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation, Material Users, and Operating Reactors business lines.

Percentage of Fuel Cycle Licensing Reviews Completed in 150 Days or Less 

(FF-04)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2015 80 80 80

Actual 77*

*Eleven licensing actions exceeded the 150-day performance metric, because of challenging licensing issues requiring 

significant effort to complete. Mitigation strategies include sharing lessons learned, evaluating the licensing tracking process to 

determine if changes are needed, and increasing management oversight. 

Percentage of Fuel Cycle Licensing Reviews Completed in 1.5 Years or Less

(FF-05)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2015 100 100 100

Actual 98*

*One licensing action exceeded the 1.5-year metric because the licensee significantly expanded the scope of the original review 

after the licensing application was accepted. Mitigation strategies include reviewing the Licensing Handbook to determine if 

guidance is sufficient and updating it, if necessary; sharing lessons learned; and informing licensees that due dates are extended 

due to significant changes in scope of the originally requested licensing action. 

OVERSIGHT

Percentage of Technical Allegation Reviews Completed in 150 Days or Less (FF-06)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 90 90 90 90 90 90

Actual 94 100 95 100
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 64

Percentage of Technical Allegation Reviews Completed in 180 Days or Less (FF-07)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 95 95 95 95 95 95

Actual 97 100 97 100

Percentage of Technical Allegation Reviews Completed in 360 Days or Less (FF-08)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 97* 100 97** 100

*Allegations referred to Office of Enforcement (OE) by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) were misplaced by OE in mid‐

October 2010, resulting in extensive delay (13+ months) in allegation processing. In January 2012, the package from OIG was 

found and reassigned to Region II. Region II allegations were closed in February 2012. After discovery, the OE Allegation 

Program staff discussed the occurrence with OIG, RII, and the agency’s Office Allegation Coordinators. The OE Director

prepared a memo to all OE staff reminding them of the event, of their responsibilities, and of the actions required to prevent

recurrence.

**One allegation was open for 395 days; therefore, the business line did not comply with the allegation timeliness metric of 

closing 100 percent of all allegations in 360 days. The staff believes the delay could have been avoided with better 

administrative control and tracking. The NRC is developing a process to prevent recurrence. 

Percentage of Operating Fuel Facilities for which the Core Inspection Program Was Completed as Planned 

During the Most Recently Ended Inspection Cycle (FF-09)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

New indicator 

in FY 2013 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100

EVENT RESPONSE

Percentage Assessment of the Agency's Readiness to Respond to a Nuclear or Terrorist Emergency 

Situation, or Other Events of National Interest* (FF-10)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2015 100 100 100

Actual 100

*This performance index provides a single overall performance indicator of the agency’s readiness to respond to a nuclear or 

terrorist emergency situation, or other event of national interest. The index measures several activities within the Incident 

Response Program that are critical to support the agency’s preparedness and response ability.

GENERIC HOMELAND SECURITY

Percentage of Team Advisories Issued within 24 Hours of Notification (FF-11)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 90 90

Actual
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 65

NUCLEAR MATERIALS USERS

Nuclear Materials Users by Product Line

(Dollars in Millions)

Product Line

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Licensing 12.2 61.1 12.9 61.6 0.7 0.5 

Oversight 16.9 81.0 17.8 80.3 0.9 (0.7)

Rulemaking 0.7 3.9 2.0 10.2 1.2 6.4 

Research 0.9 2.4 0.2 1.2 (0.7) (1.2)

International Activities 12.1 28.3 10.0 24.5 (2.1) (3.8)

Generic Homeland Security 12.4 22.7 12.0 19.1 (0.4) (3.6)

Event Response 0.8 4.4 0.9 4.7 0.1 0.4 

State, Tribal and Federal 

Programs 7.9 41.2 8.3 41.3 0.4 0.2 

Subtotal $64.0 245.0 $64.2 243.0 $0.2 (2.0)

Corporate Support 27.6 65.8 28.4 64.9 0.7 (0.9)

Total $91.6 310.8 $92.5 307.9 $0.9 (2.9)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The Nuclear Materials Users Business Line activities support the licensing, inspection, event 

evaluation, research, incident response, allegations review, enforcement, import/export 

authorizations, rulemaking activities, and major information technology systems to maintain the 

regulatory safety and security infrastructure needed to process and handle nuclear materials. 

At present, there are 37 Agreement States for which the NRC has programmatic oversight 

responsibility to periodically review actions to ensure adequacy and compatibility.

The Nuclear Materials Users Business Line security activities include the implementation and 

operation of a national registry to improve control of radioactive sources of concern8 and to 

prevent their malevolent use. The Integrated Source Management Portfolio has integrated 

three core systems consisting of the National Source Tracking System, Web-Based Licensing, 

and the License Verification System. The systems license and track sources and other 

radioactive materials through one management mechanism. Security activities also include 

conducting inspections at materials facilities with radioactive materials in quantities of concern, 

and prelicensing inspections of new materials license applicants.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources decrease for the Nuclear Materials Users Business Line. The primary 

drivers for this change are: reductions in discretionary activities supporting the refinement and 

 8 “Radioactive sources of concern” refers to sources with quantities of radioactive material meeting or exceeding the 

Category 1 and Category 2 activity levels contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 37,

“Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Materials.”
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 66

promotion of the National Source Tracking System, Web-Based Licensing System, License 

Verification System, and Portfolio Enrollment Module; reduction in information technology 

support for these systems; and an overall reduction in cooperative international activities. In 

FY 2016, multiple rulemakings were delayed, resulting in a drop in resources for rulemaking; 

FY 2017 resources provide for the resumption of these rulemaking activities.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES

The major activities within the Nuclear Materials Users Business Line include the following:

• Support the completion of approximately 2,000 materials licensing actions (new 

applications, amendments, renewals, and terminations).

• Complete approximately 900 routine health and safety inspections, as well as reciprocity

and reactive inspections, and the registration and follow-up inspection program for 

certain general licensees.

• Support approved rulemakings, as well as continued liaison work with stakeholders and 

professional societies to develop new codes and consensus standards and to address 

petitions for rulemaking submitted to the agency.

• Oversee and support the Agreement States’ regulation of approximately 21,000 specific 

and 150,000 general licenses; conduct nine Integrated Materials Performance 

Evaluation Program reviews; and review 50 Agreement State incidents and events.

• Implement outreach, information exchanges, consultations, and related activities in 

support of the Tribal Liaison Program.

• Support security coordination and liaison for homeland security regulatory improvement 

initiatives, control and tracking of imports and exports of sources, and the development 

and implementation of the integrated source management portfolio.

• Perform a program review to provide an objective assessment of the 10 CFR Part 37 

rule, the clarity of the rule language, and the ability of industry to implement the rule.

• Satisfy international treaty and convention obligations, as well as statutory 

mandates. This includes but is not limited to serving as the U.S. lead for implementing 

the Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources and supporting 

a wide range of cooperative programs to exchange information with established 

regulatory counterparts bilaterally and multilaterally to mutually enhance the agency’s 

respective programs.

• Support a range of assistance programs and activities to help foreign regulatory 

counterparts develop or enhance their national regulatory infrastructures and programs 

and strengthen controls over radioactive sources, consistent with the Code of 

Conduct. Assistance activities are conducted both bilaterally and multilaterally, primarily 

through the International Atomic Energy Agency.

OTHER INDICATORS

LICENSING

Percentage of Licensing Application Reviews for New Materials Licenses and License Amendments 

Completed in 90 Days or Less (NM-01)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 90 92 92 92 92 92

Actual 97 96 94 95
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 67

Percentage of Licensing Application Reviews for New Materials Licenses and License Amendments 

Completed in 2 Years or Less (NM-02)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100

Percentage of Licensing Application Reviews for Materials License Renewals and Sealed Source and 

Devices Completed in 180 Days or Less (NM-03)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 92 92 92 92 92 92

Actual 98 97 93 94

Percentage of Licensing Application Reviews for Materials License Renewals and Sealed Source and 

Devices Completed in 2 Years or Less (NM-04)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100

OVERSIGHT

Percentage of Safety Inspections of Materials Licensees Completed on Time (NM-05)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 98 98 98 98 98 98

Actual 99 99 100 99

Percentage of Technical Allegation Reviews Completed in 150 Days or Less (NM-06)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 90 90 90 90 90 90

Actual 93 93 97 96

Percentage of Technical Allegation Reviews Completed in 180 Days or Less (NM-07)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 95 95 95 95 95 95

Actual 98 97 97 100

Percentage of Technical Allegation Reviews Completed in 360 Days or Less* (NM-08)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100

*FY 2015 Congressional Budget Justification erroneously lists FY 2012 through FY 2015 targets as 330 days. 

Percentage of Enforcement Actions Where No Investigation Is Involved, Completed in 160 Days or Less

(NM-09)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 68

Percentage of Enforcement Actions Where an Investigation Is Involved, Completed in 330 Days or Less 

(NM-10)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100

Percentage of Investigations That Developed Sufficient Information To Reach a Conclusion Regarding 

Wrongdoing Completed within 12 Months or Less* (NM-11)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 85 85 85 85 85 85

Actual 89 59** 90 95

*The Office of Investigations has implemented long‐term strategies to ensure all investigations are timely, thorough, of high 

quality, and conducted in accordance with professional investigative standards and guidelines. Due to the success of the actions 

taken in FY 2013, the business line met this metric in FY 2014. The FY 2016 Performance Budget erroneously listed this for 

FY 2014.

**Targets for FY 2012 were 10 months or less and for FY 2013 and FY 2014, the target was 9 months or less. The increase of 

time from 9 to 12 months is a reflection of implementing added quality assurance checks during an investigation and ensuring

that due professional care is used in conducting investigations and preparing related reports, as outlined in the Council of 

Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Quality Standards for Investigations. Additionally, the Office of Investigations has 

implemented a more robust mentoring program with specialized training and development strategies, because of high turnover 

through mandatory retirements of over 50% of Special Agents and Special Agents in Charge.

Percentage of Investigations Completed in Time To Initiate Civil Enforcement and/or Criminal Prosecution 

Action (NM-12)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100

RULEMAKING

Percentage of Proposed Final Rules Completed in Accordance with Schedules Approved by the 

Commission (NM-14)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 Discontinued* Discontinued*

Actual

*Indicator discontinued due the small number of anticipated rulemakings, reducing the value of this metric. 

RESEARCH

Percentage of Major Milestones for Critical Research Programs Completed on or Before Their Due Date* 

(NM-15)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 90 90 90 90 90 90

Actual N/A** N/A** 100 N/A**

*Critical research programs typically respond to high-priority needs from the Commission and the NRC's licensing organizations. 

Critical research programs regarding the highest priority needs are identified at the beginning of the FY.

**There were no critical milestones associated with the research activities conducted in this business line in FY 2012, FY 2013,

or FY 2015. Thus, there are no performance data to report.
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 69

Combined Score on a Scale of 1 to 5 for the Technical Quality of Agency Research Technical Products* 

(NM-16)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 3.5 3.5 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75

Actual 4.5 N/A** 5.0 N/A**

*The NRC has developed a process to measure the quality of research products on a 5‐point scale, using surveys of end‐users 

to determine the usability and value added to the products. As appropriate, other mechanisms will be developed and added to 

this process to measure the quality of research products.

**No research products were produced for this business line during FY 2013 and FY 2015.

EVENT RESPONSE

Percentage Assessment of the Agency's Readiness to Respond to a Nuclear or Terrorist Emergency 

Situation or Other Event of National Interest (NM-17)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 100 100

Actual

GENERIC HOMELAND SECURITY

Percentage of Team Advisories Issued within 24 Hours of Notification (NM-18)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 90 90

Actual

STATE, TRIBAL, AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Percentage of Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program Review Reports Completed within 

30 Days of the Management Review Board Meeting (NM-20)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 85 85

Actual

NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 71

SPENT FUEL STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION 

Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation by Product Line

(Dollars in Millions)

Product Line

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$ M FTE $ M FTE $ M FTE

Licensing 12.3 56.3 14.7 64.3 2.3 8.0 

Oversight 3.3 18.7 2.6 14.5 (0.7) (4.2)

Rulemaking 5.4 25.0 3.1 11.9 (2.4) (13.1)

Research 2.3 4.1 4.2 7.8 1.9 3.7 

International Activities 0.6 2.3 0.8 3.6 0.2 1.3 

Generic Homeland Security 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 (0.1) (0.6)

Subtotal $24.0 107.0 $25.3 102.0 $1.3 (5.0)

Corporate Support 12.1 28.7 11.9 27.3 (0.2) (1.5)

Total $36.1 135.7 $37.2 129.3 $1.1 (6.5)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Business Line activities are conducted to ensure 

the safe and secure storage of spent fuel, along with the safe and secure transport of 

radioactive materials. The Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Business Line activities 

include conducting safety, security, and environmental reviews of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) 

storage casks and transportation packages and of independent spent fuel storage installation 

(ISFSI) license applications, including renewal applications and development and update of 

regulations and guidance; and conducting safety inspections of transportation packages, 

storage cask vendors and fabricators, ISFSI operations, and security inspections of ISFSIs and 

transportation.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources decrease primarily because of a delay in the ISFSI security rulemaking, 

and reductions in technical work related to extended storage, transportation, and ultimate 

disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. These decreases are partially

offset by increases for the review of license and certificate renewal applications; the safety, 

security, legal, and environmental review of an interim consolidated storage facility (ICSF) 

license application, or the technical and legal review of a DOE ICSF topical safety analysis 

report application; and the related rule and regulatory guidance documents.

