    Nuclear Energy: NRC's Workforce and Processes for New Reactor
    Licensing Are Generally in Place, but Uncertainties Remain as
    Industry Begins to Submit Applications (21-SEP-07, GAO-07-1129).

    Nearly three decades after the last order for a new nuclear power
    reactor in the United States, electric power companies plan to
    submit 20 applications in the next 18 months to the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission (NRC) for licenses to build and operate new
    reactors. Since 1989, NRC has developed a new license review
    process that allows a power company to obtain a construction
    permit and an operating license through a single combined license
    (COL) based on one of a number of standard reactor designs. NRC
    expects its new process to enhance the efficiency and
    predictability of its reviews. GAO reviewed NRC's readiness to
    evaluate these applications by examining the steps NRC has taken
    to (1) prepare its workforce and manage its workload and (2)
    develop its regulatory framework and review process for new
    reactor activities. GAO reviewed NRC documents for new reactor
    workforce staffing and training, examined NRC's guidance for the
    review of license applications, interviewed NRC managers and
    representatives of nearly all of the COL applicants, and observed
    NRC's public meetings.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1129
        ACCNO:   A76813
      TITLE:     Nuclear Energy: NRC's Workforce and Processes for New
    Reactor Licensing Are Generally in Place, but Uncertainties
    Remain as Industry Begins to Submit Applications
         DATE:   09/21/2007
      SUBJECT:   Construction industry
    	     Employees
    	     Evaluation criteria
    	     Independent regulatory commissions
    	     Licenses
    	     Nuclear energy
    	     Nuclear powerplant construction
    	     Nuclear reactors
    	     Program evaluation
    	     Program management
    	     Standards evaluation
    	     Strategic planning

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-07-1129

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background
         * [3]NRC Has Implemented Many Actions to Prepare Its Workforce fo

              * [4]NRC Has Taken Steps to Increase Staffing, Training, and Revi
              * [5]NRC Is Implementing a Project Management Approach for Its Ne

         * [6]NRC Has Significantly Revised Its Overall Regulatory Framewo

              * [7]NRC Has Revised Most Key Regulations and Guidance with Consi
              * [8]While NRC Has Taken Steps to Advance the Design-centered Rev

         * [9]Conclusions
         * [10]Recommendations for Executive Action
         * [11]Agency Comments
         * [12]Scope and Methodology
         * [13]GAO Contact
         * [14]Staff Acknowledgments
         * [15]GAO's Mission
         * [16]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

              * [17]Order by Mail or Phone

         * [18]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
         * [19]Congressional Relations
         * [20]Public Affairs

    Report to Congressional Committees

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    September 2007

    NUCLEAR ENERGY

    NRC's Workforce and Processes for New Reactor Licensing Are Generally in
    Place, but Uncertainties Remain as Industry Begins to Submit Applications

    GAO-07-1129

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 6
    Background 8
    NRC Has Implemented Many Actions to Prepare Its Workforce for New Reactor
    Licensing Reviews, but Several Key Elements Are Still Under Way 9
    NRC Has Significantly Revised Its Overall Regulatory Framework and Review
    Process, but Several Activities Are Still in Progress 18
    Conclusions 27
    Recommendations for Executive Action 28
    Agency Comments 28
    Scope and Methodology 28
    Appendix I Major Components of NRC's New Reactor Licensing Framework 31
    Appendix II Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 35
    Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 36

    Tables

    Table 1: NRC Offices' Responsibilities for New Reactors 11
    Table 2: Computer-Based Tools to Assist NRO Reviewers 13
    Table 3: Key Project Management Components for New Reactor Licensing 14
    Table 4: Major Components of NRC's New Reactor Licensing Regulatory
    Framework 18

    Figures

    Figure 1: The New Reactor Licensing Process under Part 52 2
    Figure 2: Reactor Designs Associated with the 20 Expected COL Applications
    and the Estimated Schedule for Application Submission 4
    Figure 3: Major Aspects of the COL Review Process 22

    Abbreviations

    ABWR Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
    AP1000 Advanced Passive 1000
    CIP Construction Inspection Program
    COL combined license
    DOE Department of Energy
    ESBWR Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor
    ESRP Environmental Standard Review Plan
    FTE full-time equivalent
    IMC inspection manual chapter
    ITAAC Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria
    NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    NRO Office of New Reactors RAI request for information
    SRP Standard Review Plan U.S.
    APWR Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor
    U.S. EPR Evolutionary Pressurized Water Reactor

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced
    and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO.
    However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other
    material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you
    wish to reproduce this material separately.