MAJOR ACTIVITIES

The major activities within the Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Business Line include the 

following:

• Review approximately 65 amendments and license renewal applications for 

transportation packages; four radioactive material transportation package applications; 
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 72

and approximately 20 SNF storage applications to ensure the safe and secure storage

and transport of SNF and radioactive materials.

• Review license and certificate renewal applications; the technical, legal, and 

environmental review of an ICSF license application; or a DOE ICSF topical safety 

analysis report application.

• Complete 16 safety inspections of storage and transportation cask vendors, fabricators 

and designers, as well as ISFSI pad construction, dry-run operations, initial loading 

operations, and routine operations.

• Review security activities associated with radioactive material in quantities of concern

and transportation security route approvals. This includes special nuclear material 

transportation security plan approvals, transportation certification reviews, security 

reviews for onsite storage, issuing ISFSI security orders, and ISFSI security licensing 

reviews.

• Support spent fuel storage and transportation rulemakings and associated regulatory 

guidance documents.

• Coordinate with the International Atomic Energy Agency to compare regulatory 

frameworks, share research on storage and transportation matters, and harmonize the 

certification of transport packages and licensing of storage case designs with 

international standards.

• Support the SCALE criticality and shielding code development, maintenance, and 

training for use by staff to perform confirmatory safety reviews.

• Provide oversight of the development and implementation of the NRC’s safeguards and 

security inspection program for activities associated with stand-alone and co-located 

ISFSI facilities and decommissioned facilities with an ISFSI.

OTHER INDICATORS

LICENSING

Percentage of Storage Container and Installation Design Reviews Completed in 12.6 Months or Less 

(SF-01)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 80 80 80 80 80 80

Actual 71* 46** 94 84

*There were four requests for security exemptions at decommissioned ISFSI sites to address 10 CFR 73.55, “Requirements for 

Physical Protection of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors against Radiological Sabotage,” security requirements 

meant for operating reactors. The multipart exemption requests were large and very complex, requiring consensus among 

multiple offices. The NRC completed the final two in the 4th quarter with a timeliness rate of approximately 20 months.

**The business line completed 13 cases in FY 2015, with 7 of them exceeding the metric. Also, cases completed in the 4th 

quarter were the last of the active cases that had already exceeded the metric. As a result of their completion, and due to the 

success of corrective actions taken in FY 2013, the business line met the metric in FY 2014.

Percentage of Storage Container and Installation Design Reviews Completed in 2 Years or Less (SF-02)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 73

Percentage of Transportation Container Design Reviews Completed in 7.4 Months or Less (SF-03)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 80 80 80 80 80 80

Actual 96 89 96 90

Percentage of Transportation Container Design Reviews Completed in 2 Years or Less (SF-04)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100

OVERSIGHT

Number of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Inspections Completed (SF-06)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 16 16 16 16 16 16

Actual 19 18 18 19

RULEMAKING

Percentage of Proposed Final Rules Completed in Accordance with Schedules Approved by the 

Commission (SF-07)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016 Discontinued* Discontinued*

Actual

*Indicator discontinued due to the small number of anticipated rulemakings, reducing the value of this metric. 

RESEARCH

Percentage of Major Milestones for Critical Research Programs Completed on or before Their Due Date*

(SF-08)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 90 90 90 90 90 90

Actual N/A** N/A** N/A** N/A**

*Critical research programs typically respond to high-priority needs from the Commission and the NRC's licensing organizations. 

Critical research programs regarding the highest priority needs are identified at the beginning of the FY.

**There were no critical milestones associated with the research activities conducted in this business line in FY 2012, FY 2013, 

FY 2014, and FY 2015. User needs requests with the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research in this business line have been 

tracked at the office level. None of the milestones rises to agency-level tracking. Thus, there are no performance data to report.

Combined Score on a Scale of 1 to 5 for the Technical Quality of Agency Research Technical Products* 

(SF-09)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 3.5 3.5 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75

Actual 4.5 4.56 5.0 5.0

*The NRC has developed a process to measure the quality of research products on a 5‐point scale, using surveys of end‐users 

to determine the usability and value added to the products. As appropriate, other mechanisms will be developed and added to 

this process to measure the quality of research products.

NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 75

DECOMMISSIONING AND LOW-LEVEL WASTE

Decommissioning and Low-Level Waste by Product Line

(Dollars in Millions)

Product Line

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$ M FTE $ M FTE $ M FTE

Licensing 19.4 74.4 19.2 76.9 (0.2) 2.5 

Oversight 6.4 31.3 6.2 30.1 (0.2) (1.3)

Rulemaking 1.5 6.0 0.9 3.5 (0.6) (2.5)

Research 0.4 2.1 0.3 1.0 0.0 (1.1)

International Activities 1.3 6.7 1.3 6.5 0.0 (0.2)

Subtotal $28.9 120.5 $27.8 118.0 $(1.1) (2.5)

Corporate Support 13.6 32.4 13.8 31.5 0.2 (0.8)

Total $42.5 152.9 $41.6 149.5 $(1.0) (3.3)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The Decommissioning and LLW Business Line activities include the licensing and oversight of 

sites undergoing decommissioning, the licensing and oversight of new and operating uranium 

recovery facilities, and the oversight of the national LLW management program. They also 

include oversight of the DOE waste management activities at the Savannah River and Idaho 

Waste Incidental to Reprocessing (WIR) facilities consistent with the NRC’s responsibilities in 

the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Activities 

include interfacing with licensees, applicants, Federal and State agencies, the public, other 

stakeholders, and Native American Tribal Governments. 

Decommissioning is the safe removal of a nuclear facility from service and reduction of residual 

radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property and termination of the NRC license. 

The NRC rules for decommissioning establish site release criteria and provide for unrestricted 

and, under certain conditions, restricted release of a site. The NRC regulates the 

decommissioning of complex materials and fuel cycle facilities, power and early test reactors, 

research and test reactors, and uranium recovery facilities, with the ultimate goal of license 

termination.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources decrease primarily to reflect historical expenditures and current work 

requirements. This decrease is offset by increases for uranium recovery licensing actions to 

ensure that these operations are being conducted safely and in accordance with NRC 

regulations and research activities to support the application of analytical tools used in 

decommissioning and uranium recovery reviews.
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 76

MAJOR ACTIVITIES

The major activities within the Decommissioning and LLW Business Line include the following: 

• Conduct licensing reviews and oversight activities for decommissioning power reactors,

including Kewaunee Power Station; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 

and 3; Crystal River 3 Nuclear Power Plant; and Vermont Yankee, which have 

transitioned from the Operating Reactors Business Line to the Decommissioning and 

LLW Business Line.

• Conduct licensing reviews and decommissioning activities for 19 decommissioning 

power and early demonstration reactors, five research and test reactors, 16 complex 

materials sites, and 39 uranium recovery Title I and Title II facilities.

• Conduct research activities to support the application of analytical tools used in 

decommissioning reviews and support radon flux and barrier parameters at Uranium Mill 

Tailings Radiation Control Act sites.

• Support oversight and cleanup of approximately 30 commercial radium sites. Provide 

monitoring of military sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. Support licensing of 17 depleted uranium sites.

• Support 10 environmental and safety reviews including hearings for uranium recovery 

licensing applications, as well as licensing activities associated with 11 operating 

uranium recovery facilities.

• Conduct uranium recovery inspections at operating facilities and monitor the DOE waste 

management activities at the Savannah River and Idaho WIR facilities.

• Support rulemaking to revise the regulations for power reactors going through the 

decommissioning process.

• Support work on the In-Situ Leach rule (Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material”), including rule 

development, associated guidance development, and environmental reviews. 

OTHER INDICATORS

LICENSING

Percentage of Environmental Reviews and Environmental Review Documents Completed as Scheduled

(DL-01)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 77

Eliminate the Need for Some Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statements (i.e., by Reducing Resource 

Needs) by Developing a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Uranium Recovery Environmental 

Reviews* (DL-02)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

Projected 

Savings

of $450K and

0.7 FTE

Projected 

Savings

of $450K and

0.7 FTE

Replaced by new efficiency measure—“The use of resubmission

audits will reduce the time needed for completing safety

evaluation reports by 10 percent or 2.5 months.”

Actual

$773K and 

0 FTE

$773K and 

0.7 FTE

*Between FY 2008 and FY 2013, the staff expected to receive 18 in‐situ uranium recovery (ISR) license applications. The 

development of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) was expected to eliminate the need to develop site‐specific 

environmental impact statements (EISs) for some of these applications. Rather than developing a site‐specific EIS for each site,

the staff will be able to “tier off” the GEIS and, instead, rely on a less resource-intensive site-specific supplemental EIS to 

evaluate the environmental impacts of the ISR license request. The NRC issued the final GEIS in June 2009 on schedule.

Percentage of Time Saved in Completing Safety Evaluation Reports through Use of Presubmission Audits 

(DL-03)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2015 10* 10 10

Actual No data**

*Preliminary target; will undergo further development.

**Not enough licensing actions where conducting a presubmission audit was feasible. 

Time (Months) To Complete Safety Evaluation Reports Using Presubmission Audits (DL-04)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2015 2.5 Discontinued*

Actual No data*

*Indicator was deemed redundant with the indicator, “Percentage of Time Saved for Completing Safety Evaluation Reports 

through the Use of Pre-Submission Audits,” and required greater effort to track. 

Percentage of Licensing Actions Completed as Scheduled (DL-05)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target Yes Yes Yes Yes 90* 90

Actual Yes Yes Yes Yes

*Target changed to a percentage beginning in FY 2016 to provide a more informative indicator. 
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 78

OVERSIGHT

Provide Support to DOE for Waste Incidental To Reprocessing (WIR) Activities (DL-06)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

Complete WIR

review or

monitoring

plan and 

activities as

scheduled in the

Environmental

Protection and

Performance

Assessment

Operating Plan.

Complete WIR

review or

monitoring

plan and 

activities as

scheduled in the

Environmental

Protection and

Performance

Assessment

Operating Plan.

Complete WIR

review or

monitoring

plan and 

activities as

scheduled in the

Environmental

Protection and

Performance

Assessment

Operating Plan.

Complete WIR

review or

monitoring

plan and 

activities as

scheduled in the

Environmental

Protection and

Performance

Assessment

Operating Plan.

Discontinued*

Actual

Target met.

Completed 4 

WIR monitoring 

onsite 

observation 

visits at 3 sites, 

issued technical 

evaluation

reports for both 

the Savannah 

River Site 

Saltstone 

Disposal

Facility (SDF)

revised

performance 

assessment and 

the F‐Tank Farm 

draft waste

determination, 

and issued the 

technical

evaluation report

on the West 

Valley Melter 

Feed Tanks

draft waste

determination. 

Target met.

Continued

monitoring

activities for both

the SDF and 

F-Tank Farm at 

the Savannah 

River Site. 

Completed 

monitoring

activities, 

including 

issuing the 

revised SDF

monitoring plan

and observation

visits for both 

SDF and F Tank

Farm.

Target met.

Continued

monitoring

activities for both

SDF and F‐Tank

Farm at the

Savannah River 

Site. 

Target met.

*Indicator replaced with “Percentage of Completed WIR Review or Monitoring Plan and Activities as Scheduled in the 

Environmental Protection and Performance Assessment Operating Plan.”

Percentage of Review or Monitoring Plan Activities for WIR that Are Completed as Scheduled (DL-07)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator in FY 2016* 80 80

Actual

*Indicator revised to provide a better reflection of progress on WIR reviews. 
NUCLEAR MATERIALS AND WASTE SAFETY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 79

RESEARCH

Percentage of Major Milestones for Critical Research Programs Completed on or before Their Due Date*

(DL-08)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 90 90 90 90 90 90

Actual 100 N/A** N/A** N/A**

*Critical research programs typically respond to high-priority needs from the Commission and the NRC's licensing organizations. 

Critical research programs regarding the highest priority needs are identified at the beginning of the FY.

**There were no critical milestones associated with the research activities conducted in this business line in FY 2013, FY 2014, 

and FY 2015; thus, there are no performance data to report.

Combined Score on a Scale of 1 to 5 for the Technical Quality of Agency Research Technical Products* 

(DL-09)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 3.5 3.5 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75

Actual 4.5 N/A** N/A** 5.0

*The NRC has developed a process to measure the quality of research products on a 5‐point scale, using surveys of end‐users 

to determine the usability and value added to the products. As appropriate, other mechanisms will be developed and added to 

this process to measure the quality of research products.

** No research products produced for this business line during FY 2013 and FY 2014. 

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 81

INTEGRATED UNIVERSITY PROGRAM

Integrated University Program

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Integrated University Program $15.0 0.0 $0.0 0.0 $(15.0) 0.0 

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The Integrated University Program provided grants to academic institutions to support education 

in nuclear science and engineering. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has provided 

funding for university research and development as well as to fund multi-year research projects. 

Consistent, with the Administration’s Science, Technology, Engineering and Math education 

consolidation efforts, no funding for this program is included in the budget request.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 83

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was 

established as a statutory entity on April 15, 1989, in accordance with the 1988 amendments to 

the Inspector General Act. The OIG mission is to (1) independently and objectively conduct and 

supervise audits and investigations relating to NRC programs and operations, (2) prevent and 

detect fraud, waste, and abuse, and (3) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the 

NRC’s programs and operations. Starting in fiscal year (FY) 2014, the NRC’s OIG has 

exercised the same authorities with respect to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

(DNFSB) per the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014.

NRC OIG Budget Authority and Full-Time Equivalents

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2016

President’s Budget

FY 2017

Request

Changes from 

FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Program Support 1.363 1.482 0.119

Program Salaries 

and Benefits 10.773 63.0 10.647 63.0 (0.126) 0.0

Total $12.136 63.0 $12.129 63.0 ($0.007) 0.0

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The FY 2017 budget request for the NRC OIG is $12.129 million, which includes $10.647 million 

in salaries and benefits to support 63 full-time equivalent (FTE), and $1.482 million in program 

support. These resources will support Inspector General auditing and investigation functions for 

both the NRC, $11.160 million and the DNFSB, $.969 million, respectively.

In accordance with Office of Management and Budget requirements, OIG is showing the full 

cost associated with its programs for the FY 2017 budget with the following caveat: as a result 

of an October 1989 memorandum of understanding between the NRC’s Chief Financial Officer 

and the Inspector General and a subsequent amendment in March 1991, OIG no longer 

requests that funding for some OIG management and support services be included in the OIG 

appropriation. It was agreed that funds for OIG infrastructure requirements and other agency 

support services would instead be included in the NRC’s main appropriation. For the most part, 

these costs are not readily severable. Thus, this funding continues to be included in NRC’s 

main appropriation.

AUDITS PROGRAM

Audits Budget Authority

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2016

President’s Budget

FY 2017

Request

Changes from 

FY 2016

Summary $M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Program 

Support

8.103 41.0 8.106 41.0 0.003 0 .0

Total $8.103 41.0 $8.106 41.0 $0.003 0 .0

Numbers may not add due to rounding.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 84

The OIG Audits Program focuses on the agency’s management and financial operations; 

economy and efficiency with which an organization, program, or function is managed; and 

whether the programs achieve intended results. OIG auditors assess the degree to which an 

organization complies with laws, regulations, and internal policies in carrying out programs, and 

they test program effectiveness as well as the accuracy and reliability of financial statements. 

The overall objective of an audit is to identify ways to enhance agency operations and promote 

greater economy and efficiency.

For FY 2017, OIG requests $8.106 million and 41 FTE to carry out its Audits Program activities

for NRC and DNFSB programs. With these resources, the Audits Program will conduct 

approximately 22 audits and evaluations for the NRC. This will enable OIG to provide coverage 

of the NRC’s Nuclear Reactor Safety, Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety, Security, and 

Corporate Support programs. OIG’s assessment of these mission-critical programs will support 

the agency in accomplishing its goals to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety 

and the environment, and in the secure use and management of radioactive materials.

In addition, OIG will conduct approximately six audits and evaluations that will cover various 

DNFSB programs and operations. These assessments will support the DNFSB’s primary 

purpose of ensuring adequate protection of public health and safety in the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s defense nuclear facilities and operations.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

FY 2017 resources increased slightly in the Audits Program.

FY 2016–FY 2017 AUDITS PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES

• Ensure that 85 percent of the NRC’s completed audit products or activities will have a 

high impact on strengthening the NRC’s safety, security, and/or corporate management 

programs.

• Obtain NRC agreement on at least 92 percent of OIG audit recommendations. 

• Obtain final action on 70 percent of NRC and 50 percent of DNFSB OIG audit 

recommendations within 2 years. 

• Ensure that 60 percent of DNFSB audits undertaken are issued within a year.

SELECTED FY 2015 AUDITS PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In FY 2015, OIG issued 27 reports, 21 pertaining to NRC programs and operations and six 

pertaining to DNFSB programs and operations. These reports either evaluate high-risk agency 

programs or comply with mandatory audits pursuant to financial and computer security-related 

legislation. Additional information related to work performed may be found on the OIG Web Site 

at http://www.nrc.gov/insp-gen/pubs.html#Semi-Annual.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 85

INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM

Investigations Budget Authority

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2016

President’s Budget

FY 2017

Request

Changes from 

FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Program 

Support

$4.033 22.0 $4.023 22.0 ($0.010) 0.0 

Total $4.033 22.0 $4.023 22.0 ($0.010) 0.0 

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The OIG’s responsibility for detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse within the NRC 

and DNFSB includes investigating possible violations of criminal statutes relating to NRC and 

DNFSB programs and activities, investigating misconduct by NRC and DNFSB employees, 

interfacing with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on OIG-related criminal matters, and 

coordinating investigations and other OIG initiatives with Federal, State, and local investigative 

agencies and other OIGs. Investigations may be initiated as a result of allegations or referrals 

from private citizens; licensee employees; NRC and DNFSB employees; Congress; other 

Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies; OIG audits; the OIG hotline; and Inspector 

General initiatives directed at bearing a high potential for fraud, waste, and abuse.

For FY 2017, OIG requests $4.023 million and 22 FTE to carry out its Investigations Program 

activities for NRC and DNFSB programs. Reactive investigations into allegations of criminal 

and other wrongdoing will continue to claim priority on OIG’s use of available resources. The 

Investigations Program’s main concentration of effort and resources will involve investigations of

alleged NRC or DNFSB staff misconduct that could adversely impact matters related to the 

health and safety mission of the NRC and the DNFSB. OIG has also implemented a series of 

proactive initiatives designed to identify specific high-risk areas that are most vulnerable to 

fraud, waste, and abuse. With these resources, OIG will conduct approximately 60 

investigations at the NRC and approximately 5 investigations at DNFSB covering a broad range 

of allegations concerning misconduct and mismanagement affecting various NRC and DNFSB 

programs.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

FY 2017 resources decrease slightly in the Investigations Program.

FY 2016–FY 2017 INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES

• Ensure 85 percent of the NRC’s investigations or activities completed will have a high 

impact on strengthening the NRC’s safety, security, and/or corporate management 

programs. 

• Obtain 90 percent agency action in response to the NRC’s OIG investigative reports. 

• Complete 90 percent of NRC active cases in less than 18 months on average. 

• Refer at least 20 percent of the NRC’s closed investigations for criminal prosecution.

• Achieve a 60 percent success rate for judicial or administrative actions in response to 

the NRC’s OIG investigative reports.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 86

• Complete 85 percent of DNFSB active cases in less than 18 months on average. 

• Obtain 90 percent Board action taken in response to investigative reports.

SELECTED FY 2015 INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

In FY 2015, OIG completed 43 investigations. These investigative efforts focused on violations 

of law or misconduct by NRC employees and contractors and allegations of irregularities or 

inadequacies in NRC programs and operations. Additional information related to work 

performed may be found on the OIG Web Site at http://www.nrc.gov/insp-gen/pubs.html#SemiAnnual.

NRC OIG’S STRATEGIC GOALS, STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONS

The NRC OIG carries out its mission through its Audits and Investigations Programs. The NRC 

OIG Strategic Plan for FY 2014-2018 features three goals and guides the activities of these 

programs. The plan identifies the major challenges and risk areas facing the NRC and 

generally aligns with the agency’s mission. It also includes a number of supporting strategies 

and actions that describe OIG’s planned accomplishments over the strategic planning period. 

The NRC OIG strategic plan can be found in its entirety at the following address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/insp-gen/plandocs/strategic-plan.pdf.

To ensure that each NRC OIG audit and evaluation aligns with these three goals, program 

areas selected for audit and evaluation are included in the OIG Annual Plan after being cross 

walked against the NRC OIG Strategic Plan to ensure alignment with its office’s strategic goals. 

Furthermore, each OIG audit, evaluation, and investigation is informed by one or more of the 

most serious management and performance challenges facing the agency as identified by the 

Inspector General. The work performed by OIG auditors and investigators is mutually 

supportive and complementary in pursuit of these objectives. Below are the NRC OIG’s 

strategic goals and strategies covering this budget cycle.

NRC OIG STRATEGIC GOALS

Strategic Goal 1: Strengthen the NRC’s efforts to protect public health and safety and the 

environment (Safety).

The NRC will continue to face safety challenges in the years ahead related to nuclear reactor 

oversight, the regulation of nuclear materials, and the handling of nuclear waste. A significant 

concern for the NRC is regulating the safe operation of the Nation’s nuclear power plants 

through an established oversight process developed to verify that licensees identify and resolve 

safety issues before they adversely affect safe plant operation. The NRC is also challenged to 

address both domestic and international operating experience that informs regulatory activities. 

The NRC must address license amendment requests to increase the power generating capacity 

of specific commercial reactors, license renewal requests to extend reactor operations beyond 

set expiration dates, and the introduction of new technology such as new and advanced reactor 

designs.

In fulfilling its responsibilities to regulate nuclear materials, the NRC must ensure that its 

regulatory activities regarding nuclear materials and nuclear fuel cycle facilities adequately 

protect public health and safety. Moreover, the NRC’s regulatory activities concerning 

nuclear materials must protect against radiological sabotage and theft or diversion of these 
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 87

materials. The licensing of facilities (e.g., fuel fabrication) with new technologies poses 

additional challenges. The handling of nuclear waste includes both high-level and low-level 

waste. High-level radioactive waste is primarily in the form of spent fuel discharged from 

commercial nuclear power reactors. In the high-level waste area, the NRC oversees the 

potential licensing of new interim and permanent high-level waste facilities. Additional 

high-level waste issues include the oversight of interim storage of spent nuclear fuel both at 

and away from reactor sites, certification of storage and transport casks, and the oversight 

of the decommissioning of reactors and other nuclear sites. Low-level waste includes items 

that have become contaminated with radioactive materials or have become radioactive 

through exposure to neutron radiation. Low-level waste disposal occurs at commercially 

operated facilities that must be licensed by either the NRC or Agreement States. However, 

there are currently only four operating low-level waste disposal facilities in the United 

States. Below are the NRC OIG’s strategies to support the NRC in facing these and other 

safety-related challenges.

• Strategy 1-1: Identify risk areas associated with the NRC’s oversight of operating 

reactors, and conduct audits and investigations that lead to NRC program 

improvements.

• Strategy 1-2: Identify risk areas associated with the NRC’s oversight of the licensing 

and construction of new and advanced reactors, and conduct audits and investigations 

that lead to NRC program improvements.

• Strategy 1-3: Identify risk areas facing the NRC’s oversight of nuclear materials, and 

conduct audits and investigations that lead to NRC program improvements.

• Strategy 1-4: Identify risk areas associated with the NRC’s oversight of high-level and 

low-level waste, and conduct audits and investigations that lead to NRC program 

improvements.

Strategic Goal 2: Enhance the NRC’s efforts to increase security in response to an evolving 

threat environment (Security).