    United States Government Accountability Office
    Washington, DC 20548

    September 21, 2007

    The Honorable Barbara Boxer
    Chairman
    The Honorable James M. Inhofe
    Ranking Member
    Committee on Environment and Public Works
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Thomas R. Carper
    Chairman
    The Honorable George V. Voinovich
    Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
    Committee on Environment and Public Works
    United States Senate

    Nearly three decades after the last order was placed for a new civilian
    nuclear power reactor in the United States, electric power companies are
    again showing interest in nuclear power. This interest reflects the
    nation's growing demand for electricity, which will require the addition
    of substantial new generating capacity. It also has coincided with
    ever-increasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, higher natural gas prices,
    and uncertainty about future restrictions on the carbon dioxide emissions
    of coal-fired power plants. To reduce the nation's dependence on crude
    oil, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes the Department of Energy
    (DOE) to diversify the U.S. energy portfolio by, among other things,
    providing financial incentives to stimulate investment in new nuclear
    power reactor projects, which can cost more than $4 billion. The Nuclear
    Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear power industry, estimates
    that the industry has spent more than $2 billion during the past 3 years
    in preparation for applying to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for
    licenses to build and operate new reactors.

    In 1989, NRC promulgated 10 CFR Part 52, which establishes a new combined
    license (COL) for electric power companies to obtain a license to build
    and operate a new reactor.^1 The COL is NRC's response to the nuclear
    industry's concerns about the length and complexity of NRC's former
    two-step process of issuing a construction permit followed by an operating
    license. The COL process provides a one-step approval process that
    authorizes a licensee to construct and conditionally operate a nuclear
    power plant; as such, it is intended to provide predictability and early
    resolution of issues in the review process. In addition, as shown in
    figure 1, NRC established (1) the design certification, which standardizes
    the design of a given reactor for all power companies using it, with
    modifications limited to site-specific needs, and (2) an early site
    permit, which allows a potential applicant to resolve many preliminary
    siting issues before filing a COL application. NRC also plans to issue new
    regulations addressing the construction activities companies can conduct
    with NRC authorization and oversight (through a limited work
    authorization).^2

    ^154 Fed. Reg. 15386 (Apr. 18, 1989). While NRC has revised its regulatory
    process, the technical bases for its decisions to make findings have
    generally remained the same.

    ^2Such activities as site clearing, excavation, road building,
    transmission line routing, and erecting construction-related support
    buildings or service facilities do not require NRC authorization.

    Figure 1: The New Reactor Licensing Process under Part 52

    ^aNRC's Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC)
    process is designed to verify that a new nuclear facility has been
    constructed and will operate in conformance with the COL, NRC regulations,
    and the Atomic Energy Act.

    As of September 2007, electric power companies had informed NRC of their
    intent to submit 20 COL applications between October 2007 and about April
    2009--5 by December 2007 alone. As shown in figure 2, these companies plan
    to use five reactor designs: General Electric's Advanced Boiling Water
    Reactor (ABWR) and Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR),
    Westinghouse's Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000), AREVA's Evolutionary
    Pressurized Water Reactor (U.S. EPR), and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries'
    Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (U.S. APWR).^3 NRC has certified two
    designs that the companies plan to use--ABWR in 1997 and AP1000 in
    2006--and is currently reviewing the ESBWR design.^4 The U.S. EPR and U.S.
    APWR designs have not yet been submitted to NRC for review, although at
    least one reactor using each design is under construction in another
    country. Design applications may total up to 15,000 pages, and reference
    to the certified design will represent a large part of a COL application.

    ^3This report focuses on NRC's readiness to license new light water
    reactor designs. It does not address NRC's readiness to license new
    advanced reactor designs, such as liquid metal-cooled reactors and
    high-temperature gas-cooled reactors because they are significantly
    different from light water reactors.

    ^4NRC also certified the Combustion Engineering/Westinghouse System 80+ in
    1997 and Westinghouse's Advanced Passive 600 in 1999.

    Figure 2: Reactor Designs Associated with the 20 Expected COL Applications
    and the Estimated Schedule for Application Submission

    ^aWestinghouse submitted its AP1000 application for final design approval
    and standard design certification in March 2002.