The NRC must ensure that nuclear power and materials licensees take adequate measures to 

protect their facilities against radiological sabotage. In a threat environment where adversaries’ 

tactics and capabilities rapidly evolve, the NRC faces the challenge of adapting to dynamic 

threats while also maintaining a stable security oversight regime commensurate with the 

agency’s mission as a fair and impartial regulator. In addition, the NRC aims to balance its 

security oversight obligations with a duty to share information with public stakeholders about 

threats to the Nation’s nuclear power and materials sectors. The NRC also plays a critical role 

in overseeing and supporting the emergency preparedness and incident response capabilities of 

nuclear power plant operators and the integration of their plans with government agencies in 

light of the prospect of natural disasters and terrorist threats. In addition, the NRC must protect 

its infrastructure and take the necessary steps to ensure that its staff, facilities, and information 

technology assets are adequately protected against projected threats and provide for the 

maintenance of operations.

The NRC has well-established inspection programs for evaluating the physical, information, and 

personnel security activities of nuclear power and materials licensees. However, the agency is 

currently developing regulatory guidance and an inspection program to evaluate the security of 

information technology used to operate nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities. This 

nascent cybersecurity program will face implementation challenges common to new inspection 

programs, such as communicating new requirements to licensees, conducting inspections in a 
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 88

consistent manner, and allocating sufficient resources to sustain the inspection program beyond 

its initial years. Cybersecurity also entails unique oversight challenges related to the mix of 

digital and analog systems at different nuclear power plants, as well as the need for the NRC to 

understand in depth how digital equipment upgrades will impact plant operations and security. 

Lastly, the complexity of digital systems and possible interfaces with licensees’ administrative, 

security, and operations systems requires that the NRC carefully test for vulnerabilities without 

compromising licensees’ digital networks. Below are the NRC OIG’s strategies to support the 

NRC in facing these and other security-related challenges.

• Strategy 2-1: Identify risk areas involved in effectively securing both new and operating 

nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel cycle facilities, and nuclear materials, and conduct 

audits and investigations that lead to NRC program improvements.

• Strategy 2-2: Identify risk areas associated with maintaining a secure infrastructure (i.e., 

physical security, personnel security, and information security), and conduct audits and 

investigations that lead to NRC program improvements.

• Strategy 2-3: Identify risks associated with emergency preparedness and incident 

response, and conduct audits and investigations that lead to NRC program 

improvements.

• Strategy 2-4: Identify risks associated with international activities related to security, and 

conduct audits and investigations that lead to NRC program improvements.

Strategic Goal 3: Increase the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness with which the NRC 

manages and exercises stewardship over its resources (Corporate Management).

The NRC faces significant challenges to efficiently, effectively, and economically manage its 

corporate resources within the parameters of a flat or declining budget. The NRC must continue 

to provide infrastructure and support to accomplish its regulatory mission while responding to 

changes in the Nation’s spent fuel policy, reliance on nuclear energy, and security threat 

environment. Addressing the corporate resource challenges of human capital, information 

management, and financial management will necessitate foresight and flexibility and a strategic 

approach to managing change during the strategic planning period. The NRC must mitigate the 

loss of retiring senior experts and managers by enhancing its knowledge management, 

lessons-learned, and training programs, along with attracting and retaining staff with the 

necessary competencies. The NRC also needs to continue upgrading and modernizing its 

information technology resources for employees and to support public access to the regulatory 

process. Finally, the agency needs to continue to improve its management and control over 

financial resources and procurement practices. 

The NRC will need to address changes caused by internal and external factors that will 

challenge the agency’s ability to achieve its goals efficiently and effectively. The OIG will target 

corporate management risk areas for audits and investigations, to fulfill its statutory 

responsibility to evaluate the agency’s financial management, and work with the NRC to identify 

and improve weaknesses. Below is the NRC OIG’s strategy to support the agency in mitigating 

these challenges.

• Strategy 3-1: Identify areas of corporate management risk within the NRC and conduct 

audits and investigations that lead to NRC program improvements.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 89

FY 2017 NRC OIG BUDGET RESOURCES LINKED TO STRATEGIC GOALS

The following table depicts the relationship of the Inspector General program and associated 

resource requirements to the NRC OIG strategic goals.

NRC OIG Budget Resources

Linked to OIG’s Strategic Goals

(Dollars in Millions)

Program Links to

Strategic 

Goals 

Strengthen NRC’s

Public Health & 

Safety Efforts

($M)

Enhance 

NRC’s Security 

Efforts

($M)

Improve NRC’s

Resource Stewardship 

Efforts

($M)

FY 2017 Programs ($11.160) 9

Audits

7.332 3.144 1.161 3.026

Investigations

3.828 1.485 0.637 1.706

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

NRC OIG PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES

NRC OIG Strategic Goal 1: Strengthen the NRC’s Efforts To Protect Public Health and Safety and the 

Environment

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Measure 1. Percentage of OIG products and activities10 undertaken to identify critical risk areas or 

management challenges11 relating to the improvement of the NRC’s safety programs.12

Target 85% 85%

Actual 100% 100%

Measure 2. Percentage of OIG products and activities that have a high impact13 on improving the NRC’s 

safety program.

Target 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%

Actual 89% 63%14 100% 100% TBD TBD

 9 The budget resources linked to the NRC OIG strategic goals does not include the $969,000 for the DNFSB.

10 OIG products are issued as OIG reports. For the Audits Program, these are audit reports and evaluations. For the 

Investigations Program, these are investigations, event inquiries, and special inquiries. Activities are the OIG hotline 

or proactive investigative reports.

11 Congress left the determination and threshold of what constitutes a most serious challenge to the discretion of the 

Inspectors General. As a result, OIG applied the following definition: Serious management challenges are missioncritical areas or programs that have a potential for a perennial weakness or vulnerability that, without substantial 

management attention, would seriously impact agency operations or strategic goals.

12 OIG product and activities are mostly in critical risk areas. Starting in FY 2014, this measure will no longer be 

tracked.

13 High impact is the effect of an issued report or activity undertaken that results in: (a) confirming risk areas or 

management challenges that caused the agency to take corrective action, (b) real dollar savings or reduced 

regulatory burden, (c) identifying significant wrongdoing by individuals that results in criminal or administrative action, 

(d) clearing an individual wrongly accused, or (e) identifying regulatory actions or oversight that may have contributed 

to the occurrence of a specific event or incident or resulted in a potential adverse impact on public health or safety.

14 Starting in FY 2010, a more rigorous standard was applied for the impact of investigations in the safety arena.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 90

NRC OIG Strategic Goal 1: Strengthen the NRC’s Efforts To Protect Public Health and Safety and the 

Environment

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Measure 3. Percentage of audit recommendations agreed to by agency.

Target 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92%

Actual 91%15 100% 36%16 86%* TBD TBD

Measure 4. Percentage of final agency actions taken within 2 years on audit recommendations.

Target 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

Actual 80% 80% 33%17 47%** TBD TBD

Measure 5. Percentage of agency actions taken in response to investigative reports.

Target 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

Actual 100% 100% 100% 100% TBD TBD

Measure 6. Percentage of active cases completed in less than 18 months on average.

Target 90%18 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Actual 100% 100% 50%19 50%*** TBD TBD

Measure 7. Percentage of closed investigations referred to DOJ or other relevant authorities.

Target 20%20 20% 20% 20%

Actual N/A N/A TBD TBD

Measure 8. Percentage of closed investigations resulting in indictments, convictions, civil suits or 

settlements, judgments, administrative actions or monetary results.

Target 60%21 60% 60% 60%

Actual 100% 100% TBD TBD

*The agency requires more than 90 days to resolve two of two recommendations on the audit of NRC’s oversight of active 

component aging. Subsequently all two recommendations have been resolved.

**The agency requires more than 2 years for final action on six of six recommendations on the audit of NRC’s oversight of industrial 

radiography. Final action has been completed in October 2015.

***Of two active investigative cases measured in the safety arena for the year, one case was closed in less than 18 months which 

resulted in an achievement rate of 50 percent.

 15 The agency required more than 90 days to resolve two of five recommendations on the Audit of the NRC’s 

Management of Licensee Commitments prior to resolution. Subsequently, all five recommendations have been 

resolved.

16 The agency required more than 90 days to resolve six of six recommendations on the Audit of the NRC’s 

Compliance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for 

Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” related to environmental impact statements. Subsequently, 

all six recommendations have been resolved.

17 The agency required more than 2 years for final action on one of four recommendations on the audit of the NRC’s 

issuance of general licenses. Final action has been completed in October 2014.

18 Starting in FY 2012, OIG will measure the percentage of active cases completed in less than 18 months on 

average.

19 Of the four active cases measured in the safety arena for the year, two cases were closed in less than 18 months,

which resulted in an achievement rate of 50 percent.

20 Starting in FY 2014, OIG will measure the percentage of closed investigations referred to DOJ or relevant 

administrative authority.

21 Starting in FY 2014, OIG will measure the percentage of closed investigations that resulted in an indictment, 

conviction, civil suit or settlement, judgment, administrative action, or monetary result.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 91

NRC OIG Strategic Goal 2: Enhance the NRC’s Efforts To Increase Security in Response to an Evolving 

Threat Environment

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Measure 1. Percentage of OIG products and activities undertaken to identify critical risk areas or 

management challenges relating to the improvement of the NRC’s security programs.22

Target 90% 90%

Actual 100% 100%

Measure 2. Percentage of OIG products and activities that have a high impact on improving the NRC’s 

security program.

Target 75% 75% 85%23 85% 85% 85%

Actual 100% 100% 100% 100% TBD TBD

Measure 3. Percentage of audit recommendations agreed to by the agency.

Target 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92%

Actual 96% 100% 100% 100% TBD TBD

Measure 4. Percentage of final agency actions taken within 2 years on audit recommendations.

Target 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

Actual 88% 93% 70% 82% TBD TBD

Measure 5. Percentage of agency actions taken in response to investigative reports.

Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Actual 100% 100% 100% 100% TBD TBD

Measure 6. Percentage of active cases completed in less than 18 months on average.

Target 90%24 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Actual 100% 33%25 75%26 100% TBD TBD

Measure 7. Percentage of closed investigations referred to DOJ or other relevant authorities.

Target 20%27 20% 20% 20%

Actual N/A N/A TBD TBD

Measure 8. Percentage of closed investigations resulting in indictments, convictions, civil suits or 

settlements, judgments, administrative actions or monetary results.

Target 60%28 60%` 60%` 60%

Actual 100% 100% TBD TBD

 

22 OIG products and activities are mostly in critical risk areas. Starting in FY 2014, this measure will no longer be 

tracked.

23 Starting in FY 2014, OIG will measure the percentage of OIG products and activities that have a high impact on 

improving the NRC’s security program at 85 percent.

24 Starting in FY 2012, OIG will measure the percentage of active cases completed in less than 18 months on 

average.

25 In the security arena, the complexity of the investigative cases resulted in several cases exceeding 18 months on 

average.

26 Of the four active cases measured in the security arena for the year, three cases were closed in less than 

18 months, which resulted in an achievement rate of 75 percent.

27 Starting in FY 2014, OIG will measure the percentage of closed investigations referred to the DOJ, State or local 

law enforcement officials, or relevant administrative authority.

28 Starting in FY 2014, OIG will measure the percentage of closed investigations that resulted in an indictment, 

conviction, civil suit or settlement, judgment, administrative action, or monetary result.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 92

NRC OIG Strategic Goal 3: Improve the Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness with Which the NRC 

Manages and Exercises Stewardship over Its Resources 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Measure 1. Percentage of OIG products and activities undertaken to identify critical risk areas or 

management challenges relating to the improvement of the NRC’s resources stewardship.29

Target 80% 80%

Actual 100% 100%

Measure 2. Percentage of OIG completed products and activities that have a high impact on improving 

Corporate Management Programs.

Target 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85%

Actual 85% 83%30 74%31 87% TBD TBD

Measure 3. Percentage of audit recommendations agreed to by the agency.

Target 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92%

Actual 100% 88%32 100% 100% TBD TBD

Measure 4. Percentage of final agency actions taken within 2 years on audit recommendations.

Target 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

Actual 86% 73% 90% 90% TBD TBD

Measure 5. Percentage of agency actions taken in response to investigative reports.

Target 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Actual 100% 100% 100% 100% TBD TBD

Measure 6. Percentage of active cases completed in less than 18 months on average.

Target 90%33 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Actual 96% 95% 91% 58%* TBD TBD

Measure 7. Percentage of closed investigations referred to DOJ or other relevant authorities.

Target 20%34 20% 20% 20%

Actual 27% 28% TBD TBD

Measure 8. Percentage of closed investigations resulting in indictments, convictions, civil suits or 

settlements, judgments, administrative actions or monetary results.

Target 60%35 60% 60% 60%

Actual 100% 73% TBD TBD

*In the corporate management arena, OIG needed more than 18 months to complete action cases on average for 18 of 31 cases.

 29 OIG products and activities are mostly in critical risk areas. Starting in FY 2014, this measure will no longer be 

tracked.

30 Starting in FY 2010, a more rigorous standard was applied for the impact of investigations in the corporate 

management arena.

31 Starting in FY 2010, a more rigorous standard was applied for the impact of investigations in the corporate 

management arena.

32 The agency needed more than 90 days to review the recommendations on the audit of the NRC’s contract 

administration of the Enterprise Project Management. The agency agreed to all recommendations.

33 Starting in FY 2012, OIG will measure the percentage of active cases completed in less than 18 months on 

average.

34 Starting in FY 2014, OIG will measure the percentage of closed investigations referred to the DOJ, State or local 

law enforcement officials, or relevant administrative authority.

35 Starting in FY 2014, OIG will measure the percentage of closed investigations that resulted in an indictment, 

conviction, civil suit or settlement, judgment, administrative action, or monetary result.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 93

VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION OF MEASURED VALUES AND PERFORMANCE

The OIG uses an automated management information system to capture program performance 

data for the Audits and Investigations Programs. The integrity of the system was thoroughly 

tested and validated before implementation. Reports generated by the system provide both 

detailed information and summary data. All system data are deemed reliable. 

PROGRAM EVALUATIONS (PEER REVIEWS)

An independent audit peer review performed in FY 2012 by the U.S. National Archives and 

Records Administration OIG found that the Audits Program’s system of quality control provided 

reasonable assurance that audits were conducted in accordance with applicable professional 

standards.

In addition, the Corporation for National and Community Service OIG conducted an independent 

investigative peer review in FY 2013 of the OIG Investigations Program. The program was 

found to be in compliance with quality standards established by the Council of the Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency and the Attorney General Guidelines for Offices of 

Inspectors General with Statutory Law Enforcement Authority.

DNFSB OIG PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Performance Measures for the DNFSB OIG Program

2015 2016 2017

Measure 1. Percentage of OIG audits undertaken and issued within a year.36

Target 60% 60% 60%

Actual 83% TBD TBD

Measure 2. Percentage of final Board actions taken within 2 years on audit recommendations. 37

Target 50% 50% 50%

Actual 100% TBD TBD

Measure 3. Percentage of Board actions taken in response to investigative reports. 38

Target 90% 90% 90%

Actual 100% TBD TBD

Measure 4. Percentage of active cases completed in less than 18 months. 39

Target 85% 85% 85%

Actual 100% TBD TBD

INSPECTOR GENERAL REFORM ACT CERTIFICATION FOR FY 2017

In accordance with the Inspector General Reform Act (Public Law 110-409), the OIG NRC 

budget request was submitted to the NRC Chairman for FY 2017 and was subsequently 

approved. In addition, the OIG DNFSB budget request was submitted to the DNFSB Vice 

Chairman for FY 2017 who provided no comments.

 36 OIG anticipates issuing six audit reports per year. Starting in FY 2015, this measure will be tracked.

37 Starting in FY 2015, this measure will be tracked.

38 Starting in FY 2015, this measure will be tracked.

39 Starting in FY 2015, this measure will be tracked.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 94

Furthermore, within the OIG total budget, this budget request includes $140,000 for OIG 

training. The amount requested provides for all OIG specific training requirements for which 

there is a fee charged to OIG for attendance. In addition, funds are available for the OIG share 

of the resources needed to support the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency.
APPENDIX A: CORPORATE SUPPORT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 95

CORPORATE SUPPORT

Corporate Support by Business Line

(Dollars in Millions)

Major Programs

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Operating Reactors 191.8 456.7 193.9 443.6 2.1 (13.1)

New Reactors 55.4 131.9 56.6 129.6 1.3 (2.3)

Nuclear Reactor Safety $247.2 588.6 $250.5 573.2 $3.3 (15.4)

Fuel Facilities 15.3 36.5 14.5 33.1 (0.9) (3.4)

Nuclear Materials Users 27.6 65.8 28.4 64.9 0.7 (0.9)

Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation 12.1 28.7 11.9 27.3 (0.2) (1.5)

Decommissioning and LowLevel Waste 13.6 32.4 13.8 31.5 0.2 (0.8)

Nuclear Materials and 

Waste Safety $68.6 163.4 $68.6 156.8 $(0.1) (6.6)

Corporate Support $315.8 752.0 $319.1 730.0 $3.2 (22.0)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Congressional Budget Justification identifies the infrastructure and 

support costs for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and distributes them to 

programs as a portion of the total program cost. The allocation methodology is consistent with 

the methodology used for preparing the agency’s financial statements. The business line tables 

present the associated infrastructure and support funding included in the programmatic funding 

to provide the full cost of each business line. 

FY 2016 Enacted resources for Corporate Support constitute 32 percent of the agency’s total 

budget and reflect a decrease of $11.5 million as compared to the FY 2016 Congressional 

Budget Justification. Significant reductions implemented in FY 2016 include savings for rent 

and facilities maintenance, office supplies, document management, subscriptions, and 

telecommunications. To develop optimal core information technology (IT) capabilities, the NRC 

will continue to invest in the agency’s IT infrastructure, foundation, and core financial systems in 

FY 2017. Resources have been adjusted to ensure that adequate funding is provided for 

operations and maintenance of critical infrastructure and core systems that maintain 

authoritative financial data. Additionally, resources support IT foundation activities, ensuring the 

accuracy of agencywide data, reducing or eliminating the storage of duplicate information, 

providing controls to improve data quality, and creating an enterprisewide foundation for 

information sharing and exchange.
APPENDIX A: CORPORATE SUPPORT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 96

As part of the FY 2017 budget request, the agency is attempting to more appropriately 

categorize resources labeled as overhead. The NRC made efforts to identify resources that 

should be categorized in the mission areas they support. Other resources now classified as 

Corporate Support in the FY 2017 budget request were realigned here to correctly categorize 

those overhead costs. The entire Corporate and Office Support budget structure realignment is 

described in detail in Appendix VI of the Congressional Budget Justification.

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

(Dollars in Millions)

Product Line

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M FTE $M FTE $M FTE

Acquisitions 16.7 80.7 16.3 72.9 (0.4) (7.8)

Administrative Services 107.5 105.9 105.3 107.4 (2.2) 1.5 

Financial Mgmt. 28.8 109.7 31.4 109.9 2.6 0.3 

Human Resource Mgmt. 19.4 59.3 18.7 57.5 (0.7) (1.7)

Information Mgmt. 23.0 73.1 27.6 69.0 4.6 (4.1)

Information Technology 90.6 169.6 86.6 161.1 (4.0) (8.5)

Outreach 4.2 17.6 4.6 17.9 0.4 0.2 

Policy Support 21.4 122.3 23.7 120.2 2.3 (2.1)

Training 4.2 13.9 4.9 14.1 0.7 0.2 

Total $315.8 752.0 $319.1 730.0 $3.2 (22.0)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

The agency’s infrastructure and support involve centrally managed activities that are necessary 

for the agency programs to operate and achieve goals more efficiently and effectively. These 

activities include acquisitions, administrative services, financial management, human resource 

management, information management, IT, training, outreach, and policy support. The 

workload and resource changes from the FY 2016 Enacted budget for the product lines listed 

above are described in the following pages. The output indicators for the product lines listed 

above contribute to the scoring of the NRC safety and security performance indicators and their 

contribution to the achievement of the agency’s strategic outcomes.

ACQUISITIONS

The Acquisitions budget provides resources to support the enterprisewide acquisition system 

and procurement and strategic sourcing activities. This includes support for all aspects of 

contract operations and oversight necessary to ensure the agency obtains goods and services 

in an effective manner consistent with mission needs, sound business practices, agency 

guidance, and Federal regulations. In addition, this includes support to continue implementation 

of an agencywide streamlined process to: achieve alignment between budget formulation, 

program planning, and execution; eliminate duplication of effort; increase use of enterprise 

contracts; improve the agency’s ability to effectively respond to emergent requirements; and 

implement the requirements of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014.
APPENDIX A: CORPORATE SUPPORT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 97

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources decrease for procurement operations related to acquisition planning and 

solicitation, awards, and administration of interagency agreements and grants. The decrease is 

partially offset by an increase to provide application administration and support for the Strategic 

Acquisition System. 

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

The Administrative Services budget provides resources for rent and utilities for NRC 

headquarters (HQ), regions, and the Technical Training Center; rent for executive space in the 

District of Columbia; offsite and public meeting space requests; rent and utility subsidies for 

space in HQ occupied by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; facilities management, 

including operation and maintenance services, interior upkeep, building alterations, custodial 

services, office furniture, labor services, and property asset inventory management; 

administrative services, including fleet management, transit subsidies, print and publication 

services, corporate rulemaking, supplies, editorial services, graphic design services, postage 

and mail equipment, mail and courier services, and multimedia services; and physical and 

personnel security services, including HQ and regional guard services, security for offsite and 

public meetings, drug testing, security investigations, security equipment, Federal protection 

security services, and insider threat analyses.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources decrease following a reduction in the number of floors (from two to one)

planned for renovation and staff consolidation (i.e., modernization) in the White Flint Complex. 

This is a continued effort following consolidation of the NRC HQ campus and subsequent 

release of NRC satellite leased space in FY 2015. Resource decreases are slightly offset by an 

increase to support the Federal mandate for revised Federal Investigative Standards, increasing 

the frequency of security reinvestigations from every 10 years to every 5 years.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The Financial Management budget supports maintenance and operation of the agency’s 

financial systems, budget development and execution, agency financial services, accounting 

and reporting activities, administration of the internal control program, and strategic and 

performance planning. These activities promote effective and efficient management of agency 

financial resources.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources increase to address the agency’s Information Technology/Information 

Management portfolio to ensure that adequate funding is provided for operations and 

maintenance of core financial systems. Additionally, resources support investments in the 

agency’s Cost Accountability Program, the associated time and labor data collection system and 

implement necessary improvements to increase transparency in fee policy development and fee 

billing.
APPENDIX A: CORPORATE SUPPORT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 98

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The Human Resource Management budget provides resources for recruitment and staffing 

activities; work-life services, including employee counseling; employee and labor relations; and 

agencywide policy development and strategic workforce planning. In addition, resources 

provide for permanent change-of-station activities, including resident inspector moves.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources decrease, primarily due to reductions in work-life service activities. 

Resources also decrease for recruiting and permanent change-of-station activities, as a result of 

anticipated reductions in program requirements. 

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The Information Management program develops and implements the framework and 

technologies for managing and protecting information in a way that ensures it is available to 

support a stable and predictable regulatory environment. Resources provide for maintaining 

current operations relating to the management of physical and electronic content and records, 

Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information policy and reviews, Controlled Unclassified 

Information implementation, Privacy Act compliance, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

support, information collections support, public document room and public meeting support, and 

the technical library.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources increase to address the funding for nondiscretionary core systems and 

services, including the Agencywide Document Access and Management System, FOIA support, 

Enterprise Search and Public Web Site Search Services, and Secure Video Teleconferencing 

for event response. This increase is partially offset by decreased costs for the document 

processing center.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The IT portfolio supports: the following: (1) development of a flexible technology infrastructure 

that offers the foundation to consistently deliver IT solutions to further the agency’s objectives 

and strategies, (2) improvement of the value of agency IT solutions by providing the right 

products and services when and where needed to support the agency’s mission, which enables 

the staff to easily find and use the information it needs to work effectively, (3) improvement of 

enterprise IT planning, budgeting, and performance management tools to effectively manage IT 

resources and investments in a manner that is clear and transparent to stakeholders, and 

(4) protection of classified and Safeguards Information and prevention of unauthorized 

disclosures of NRC information. The agency’s IT portfolio includes agencywide IT infrastructure 

investments described in this section, IT systems associated with specific Corporate Support 

functions discussed in this appendix, and Mission IT investments that are budgeted in the 

programmatic business lines that they directly support. Appendix IV, “Federal Information 

Technology Acquisition Reform Act Requirements,” contains a complete list of major IT 

investments.
APPENDIX A: CORPORATE SUPPORT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 99

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

Resources will fund the following new and ongoing development, modernization, and 

enhancement activities: improve IT solution flexibility in accommodating an increasingly mobile 

workforce; continue to reduce the NRC’s data center footprint by consolidating data center 

services; continue to support the Digital Service team responsible for driving efficiency and 

effectiveness of the agency’s highest impact digital services; and modernize key system

interfaces to leverage the new Authoritative Data Source. In FY 2017, resources decrease as a 

result of reducing internal services and other efficiencies.