    Note: Excludes any limited work authorizations companies plan to file
    allowing them to begin certain construction activities before receiving a
    license. Information as of September 10, 2007.

    Under the COL process, NRC estimates that the first few applications will
    require about 100,000 hours of staff review and identified around 2,500
    associated NRC review activities related to each application's detailed
    safety, environmental, operational, security, and financial information,
    which may total several thousand pages. NRC anticipates that for each
    application, the review process will take 42 months--including 30 months
    for its staff review, followed by approximately 12 months for a public
    hearing.^5 In June 2007, NRC approved several actions to improve the use
    of its resources and further streamline and increase the predictability of
    its review process. These actions may decrease the overall duration of a
    given review, depending on how they are implemented.

    Since the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, NRC has accelerated
    its efforts to build up its new reactor workforce and develop the
    necessary processes for licensing new reactors. NRC projects that its
    total workforce size needs to grow from about 3,100 employees to about
    4,000 employees by 2010. NRC created the Office of New Reactors (NRO) in
    October 2006 to lead the new reactor reviews and anticipates that it will
    employ about 500 people and spend several million dollars a month for
    contractor support to conduct these reviews in 2008. In January 2007, we
    reported that NRC had been generally effective in recruiting, developing,
    and retaining a critically skilled workforce and had taken several actions
    to enhance its overall workforce capacity; however, we identified several
    challenges that will require a considerable level of flexibility, staff
    commitment, and successful strategic human capital management for NRC to
    be able to appropriately adapt to shifting human capital needs.^6
    Accordingly, we recommended that NRC take actions to further address its
    current and future needs for a critically skilled workforce, and NRC
    agreed with our recommendations.

    In this context, you asked us to review NRC's readiness to evaluate
    applications for new reactor licenses. Specifically, we examined the steps
    NRC has taken to (1) prepare its workforce to review new reactor license
    applications and to manage its workload and (2) develop its regulatory
    framework and key review processes for new reactor activities.

    ^5The evidentiary hearing portion of the adjudicative process occurs near
    the end of the licensing process. However, prehearing activities, which
    include decisions on standing, contention admissibility, and procedural
    motions, begin when NRC dockets the application and continue during the
    staff's review.

    ^6GAO, Human Capital: Retirements and Anticipated New Reactor Applications
    Will Challenge NRC's Workforce, [21]GAO-07-105 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17,
    2007).

    To address these questions, among other things, we reviewed NRC documents
    for new reactor workforce staffing and training, examined NRC's
    regulations and guidance for its review of license applications, observed
    internal NRC management meetings, and interviewed NRC managers in NRO and
    the Offices of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, Nuclear Regulatory
    Research, and General Counsel. We also obtained the perspectives of the
    Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, a statutory body of scientists
    and engineers, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. In
    addition, we held discussions with nearly all of the announced COL
    applicants to obtain their views on the efficiency and usefulness of the
    COL process and its implementation. Finally, we observed several of NRC's
    public meetings on the new reactor licensing process. We conducted our
    work from January 2007 through September 2007 in accordance with generally
    accepted government auditing standards. A fuller discussion of our scope
    and methodology is presented at the end of our report.

    Results in Brief

    NRC has implemented many actions to prepare its workforce for new reactor
    licensing reviews and manage its workload, but several key elements of its
    preparations are still under way. Specifically, NRC has increased its
    funding for new reactor activities, reorganized several offices, created
    NRO, and hired a significant number of entry-level and midlevel
    professionals. To assist its staff in reviewing the safety and
    environmental portions of the applications, NRC plans to contract out
    about $60 million in fiscal year 2008 through support agreements with
    several DOE national laboratories and contracts with commercial companies.
    NRC also has rolled out several new training courses and developed some
    computer-based tools to assist staff in reviewing multiple applications.
    To enhance its management and coordination of the anticipated work
    required to review COL applications and design certifications, NRC is
    using a project management approach to plan and schedule its workload. NRC
    has made progress in these areas, but several elements of NRC's activities
    to prepare its workforce are still under way, as the following
    illustrates:

               o As of August 2007, NRC had assigned about 350 staff to NRO,
               about 10 percent of its workforce. However, some critical
               positions are vacant, and the office plans to grow to about 500
               employees in 2008. NRC also is still developing content for
               in-depth training on reactor designs and providing training in
               other areas needed for reviewing new reactor applications, and has
               not yet implemented certain key computer-based tools to provide
               staff with easy access to commonly used information.
               o NRC has developed plans for allocating resources for a design
               certification application and an early site permit it is currently
               reviewing, 20 COL applications, 2 additional design certification
               applications, and a design certification amendment
               application--all of which NRC expects to have in its review
               process over the next 18 months. However, NRC has not yet
               developed specific criteria to prioritize the review of these
               applications if it needs to decide which applications take
               precedence. Without criteria, NRC managers are likely to find it
               more difficult to decide how to allocate resources across several
               high-priority areas.
               o NRC has developed a comprehensive project management approach
               that includes guidance, a management tracking system, and a
               contracting support strategy to prepare for COL application
               reviews. However, it has not yet fully developed criteria for
               allocating staff and resources to both licensing activities and
               implementing computer-based tools intended to improve the staff's
               productivity. Consequently, NRC may have to choose between
               allocating resources to licensing activities or to further
               developing these tools.
               o NRO established a cross-divisional resource management board
               early in 2007 for resolving resource allocation issues if major
               review milestones are at risk of not being met. However, it has
               not clearly defined the board's role, if any, in managing and
               setting priorities for resource allocation. As a result, NRO may
               not be able to efficiently manage the multiple activities
               associated with reviewing at least 26 applications associated with
               its new reactor program. NRC managers we spoke with recognize this
               problem and plan to address it.

    NRC has significantly revised its regulatory framework and review process
    to prepare for licensing new reactors. Specifically, NRC has revised and
    augmented its rules, guidance, and oversight criteria for licensing and
    constructing new reactors primarily to provide for early resolution of
    issues, standardization, and predictability in the licensing process. In
    making these changes, NRC has regularly interacted with nuclear industry
    stakeholders to determine which parts of an application's technical and
    operational content could be standardized and to clarify guidance on
    certain technical matters. While NRC has made progress in these areas, it
    has not yet completed several actions to implement its review process. For
    instance, NRC has only recently initiated modifications to its acceptance
    review process to include both an evaluation of the application's
    completeness and its technical sufficiency. NRC plans to publish
    additional acceptance review guidance reflecting these modifications by
    the end of September 2007. Until this guidance is publicly available, it
    is unclear whether applicants will need to submit additional information
    or revise their applications. In addition, NRC is refining its processes
    to track its requests for additional information to each applicant. In
    some instances, applicants using the same reference reactor design may be
    asked the same question, and one applicant may have already provided a
    satisfactory answer. With a completed tracking process, the second
    reviewer could access the previously submitted information to avoid
    duplication.

    We are recommending that NRC take four actions--three to better manage its
    new reactor application workload and one to better ensure that its
    processes more efficiently and effectively facilitate these reviews. NRC
    agreed with our recommendations.

    Background

    The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 established NRC as an independent
    agency, headed by a five-member Commission, to regulate the nation's
    civilian use--commercial, industrial, academic, and medical--of nuclear
    energy and materials, including nuclear power reactors and research and
    test reactors. NRC's mission is to ensure that civilian users of nuclear
    materials adequately (1) protect public health and safety; (2) promote the
    common defense and security, including securing special nuclear materials
    against radiological sabotage and theft or diversion; and (3) protect the
    environment. NRC's budget authority grew from $626 million for fiscal year
    2004 to $824.9 million in fiscal year 2007, and NRC requested $916.6
    million for fiscal year 2008. By law, NRC is required to recover about 90
    percent of its budget authority each fiscal year, less certain specified
    amounts, through the fees it charges licensees and applicants. NRC staff
    grew from 3,110 as of September 2004 to 3,536 employees as of August 2007.

    NRC's design-centered review approach is central to its streamlined COL
    review process because it allows multiple applicants to reference a
    particular design by including common information in their applications.
    Specifically, NRC reviews standardized application content for a reactor
    design at one site--known as the reference COL. Companies using the same
    design can then refer to this reference COL content in their applications
    to decrease NRC's need to conduct the same level of review twice on the
    same application content. NRC expects that this design-centered review
    approach will provide the applicant with more certainty about the
    application process and improve its efficiency in reviewing COL
    applications without compromising safety.

    The design-centered review approach intends to leverage work NRC conducts
    through its design certification process. During that process, NRC
    examines any possible limits on operations and safety, resolves any issues
    that arise, and uses a rule-making process to establish a standardized
    reactor unit design that is not subject to major modifications during the
    COL review process. However, if a COL application does not reference a
    design certification, the applicant will have to submit the required
    design information in its COL application. Furthermore, NRC staff will
    review any design variations the applicant makes to the reference COL.

    For each application, NRC staff prepare the project's Environmental Impact
    Statement and review other site-specific factors affecting safety and
    security because these factors are not standard. Accordingly, 10 CFR Part
    52 requires that the COL application provide data and assessments of these
    factors. Alternatively, an applicant may opt to provide this information
    by applying for an early site permit, which allows the applicant to
    evaluate the suitability of a given site without going through the full
    COL application process. Once NRC issues an early site permit, the
    applicant can reference the permit in its COL application without
    resubmitting the site information.

    NRC Has Implemented Many Actions to Prepare Its Workforce for New Reactor
    Licensing Reviews, but Several Key Elements Are Still Under Way

    In preparing for COL application reviews in the time frame since our
    January 2007 report, NRC has continued its hiring and training efforts and
    made substantial progress in implementing reviewer and management tools.
    It also has developed a systematic project management approach--which
    includes models for planning and scheduling activities and contractor
    support activities--so that it can apply sufficient resources to several
    applications simultaneously. However, NRC has not yet fully developed
    criteria for allocating resources across COL applications, and it has not
    applied separate decision-making criteria for allocating funding for
    licensing activities and for support activities, such as developing
    computer-based review tools.

    NRC Has Taken Steps to Increase Staffing, Training, and Reviewer Tools to
    Support Its New Reactor Efforts, but Several Actions Are Not Complete

    In response to the electric power industry's growing commitment to
    building new reactors following the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of
    2005, NRC has significantly increased its hiring and funding for its new
    reactor licensing program. NRC's overall budget requests for new reactor
    licensing activities increased from nearly $50 million in fiscal year 2006
    to about $175 million for fiscal year 2008. To understand what resources
    the agency would need, NRC staff developed estimates for how many
    full-time equivalent (FTE) positions would be needed to review various
    applications: about 120 FTEs for a design certification, about 60 FTEs for
    a reference COL,^7 and about 30 FTEs for a subsequent COL. NRC officials
    noted that the reference COL staff-time estimate does not include any
    efficiencies gained through applying the design-centered review approach.

    To support its review of new reactor COL applications, NRC initially
    reorganized the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to create a division
    solely responsible for new reactor licensing work and substantially
    increased its size to more than 750 employees by hiring of entry- and
    midlevel employees. In August 2006, NRC created NRO to better prepare for
    new reactor licensing while ensuring that the Office of Nuclear Reactor
    Regulation maintained appropriate focus on the safety of the 104 currently
    operating reactors, and began phasing staff into NRO, primarily from the
    Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in October 2006.^8 NRO is expected
    to grow from 350 employees in August 2007 to about 500 staff during fiscal
    year 2008.^9 In addition, NRC is increasing staff to five other offices
    with new reactor responsibilities. FTEs for new reactor activities in
    these offices will increase from 50 to about 90 FTEs in fiscal year 2008,
    as hiring continues. For example, for new reactor work, the Office of
    Nuclear Security and Incident Response plans to have four times as many
    staff and the Office of the General Counsel two times as many staff; the
    Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel plans to hire at least two times
    as many staff, as well as more panelists committed to new reactor work.
    The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and the Office of Nuclear
    Regulatory Research FTE levels will also slightly increase. Several of
    these offices also reorganized to assume their new responsibilities. Table
    1 identifies the new reactor responsibilities of several NRC offices.

    ^7NRC estimates that its review of a reference COL would cost applicants
    about $26 million, assuming $258 per hour for reviewer time. The Nuclear
    Energy Institute estimates that COL applicants would spend about $100
    million for preparing the application, paying NRC licensing fees,
    responding to NRC during the review process, and overhead. A reactor
    designer estimates that preparing a design certification application costs
    $200 million.

    ^8NRC management balanced grade levels, positions, and preferences in
    assigning staff to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or to NRO. The
    Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation had about 530 employees as of August
    2007. Half of the staff for both offices have been at NRC for 5 years or
    less.