OUTREACH

The Outreach budget supports outreach activities, which include maintaining the civil rights 

complaints process; promoting affirmative employment, diversity, and inclusion; ensuring 

compliance with small business laws; conducting business development assistance and 

providing the maximum practicable prime and subcontract opportunities for small businesses; 

and continuing efforts to implement the NRC’s Outreach and Compliance Coordination 

Program, in accordance with applicable Federal civil rights statutes and NRC regulations. 

Additionally, resources provide grants for minority-serving institutions to assist them in 

producing a skilled diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce. 

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, there are no significant resource changes to the Outreach Product Line.

POLICY SUPPORT

The Policy Support budget provides for the agency’s Commissioners and additional policy 

support to the agency. Specifically, the budget provides resources for the following: agency 

policy formulation and guidance; legal advice and appellate adjudicatory support to the agency’s 

Commissioners; independent evaluations of agency programs and implementation of 

Commission policy directives; advice and assistance to the Commissioners on Congressional 

and protocol issues, and public affairs activities leading to openness and increased public 

confidence; management and oversight of agency programs; and interactions on matters of 

international nuclear safety and security issues and developments.

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources increase to support the full amount necessary for five Commissioners.

TRAINING

The Corporate Training budget provides resources for the agency’s training infrastructure, 

including operation of the Professional Development Center, agency leadership programs such 

as the Senior Executive Service Career Development Program, organizational development, 

training systems, and some external training. Mission training resources are budgeted in the 

major program business line. These resources support mission-related qualification and nonqualification training, simulator training and maintenance, and mission-related external training.
APPENDIX A: CORPORATE SUPPORT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 100

CHANGES FROM FY 2016 ENACTED BUDGET

In FY 2017, resources increase for leadership training, IT security training in support of rolebased cyber security training, and course delivery and development.

OTHER INDICATORS

ACQUISITION

Percentage of Eligible Service Contracting Dollars (Contracts Over $25,000) That Use Performance‐Based

Contracting Techniques during the Fiscal Year (CS-01)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 65 65 65 65 65 65

Actual 60.50 66 64 68

Synopses for Acquisitions that Are Posted on the Governmentwide Point‐of‐Entry Web site 

(www.FedBizOpps.gov) during the Fiscal Year* (CS-02)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100

*Percentage of required synopses for acquisitions that are posted on the Governmentwide point‐of‐entry Web site 

(www.FedBizOpps.gov) during the FY. Synopses for acquisitions are those valued at over $25,000, for which widespread notice 

is required, including all associated solicitations except for acquisitions covered by an exemption in the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Percentage of Milestones Met Related to Maintenance and Operations of NRC Headquarters Facilities To 

Ensure Functionality, Asset Preservation, Safety Accessibility, and Energy Efficiency (CS-03)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator for FY 2016 85 Discontinued*

Actual

*This is an internal indicator used to measure the performance of the maintenance contractor and to ensure the reliability of

building equipment and systems. As such, the NRC does not believe external reporting would add value. 

Percentage of Time Physical Security Responds within 15 Minutes of Notification to Incidents That Result 

in Harm to Occupants, Damage to NRC Property, or Loss of Protected Information (CS-04)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target New indicator for FY 2016 90 90

Actual

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Percentage of Collections Achieved When Compared with Projected Collections (CS-05)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 99.3 98.6 93.6* 99.6

*Contributing factors to missing the target include a fee policy written to collect 98 percent of the 90 percent target and a Final 

Fee Rule that did not become effective until the end of August, leaving no time to recover from licensee delays in payment of 

fees.
APPENDIX A: CORPORATE SUPPORT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 101

Percentage of Annual Billings that Are Past Due Accounts Receivable (CS-06)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 1 1 1 1 1 1

Actual 1 1 1 1

Percentage of Nonsalary Payments Made Electronically and Accurately within Established Schedule 

(CS-07)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 98 98 98 98 98 98

Actual 98 98 98 98

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Number of Targets Met Out of 4 for Key Information Dissemination Channels, including Public Meeting 

Notices and Freedom of Information Act Requests* (CS-09)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 3 3 3 3 3 4

Actual 3 3 4 3

*Targets: (1) Percentage of time the NRC responds to Freedom of Information Act requests within 20 working days (75 percent), 

(2) percentage of Category 1,2, and 3 meetings on regulatory issues for which the NRC posted a meeting notice on the public 

meeting notice Web site at least 10 days in advance of the meeting (90 percent), (3) percentage of nonsensitive, unclassified 

regulatory documents generated by the NRC and sent to the agency’s Document Processing Center that are released to the 

public by the 6th working day after the date of the document (90 percent), (4) percentage of nonsensitive, unclassified regulatory 

documents received by the NRC that are released to the public by the 6th working day after the document is added to the 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System main library (90 percent).

The NRC's Score on the Annual American Customer Satisfaction Index for Federal Web Sites (CS-10)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

New indicator 

in FY 2013 73 73 73 73 73

Actual 76 76 79

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Percentage of Agency Investments That Are Green per OMB's IT Dashboard (CS-11)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target 7.5 7.0 7.5* 80 80 80

Actual Target met Target met Target met Target met

*The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Exhibit 300 score indicator has been replaced by the IT Dashboard score. The 

indicator target was changed in FY 2013 to reflect OMB’s revised approach to IT Dashboard scoring.
APPENDIX A: CORPORATE SUPPORT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 102

Satisfactory Rating Achieved for the NRC’s Cybersecurity Program Effectiveness Based upon the Annual 

Inspector General Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) Audit* (CS-13)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Target

New indicator 

in FY 2013 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Actual

The Office of 

the

Inspector 

General

(OIG) did not

report any

material

weaknesses 

in its

evaluation 

report

(OIG‐13‐A‐

03). (A

FISMA score 

was not 

issued.)

OIG did not 

report any 

material 

weaknesses 

in its 

evaluation 

report 

(OIG-15-A02).

OIG did not 

report any 

material 

weaknesses 

in its 

evaluation 

report (OIG16-A-01)

*This indicator replaces the output indicator “IT Security Risk Management ‐ Percent of operational applications and general 

support systems that have met the NRC's annual risk management activities requirements in accordance with guidance from the 

CIO," from the FY 2011 budget.
APPENDIX B: BUDGET AUTHORITY BY FUNCTION

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 103

BUDGET AUTHORITY BY FUNCTION

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) budget authority is aggregated into the 

major categories of salaries and benefits, contract support, and travel. Salaries and benefits are 

estimated based on full-time equivalents, pay rates, pay raise assumptions, and effective pay 

periods for pay raises. Benefits costs include the Government’s contributions for retirement, 

health benefits, life insurance, Medicare, Social Security, and the Thrift Savings Plan. Contract 

support comprises obligations for commercial contracts; interagency agreements; grants; and 

other non-travel services, such as rent and utility payments. Travel costs primarily comprise 

expenses for nuclear reactor inspection trips.

Total NRC Budget Authority by Function

(Dollars in Millions)

Salaries and Expenses (S&E)

FY 2016 FY 2017 Changes from

Enacted Request FY 2016

$M $M $M

Salaries and Benefits 587.8 581.8 (6.0)

Contract Support 379.2 365.5 (13.7)

Travel 23.1 22.9 (0.2)

Total (S&E) $990.0 $970.2 $(19.8)

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

Salaries and Benefits 10.8 10.6 (0.1)

Contract Support 1.1 1.2 0.1 

Travel 0.3 0.2 0.0 

Total (OIG) $12.1 $12.1 $0.0

Total NRC Appropriations

Salaries and Benefits 598.5 592.4 (6.1)

Contract Support 380.3 366.7 (13.6)

Travel 23.3 23.2 (0.2)

Total (NRC) $1,002.1 $982.3 $(19.8)

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

APPENDIX C: ESTIMATED FEE RECOVERY

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 105

Estimated Fee Recovery

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2016 

Projection

FY 2017 

Projection

$M $M

Total Appropriation1 1,002.1 982.3 

Less Non-Fee Items (20.9) (25.4)

Balance (Base) 981.2 956.9 

Fee Recovery Rate 90.0 90.0 

Total Amount to be Recovered 883.1 861.2 

Billing & Carryover Adjustments2 (6.8) (6.8)

Adjusted Recovery Amount $876.3 $854.4

Non-Fee Items Details

Waste Incidental to Reprocessing 1.5 1.4 

Generic Homeland Security 18.5 18.0 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 1.0 1.0 

Advanced Reactors Research and Development 0.0 5.0 

Total Non-Fee Items $20.9 $25.4

Adjusted Recovery Amount Details

Estimated Part 170 Fees 317.2 309.3 

Percent of Adjusted Recovery Amount 36.2 36.2 

Estimated Part 171 Annual Fees 559.1 545.1 

Percent of Adjusted Recovery Amount 63.8 63.8 

Adjusted Recovery Amount $876.3 $854.4

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

1Includes both salaries and expenses and Inspector General appropriations

2Includes estimated unpaid invoices and payments for prior year invoices

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF REIMBURSABLE WORK

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 107

Summary of Reimbursable Work

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2016 FY 2017

Description of Work Enacted Request

$M $M

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

Employee Detail to Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DHS) 0.174 0.174 

Fuel Cycle Research and Development (DOE) 0.250 0.250 

Joint Funding of International Commission on Radiological 

Protection Activities (EPA) 0.025 0.000 

Office of Hearings and Appeals Employee Detail (DOE) 0.218 0.000 

Revalidation of Selected Foreign Certificates for Packages (Casks) 

(DOE) 0.100 0.100 

Route Reviews (DOE) 0.000 0.040 

U.S. Navy Reviews 0.012 0.012 

Waste Actions for Hanford (DOE) 0.100 0.100 

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

Foreign Cooperative Research Agreements (Multiple) 2.435 1.720 

INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

International Invitational Travel (International Atomic Energy 

Agency, foreign governments, and international organizations) 0.325 0.350 

Invitational Travel (American Institute in Taiwan) 0.025 0.025 

SECURITY RELATED ACTIVITIES

Criminal History Program 1.700 1.700 

Information Access Authorization Program 0.480 0.540 

Material Access Authorization Program 0.000 0.000 

FACILITIES REVENUE

Parking Receipts 0.015 0.015 

Recycling Reimbursements (GSA) 0.008 0.008 

AGENCY TOTAL $5.867 $5.034

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Does not 

include classified reimbursable work agreements. $M represents new reimbursable budget authority expected in 

the fiscal year from Federal agencies or other outside sources. 

APPENDIX E: FITARA REQUIREMENTS

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 109

FEDERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION REFORM ACT

REQUIREMENTS

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES STATEMENTS

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Chief Information Officer (CIO) affirms that 

he has reviewed and approved the major information technology (IT) investments portion of the 

budget request.

The NRC’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and CIO affirm that the agency’s CIO had a significant 

role in reviewing planned IT support for major program objectives and significant increases and

decreases in IT resources.