    ^9In August 2007, NRO reorganized its Division of New Reactor Licensing,
    which is responsible for the overall management of license application
    review activities. NRO's largest division, it includes more support for
    organizational effectiveness and productivity, contract management, and
    project management.

    Table 1: NRC Offices' Responsibilities for New Reactors

    Source: NRC.

    NRC has taken steps to expeditiously staff NRO in part because more than
    half of the work for a 30-month COL review is conducted in the first year.
    NRO reached its fiscal year 2007 staffing level by filling its midlevel
    and higher positions, phasing in existing NRC employees, and hiring new
    employees. Regarding fiscal year 2007, NRO managers noted that (1) budget
    constraints had limited hiring until NRC's fiscal year 2007 appropriation
    was enacted in February 2007 and (2) demanding workloads made it difficult
    for NRC staff to develop vacancy announcements and select and interview
    candidates. Some critical vacancies remain, and NRO will need to grow by
    an additional 30 percent to reach its fiscal year 2008 target. NRO
    managers expressed some concern about whether NRO will have sufficient
    staff with expertise to fill such critical vacancies as project
    management, structural engineering, and digital instrumentation and
    control. Several managers in NRO and other NRC offices also expressed
    concern about NRC's ability to retain staff in the intermediate and longer
    term and provide sufficient physical space for them.

    Regarding training, NRC has taken several steps to build on its existing
    curriculum so staff can be prepared to review new reactor license
    applications. Specifically, for new reactor licensing training, in early
    2007 NRO adapted some of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's
    training to contain technical and regulatory content for new reactors. NRC
    also offers basic regulatory and technical overview training across a
    range of areas. In 2008, NRC plans to launch several new courses that will
    include both overview and detailed training on new reactor designs. To the
    extent possible, NRO and other offices are also using on-the-job training
    opportunities to ensure employees have some exposure to the breadth and
    depth of new reactor work, including shadowing and mentoring programs.

    The in-depth and on-the-job training opportunities made available to staff
    have been somewhat limited to date. For example, the implementation of
    some technical training courses was delayed because some reactor design
    features need further clarification, and NRC's budget was constrained
    until February 2007, when its fiscal year 2007 appropriation was enacted.
    It is unclear whether employees working on some new reactor activities
    will be able to take these courses before their work group's design
    certification or COL applications arrive. In addition, some NRC staff
    conducting new reactor licensing work will not have related practical
    experience because they have not participated in early site permit, design
    certification, or preapplication activities.

    NRC is in the process of putting new tools into place to support reviewers
    as they conduct their work. These tools are designed to enhance
    productivity and ensure a more consistent and coordinated application
    review process by providing easily accessible pointers to key reviewer
    guidance and other information. Some tools are also intended to provide a
    means to document and share knowledge and lessons learned. (See table 2.)

    Table 2: Computer-Based Tools to Assist NRO Reviewers

    Source: NRC.

    ^aSharePoint is a Microsoft Office server tool designed to facilitate
    collaboration, provide content management features, implement business
    processes, and supply access to information essential to organizational
    goals and processes.

    The development or completion of such computer-based tools as the RAI
    system has been delayed until fiscal year 2008 because NRC management gave
    higher priority to such activities as developing limited work
    authorization guidance, publishing a proposed rule for assessing aircraft
    impact characteristics not included in design basis, and completing
    licensing work already in process. As a result, staff reviews may not be
    as timely and consistent until these computer-based tools are available,
    and NRC may not benefit from intended productivity efficiencies.

    NRC Is Implementing a Project Management Approach for Its New Reactor Licensing
    Program but Needs to Make Further Enhancements

    As part of its workforce preparation, NRC is using a project management
    approach to conduct and coordinate COL reviews so it can apply sufficient
    resources to several applications simultaneously. With this approach, NRC
    intends to enhance its overall ability to ensure priorities are
    appropriate, eliminate uneven workload, and allow managers to
    appropriately assess progress. As table 3 shows, the project management
    approach includes four components intended to communicate the processes,
    procedures, and tools to complete new reactor licensing projects. They
    include (1) a Licensing Program Plan manual, (2) general and
    application-specific models and templates--whose estimates NRO took
    several steps to refine in 2007, (3) a Microsoft Project tool, and (4) a
    contracting support strategy. In addition, from June through September
    2007, NRO provided information to staff involved in new reactor activities
    to familiarize them with this approach.