The NRC’s CFO and CIO affirm that the IT Portfolio includes appropriate estimates of all IT 

resources included in the budget request.
APPENDIX E: FITARA REQUIREMENTS

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 110

NRC IT Table: Major IT Investments

(Dollars in Millions)

UII

Major IT 

Investment 

Title

Program 

Area

(Prior Year)

FY 2015 ENACTED

(Current Year)

FY 2016 ENACTED

(Budget Year)

FY 2017 REQUEST

CS&T

($M) FTE

Total

($M)

CS&T

($M) FTE

Total

($M)

CS&T

($M) FTE

Total

($M)

429-

0000025

00

Financial 

Services

Financial 

Manageme

nt

5.447000 10.25 7.117750 7.240000 9.25 8.649145 9.496000 10.00 11.066000

429-

0000026

00

Enterprisewide 

Acquisition 

Services

Financial 

Manageme

nt

3.749000 5.00 4.564000 3.661000 3.00 4.118020 4.474000 3.00 4.945000

429-

0000036

00

Incident 

Response

Corporate 

Support

0.121000 1.50 0.365500 0.000000 0.00 0.000000 0.000000 0.00 0.000000

429-

0000036

00

Incident 

Response

Nuclear 

Reactor 

Safety

2.455000 2.50 2.862500 3.111000 2.50 3.534000 3.608000 3.00 4.121000

429-

0000065

00

Data Center 

and Hosting

Corporate 

Support

12.982000 18.25 15.956750 13.066000 11.50 14.817910 13.030000 11.50 14.835500

429-

0000065

00

Data Center 

and Hosting

Nuclear 

Reactor 

Safety

0.000000 0.00 0.000000 0.045000 0.00 0.045000 0.067000 0.00 0.067000

429-

0000067

00

Office 

Automation 

and User 

Support

Corporate 

Support

21.947000 37.50 28.059500 20.465000 45.25 27.358385 20.113000 35.75 25.726000

429-

0000067

00

Office 

Automation 

and User 

Support

Nuclear 

Materials 

and Waste 

Safety

0.000000 0.00 0.000000 1.191000 0.00 1.191000 1.446000 0.00 1.446000

429-

0000067

00

Office 

Automation 

and User 

Support

Nuclear 

Reactor 

Safety

0.013000 0.00 0.013000 4.455000 0.00 4.455000 5.081000 0.00 5.081000

429-

0000082

00

Materials 

Licensing 

and 

Oversight

Nuclear 

Materials 

and Waste 

Safety

8.700000 10.00 10.330000 9.373000 9.50 10.979000 8.875000 7.50 10.158000

429-

0000084

00

Reactor 

Licensing 

and 

Oversight

Nuclear 

Reactor 

Safety

1.166000 1.50 1.410500 6.800000 10.00 8.490000 7.336000 11.00 9.217000

Total 56.580000 86.50 70.679500 69.407000 91.00 83.637460 73.526000 81.75 86.662500
APPENDIX F: CORPORATE AND OFFICE SUPPORT BUDGET REALIGNMENT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 111

CORPORATE AND OFFICE SUPPORT BUDGET REALIGNMENT

Overhead Assessment

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) definition of “overhead” has changed over 

time, based on changing perceptions of the concept of support activities. Starting in the fiscal 

year (FY) 2011 budget, the NRC characterized overhead as Corporate Support and Office 

Support. Corporate Support includes acquisitions, administrative services, financial 

management, human resource management, information management, information technology 

(IT), international activities, outreach, policy support, and associated training and travel. Office 

Support includes top-level management, administrative assistants, and other office support staff 

who work in the program mission areas. The creation of Office Support had the unintended 

consequences of increasing the resources the agency identifies as overhead. These additional 

resources are included with the programs in the FY 2017 Performance Budget. 

During the FY 2017 budget formulation process, the agency reduced and more appropriately 

categorized resources labeled as overhead. As part of the FY 2017 budget formulation 

process, the agency made efforts to identify resources that should be categorized in the mission 

areas they support.

As part of this, the NRC contracted with Ernst & Young (EY) to conduct a review of the agency’s 

overhead functions and to identify ways to reduce costs with no impact on the agency’s ability to 

carry out its mission. The specific objectives of the contract were as follows:

• Provide a standard definition of overheard; identify any Governmentwide issues and 

standard guidance related to overhead.

• Conduct a high-level benchmarking of the agency’s overhead functions to the processes 

and functions used by other similarly situated Federal agencies.

• Make recommendations to adjust the NRC budget structure to align overhead and 

support functions with best practices of other similarly situated Federal agencies and 

applicable Federal guidance.

• Make recommendations to reduce costs for the NRC support functions that are in line 

with Federal Government best practices without affecting the ability to meet 

organizational mission statements.

EY found that the CxO Council uses five corporate support cost categories: acquisition, 

financial management, IT, human capital, and real property. NRC corporate costs in these 

areas are roughly in line with peer agencies, when compared using the CxO Council’s 

categories. However, because of its mission, the NRC has additional security requirements that 

contribute to higher costs in areas such as physical and personnel security. Additionally, none 

of the reviewed agencies make a budgetary distinction between agencywide (Corporate 

Support) and office-specific mission support (Office Support) costs. As part of the 

recommendation to adjust the NRC budget structure to align overhead and support functions 

with best practices of other similarly situated Federal agencies and general Federal practices, 

EY recommended the following: 

• Elimination of office-specific mission support (Office Support) by aligning the associated 

resources to the specific programmatic business lines they support; 
APPENDIX F: CORPORATE AND OFFICE SUPPORT BUDGET REALIGNMENT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 112

• Elimination of the International Activities Product Line from the Corporate Support 

Business Line; and

• Evaluation of selected budgeted activities for removal from the Corporate Support 

Business Line.

Budget Realignment

Informed by the EY overhead assessment, the NRC reviewed activities currently categorized as 

Corporate Support and Office Support during the FY 2017 budget process. Previously, the 

NRC allocated Office Support resources to business lines in the budget and included them with 

the Corporate Support costs as overhead in the NRC Annual Fee Rule. In the FY 2017 request, 

the NRC budgeted Office Support resources directly in the mission areas they support. This 

change provides the major advantage of consistency between the NRC budget and the Annual 

Fee Rule. The budget structure realignment eliminates Office Support by aligning the 

associated resources to the specific programmatic business lines they support. The Corporate 

Support resources that were realigned are described below.

The majority of the International Activities Product Line activities were moved to programmatic 

business lines/International Activities Product Lines. The activities include international 

cooperation, international assistance, export/import licensing, and supervisory staff. The 

remaining resources were moved to the Corporate Support/Policy Support Product Line.

Selected Policy Support Product Line activities were moved to programmatic business lines and 

product lines for legal and technical activities that can be aligned with the specific program 

business lines that they currently support. Furthermore, resources associated with the 

Regulatory Information Conference under the Outreach Product Line were moved to the 

Operating Reactors Business Line/Licensing Product Line, where most of the stakeholder 

participation is located.

In addition, selected IT resources were moved to the Operating Reactors Business Line that the 

activities primarily support. These activities include e-rulemaking, classified communication 

systems, classified network, classified scan, communications security, homeland secure data 

network, key management infrastructure, secure fax, secure video teleconferencing, and 

high-performance computing. Other IT resources were allocated to program business lines,

because their unit costs can be readily identified and allocated on a per-unit basis contained in 

the IT contracts. These activities include resources to support email messaging, file and print, 

workstations, network components, and remote access.

The NRC also implemented a split salaries and benefits (S&B) rate for Corporate Support and 

programmatic business line full-time equivalents (FTE) on the basis that overhead staff is on 

average, at somewhat lower grade levels than the technical staff, resulting in an S&B differential 

between the two groups. 

Finally, as part of FY 2016 implementation planning, selected resources were identified in the 

Nuclear Reactor Safety Program that were better represented as Corporate Support resources.

The objective of the budget structure realignment is to present a budget more comparable with 

other Federal agencies. Redefining Corporate Support will also improve alignment between the 

budget and the fee rule.
APPENDIX F: CORPORATE AND OFFICE SUPPORT BUDGET REALIGNMENT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 113

The figure below provides a direct crosswalk for realignment of Corporate Support resources 

and does not include the allocation of full costs. Resource impacts due to these changes and 

other direct programmatic changes are addressed in each business line chapter of the 

Performance Budget.

Corporate Support Resources Realignment Crosswalk*

 Pre-Realignment Post-Realignment

 $26.3M, including 43 FTE $26.3M, including 43 FTE

Corporate Support Business Line 

International Activities Product Line

$9.6M, including 23 FTE

(International cooperation, international 

assistance, and export/import licensing)

Operating Reactors Business Line 

$1.2M, including 7 FTE

New Reactors Business Line

$0.5M, including 3 FTE

Nuclear Materials Users

$6.9M, including 8 FTE

Decommissioning and Low-Level 

Waste Business Line

$0.2M, including 1 FTE

Fuel Facilities Business Line

$0.2M, including 1 FTE

International Activities Product Line

Corporate Support Business Line

Policy Support Product Line

$0.8M, including 3 FTE

Corporate Support Business Line

Policy Support Product Line

$1.6M, including 10 FTE

(Limited FTE supporting legal and technical 

workload)

Operating Reactors Business Line

$0.9M, including 6 FTE

New Reactors Business Line

$0.3M, including 2 FTE

Nuclear Materials Users Business 

Line

$0.2M, including 1 FTE

Decommissioning and Low-Level 

Waste Business Line

$0.2M, including 1 FTE

Licensing Product Line

Corporate Support Business Line 

Outreach Product Line

$0.8M, including 2 FTE

(Regulatory Information Conference)

Operating Reactors Business Line

Licensing Product Line

$0.8M, including 2 FTE
APPENDIX F: CORPORATE AND OFFICE SUPPORT BUDGET REALIGNMENT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 114

 Pre-Realignment Post-Realignment

*Dollar values include FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding. 

Corporate Support Business Line

Administrative Services Product Line

$0.1M

Information Management Product 

Line

$2.2M, including 2 FTE

Information Technology Product Line

$0.4M

(E-rulemaking, classified communication 

systems, classified network, classified scan, 

communication security, homeland secure 

data network, key management infrastructure, 

secure FAX, secure video teleconferencing, 

and high performance computing)

Operating Reactors Business Lines

$2.7M, including 2 FTE

Corporate Support Business Line

Information Technology Product Line

$10.7M

(Email and messaging, file and print, 

workstations, network components, and 

remote access)

Operating Reactors Business Line

$6.4M

New Reactors Business Line

$1.9M

Fuel Facilities Business Line

$0.5M

Nuclear Materials Users Business 

Line

$0.9M

Spent Fuel Storage and 

Transportation Business Line

$0.5M

Decommissioning and Low-Level 

Waste Business Line

$0.5M

Operating Reactors Business Line

$0.6M, including 4 FTE

(Limited FTE supporting human resource

activities)

$0.3M, including 2 FTE

(Limited FTE supporting Freedom of 

Information Act activities)

Corporate Support Business Line

Human Resources Management 

Product Line

$0.6M, including 4 FTE

Information Management Product 

Line

$0.3M, including 2 FTE
APPENDIX G: PLANNED RULEMAKINGS

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 115

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Planned Rulemakings

As of January 12, 2016

Identification Information Schedule

Item # Title of Rule Priority

Docket

ID RIN

Rule 

Initiation

Regulatory 

Basis

Proposed 

Rule to EDO/

Commission

Proposed 

Rule 

Published

Final Rule to 

EDO/

Commission

Final Rule 

Published

1 Mitigation of 

Beyond Design 

Basis Events 

(MBDBE)

High NRC2011-

0189, 

NRC2014-

0240

AJ49 10/18/11 10/7/13 4/30/15 11/13/15 12/16/16 6/13/17

2 PerformanceBased Emergency 

Core Cooling 

System 

Acceptance 

Criteria

High NRC2008-

0332

AH42 3/31/03 5/30/08 3/1/12 3/24/14 2/29/16 3/1/17

3 Enhanced Security 

for Special Nuclear 

Material (formerly 

Physical Protection 

for Category I, II, 

and III Special 

Nuclear Material)

High NRC2014-

0118

AJ41 2/8/06 2/25/15 9/2/16 3/2/17 3/15/18 9/15/18

4 Revision of Fee 

Schedules: Fee 

Recovery for FY 

2017

High TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

5 Enhanced 

Weapons, 

Firearms 

Background 

Checks, and 

Security Event 

Notifications

High NRC2008-

0465/20

11-0018

AI49 8/8/05 N/A 3/16/15 9/22/15 5/23/16 3/1/17

6 Risk-Informed 

Changes to Lossof-Coolant 

Accident Technical 

Requirements

High NRC2004-

0006

AH29 3/31/03 N/A 6/9/09 8/10/09 12/10/10 TBD

7 Drug and Alcohol 

Testing: Technical 

Issues and 

Editorial Changes

High NRC2012-

0079

AJ15 9/1/11 3/1/17 12/1/18 6/1/19 6/1/20 12/1/20

8 Amendments to 

List of Approved 

Spent Fuel 

Storage Cask [This 

is a placeholder for 

an annual 

recurring rule.]

High N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
APPENDIX G: PLANNED RULEMAKINGS

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 116

Identification Information Schedule

Item # Title of Rule Priority

Docket

ID RIN

Rule 

Initiation

Regulatory 

Basis

Proposed 

Rule to EDO/

Commission

Proposed 

Rule 

Published

Final Rule to 

EDO/

Commission

Final Rule 

Published

9 Enhanced 

Weapons for Spent 

Fuel Storage 

Installations and 

Transportation --

Section 161A 

Authority

High N/A AJ55 8/15/08 11/30/16 3/1/18 8/1/18 7/2/19 1/30/20

10 Cyber Security for 

Fuel Facilities

High NRC2015-

0179

AJ64 3/24/15 3/24/16 3/17/17 9/17/17 6/11/18 10/16/18

11 Modified Small 

Quantities Protocol

High NRC2015-

0263

AJ70 7/21/15 N/A N/A N/A 9/30/16 12/1/16

12 Fitness-for-Duty 

(Health and 

Human Services 

(HHS) 

Requirements)

High NRC2009-

0225

AI67 9/1/12 7/1/13 3/31/16 6/30/16 3/31/17 9/31/17

13 Defense against 

Common Mode 

Failures in Digital 

Instrumentation 

and Control 

Systems

High NRC2015-

0040

AJ57 9/1/13 5/31/16 8/31/17 2/28/18 2/28/19 8/31/19

14 Regulatory Guide 

(RG) 1.84, Rev. 

38; RG 1.147, Rev. 

19; and RG 1.192, 

Rev. 3; Approval of 

American Society 

of Mechanical 

Engineers Code 

Cases (see 10 

CFR 50.55a)

High N/A N/A 7/1/14 4/1/16 4/1/17 12/1/17 4/1/18 12/1/18

15 Institute of 

Electrical and 

Electronic (IEEE) 

Standard 603-2009

High NRC2011-

0089

AI98 9/1/09 8/1/11 8/24/15 2/29/16 2/23/17 8/23/17

16 Regulatory Guide 

(RG) 1.84, Rev. 

39; and RG 1.147, 

Rev. 20; and 

1.192, Rev. 4; 

Approval of 

American Society 

of Mechanical 

Engineers Code 

Cases (see 10 

CFR 50.55a)

High N/A N/A 5/1/16 7/1/18 2/28/19 3/31/19 2/28/20 3/31/20

17 2017 Edition of the 

American Society 

of Mechanical 

Engineers Boiler 

and Pressure 

Vessel Code

High N/A N/A 7/1/17 3/1/18 10/1/18 11/1/18 10/1/19 2/1/20
APPENDIX G: PLANNED RULEMAKINGS

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 117

Identification Information Schedule

Item # Title of Rule Priority

Docket

ID RIN

Rule 

Initiation

Regulatory 

Basis

Proposed 

Rule to EDO/

Commission

Proposed 

Rule 

Published

Final Rule to 

EDO/

Commission

Final Rule 

Published

18 2016 Edition of the 

American Society 

of Mechanical 

Engineers 

Operations and 

Maintenance Code

High N/A N/A 7/1/16 3/1/17 10/1/17 11/1/17 10/1/18 2/1/19

19 2015 Edition of the 

American Society 

of Mechanical 

Engineers Boiler & 

Pressure Vessel 

Code

High N/A N/A 7/1/15 1/15/16 10/15/16 11/15/16 10/15/17 2/28/18

20 Clarifying 

Requirements in 

Part 21, Reporting 

of Defects and 

Noncompliance

High NRC2012-

0012

AJ09 9/29/11 8/7/15 9/28/16 2/17/17 12/11/17 6/1/18

21 Regulatory 

Improvements for 

Power Reactors 

Transitioning to 

Decommissioning

High NRC2015-

0070

AJ59 12/30/14 6/30/17 4/30/18 7/31/18 9/30/19 3/31/20

22 Advanced Power 

Reactor (APR)-

1400 (KEPCO) 

Design 

Certification

High NRC2015-

0224

AJ67 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

23 Emergency 

Preparedness 

Requirements for 

Small Modular 

Reactors

Medium NRC2015-

0225

AJ68 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

24 Parts 50 and 52 

Licensing Process 

Alignment

Medium NRC2009-

0196

AI66 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

25 Dose Assessments 

for Radioactive 

Effluents 

Medium NRC2014-

0044

AJ38 12/17/2012 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

26 Non-Power 

Reactor (NPR) 

License Renewal

Medium NRC2011-

0087

AI96 8/26/09 10/2/12 3/25/16 9/25/16 9/7/18 7/18/19

27 Part 71, 

Compatibility with 

International 

Atomic Energy 

Agency 

Transportation 

Standards, SSR-6, 

2012 Edition

Medium N/A N/A 6/1/16 4/1/18 10/1/19 2/15/20 5/15/21 9/15/21

28 Revisions to 

Reactor Vessel 

Material 

Surveillance 

Program 

Requirements

Medium NRC2008-

0582

AG98 8/8/14 9/23/16 7/17/17 10/27/17 10/17/18 1/31/19
APPENDIX G: PLANNED RULEMAKINGS

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 118

Identification Information Schedule

Item # Title of Rule Priority

Docket

ID RIN

Rule 

Initiation

Regulatory 

Basis

Proposed 

Rule to EDO/

Commission

Proposed 

Rule 

Published

Final Rule to 

EDO/

Commission

Final Rule 

Published

29 10 CFR Part 110, 

Export and Import 

of Nuclear 

Equipment and 

Material; Updates 

and Clarifications

Medium NRC2014-

0201

AJ45 9/1/14 11/9/15 6/1/16 9/1/16 11/1/16 2/1/17

30 Part 37 

Rulemaking

Medium NRC–

2015–

0094

N/A 8/1/16 8/1/17 8/1/18 2/1/19 2/1/20 8/1/20

31 Radiation 

Protection

Medium NRC2009-

0279

AJ29 12/17/12 3/1/16 NA N/A NA NA

32 Groundwater 

Protection At In 

Situ Leach 

Uranium Recovery 

Facilities

Medium NRC2008-

0421

AI40 3/24/06 4/3/06 11/19/18 2/1/19 3/20/20 9/20/20

33 Adjustment of Civil 

Penalties for 

Inflation (Parts 2 

and 13)

Medium N/A N/A 9/1/14 12/1/16 12/1/16 3/1/17 12/1/16 3/1/17

34 Financial 

Qualifications for 

Reactor Licensing

Medium NRC2014-

0161

AJ43 4/24/14 12/9/15 3/1/17 9/1/17 8/1/18 2/1/19

35 U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission 

Acquisition 

Regulation 

(NRCAR) – 48 

CFR Chap. 20

Medium NRC2014-

0033

AJ36 6/1/14 N/A 7/1/16 8/1/16 12/1/16 2/1/17

36 Miscellaneous 

Technical 

Corrections [This 

is a placeholder for 

annual recurring 

rule]

Medium N/A N/A 9/1/15 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12/1/16

37 Miscellaneous 

Administrative 

Rulemaking (e.g., 

internal 

organizational 

changes) [This is a 

placeholder for 

annual recurring 

rule]

Medium N/A N/A 9/1/15 N/A N/A N/A N/A 7/1/16

38 Variable Annual 

Fee Structure for 

Small Modular 

Reactors

Medium NRC2008-

0664

AI54 05/15/2015 N/A 10/16/2015 11/04/2015 02/18/2016 Possibly 

February 

2016 or 

publish with 

Final FY 

2016 Fee 

Rule (Item 4)

39 Amendments to 

Material Control 

and Accounting 

Regulations

Medium NRC2009-

0096

AI61 2/5/09 3/23/10 9/30/13 11/8/13 11/11/16 4/30/17
APPENDIX G: PLANNED RULEMAKINGS

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 119

Identification Information Schedule

Item # Title of Rule Priority

Docket

ID RIN

Rule 

Initiation

Regulatory 

Basis

Proposed 

Rule to EDO/

Commission

Proposed 

Rule 

Published

Final Rule to 

EDO/

Commission

Final Rule 

Published

40 Cyber Security for 

Byproduct Material 

Licensees

Medium N/A AJ56 9/30/16 3/30/18 3/30/19 9/30/19 3/30/20 9/30/20

41 Items Containing 

Byproduct Material 

Incidental to 

Production 

(formerly Polymer 

(Polycarbonate or 

Polyester) Track 

Etched (PCTE) 

Membranes)

Medium N/A AJ54 8/13/12 12/1/16 12/1/17 6/1/18 6/1/19 12/1/19

42 Spent Fuel 

Reprocessing

Medium N/A AJ53 11/4/13 6/30/21 N/A N/A N/A N/A

43 Dodd-Frank Act of 

2010 Rulemaking

Low N/A N/A 9/1/14 N/A N/A N/A 4/1/20 8/1/20

APPENDIX H: OBLIGATIONS BY CONTROL POINT

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 121

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Obligations by Control Point

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2015 FY 2016

(First Quarter)

Control Point

Obligations

$M 

Carryover

$M

Total

$M

Obligations

$M 

Carryover

$M

Total

$M

Nuclear Reactor Safety 779.3 32.7 812.0 151.6 0.0 151.6

Nuclear Materials and 

Waste Safety (excludes 

Decommissioning and 

Low-Level Waste and 

Nuclear Waste Fund) 164.4 2.1 166.5 32.0 0.0 32.0

Decommissioning and

Low-Level Waste 39.5 0.5 40.0 7.1 0.0 7.1

Integrated University 

Program 15.0 0.5 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nuclear Waste Fund 0 2.3 2.3 0.0 1.0 1.0

Total Salaries and 

Expenses 

Appropriation $998.2 $38.1 $1,036.3 $190.6 $1.0 $191.6

Office of Inspector 

General 11.2 1.2 12.4 2.5 0.1 2.6

Total NRC 

Appropriation $1,009.5 $39.3 $1,048.7 $193.1 $1.1 $194.2

$M includes FTE costs as well as contract support and travel. Numbers may not add due to rounding.

APPENDIX I: REPORT ON DRUG TESTING

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 123

REPORT ON DRUG TESTING

The U.S. Congress and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) initially 

approved the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Drug Testing Program in 

August 1988, and the agency subsequently updated the program in November 1997. The 

program was revised again and received approval from HHS on August 23, 2007. The NRC’s 

drug testing requirements for the nuclear industry (licensees), as imposed by agency 

regulations, are separate and distinct from this program and are not covered by this report. The 

NRC’s Drug Testing Program under Executive Order (E.O.) 12564 includes random, applicant, 

voluntary, follow-up, reasonable suspicion, and accident-related drug testing. Testing was 

initiated for nonbargaining unit employees in November 1988, and for bargaining unit 

employees, in December 1990, after an agreement was negotiated with the National Treasury 

Employees Union. On August 25, 2008, the NRC’s testing program was expanded to include all 

NRC sensitive positions as testing designated; therefore, all employees became subject to 

random drug testing. 

During fiscal year 2015, the NRC conducted approximately 2,400 tests of all types between 

October 1, 2014, and September 30, 2015. There were three positive drug test results (one for 

marijuana, one for amphetamines, and one for cocaine). One individual is currently in the 

required follow-up program. One employee was terminated, as the test result was a verified 

second positive which, based on the NRC Drug Free Workplace Plan, requires removal from 

Federal service. The third employee resigned.

The NRC also completed internal quality control reviews during the past year to ensure that the 

agency’s program continues to be administered in a fair, confidential, and effective manner.

The NRC’s Drug Testing Program is based on the principles and guidance according to 

E.O. 12564, Public Law 100 71, HHS guidelines, and Commission decisions.

APPENDIX J: ACRONYM LIST

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 125

ACRONYM LIST

10 CFR: Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

ABWR: Advanced Boiling-Water Reactor

AEC: Atomic Energy Commission

AO: Abnormal Occurrence

APWR: Advanced-Pressurized Water Reactor

APR: Advanced Power Reactor

ASP: Accident Sequence Precursor

COL: Combined License

CRCPD: Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors

DC: Design Certification

DNFSB: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

DOE: Department of Energy

DOJ: Department of Justice

EDO: Executive Director for Operations

EO: Exeuctive Order

EPR: Evolutionary Power Reactor

ESP: Early Site Permit

EY: Ernst & Young

FEVS: Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

FISMA: Federal Information Security Management Act

FTE: Full-Time Equivalent

FY: Fiscal Year

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

GPRAMA: Government Performance and Results Act and Modernization Act of 2010
APPENDIX J: ACRONYM LIST

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 126

HQ: Headquarters

ICSF: Interim Consolidated Storage Facility

IM: Information Management

IMC: Inspection Manual Chapter

IMPEP: Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program

ISFSI: Interim Spent Fuel Storage Installation

IT: Information Technology

KI: Potassium Iodide

LLW: Low-Level Waste

LLWR: Large Light-Water Reactor

NFPA: National Fire Protection Association

NMED: Nuclear Materials Event Database

NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NSTS: National Source Tracking System

NTTF: Near-Tear Task Force

OE: Office of Enforcement

OIG: Office of the Inspector General

OMB: Office of Management and Budget

OPM: Office of Personnel Management

PL: Public Law

RIS: Regulatory Issue Summary

ROP: Reactor Oversight Process

RTR: Research and Test Reactor

SCCS: Safety Culture and Climate Survey

SMR: Small Module Reactor

SNF: Spent Nuclear Fuel
APPENDIX J: ACRONYM LIST

FY 2017 Congressional Budget Justification | 127

SNM: Special Nuclear Material

STS: Standard Technical Specifications

TVA: Tennessee Valley Authority

U.S.: United States

USC: United States Code

WIR: Waste Incidental to Reprocessing