    Table 3: Key Project Management Components for New Reactor Licensing

    Source: NRC.

    Because it plans to rely on contractors to perform about one-third of its
    overall review work, NRC issued a request for proposals, developed a
    contracting toolkit for staff that includes generic templates to
    facilitate drafting of statements of work, and took steps to enter into or
    revise interagency agreements with several DOE laboratories.^10 NRC plans
    to obligate about $60 million to contractors in fiscal year 2008 to assist
    reviewers on both the safety and environmental portions of the COL
    applications. In addition, in fiscal year 2007 NRO used contractors to
    document its overall project management approach and conduct a program
    assessment and gap analysis for identifying additional process
    improvements, among other things.

    While NRO managers, COL applicants, and reactor designers are generally
    optimistic about the overall readiness of NRO's staff to review COL
    applications, NRC faces the following challenges:

               o Developing decision criteria for addressing competing
               priorities. NRC has developed plans for allocating resources for a
               design certification application and an early site permit it is
               currently reviewing, 20 COL applications, 2 additional design
               certification applications, and a design certification amendment
               application--all of which NRC expects to have in its review
               process over the next 18 months. However, NRC has not yet ranked
               initial COL application factors for making resource allocations
               and schedule decisions if licensing work exceeds NRC's new reactor
               budget. These factors include the quality and completeness of the
               application itself, the extent to which the COL application
               references an early site permit or design certification, evidence
               of the applicant's financial commitment to build a reactor in the
               near term, and other factors.^11 In commenting on recommendations
               in our draft report, NRO officials said that NRC will develop
               these criteria by the end of 2007.
               o Maximizing the use of the Microsoft Project  tool. In June 2007,
               NRO began using the Microsoft Project tool to schedule certain
               internal activities and work related to design certification and
               early site permit applications already under review. To
               effectively schedule tasks, the Microsoft Project tool needs
               several layers of NRC staff to regularly estimate and note their
               progress on each task. Entering this information into the system
               is a new practice that officials acknowledged will require some
               adjustment. Even with this tool, it will be a complex undertaking
               for staff and managers to regularly update and monitor entries,
               evaluate them for a range of user needs, and review reports
               generated to assess progress. While NRC has dedicated scheduling
               and project management resources to coordinate and direct
               activities, it is too soon to tell whether they are sufficient.
               Accordingly, understanding workflow, evaluating reports, and
               continually assessing resource utilization will take some time to
               become established practice. Most COL applicants generally
               supported NRC's use of the Microsoft Project tool and noted that
               it could promote more accountability for adhering to established
               schedules than has historically been the case.
               o Managing the increased reliance on contractors. NRO plans to use
               contracts to support at least one-third of the COL application
               review process--for fiscal year 2008, NRO's budget request is
               about the same for contractor support as it is for staff salaries
               and benefits.^12 NRC's efforts to implement its contractor support
               strategy are still under way. For example, NRO staff and managers
               initially defined particular work they expected contractors to
               conduct in fiscal year 2008. Specifically, NRO plans to use more
               than 200 task orders for a broad range of skills under at least 10
               umbrella contracts or interagency agreements.^13 Contractors are
               to support about 50 percent of the site-specific and environmental
               review work, as they did to review early site permit applications.
               As of early September 2007, NRO staff had completed most initial
               statements of technical work to be included in each task order,
               and NRC had awarded three of four commercial contracts and entered
               into three of seven interagency agreements planned for fiscal year
               2008. NRC plans to have the remaining contracts and agreements in
               place by the beginning of October 2007.

               o Allocating funding for developing reviewer and management tools.
               In fiscal year 2008, NRC will have hundreds of licensing
               activities under way and other internal activities to support the
               review of COL applications and certification of reactor designs.
               Evaluating the importance of completing activities that support
               the reviews--such as ensuring the smooth operation of the
               Microsoft Project tool, revising computer-based reviewer tools for
               enhancing productivity, delivering contractor training, increasing
               information technology support, or revising remaining
               guidance--may not be as important as completing priority licensing
               priorities. However, NRC has not developed criteria to determine
               how it will allocate resources between licensing activities and
               developing reviewer and management tools.
               o Clarifying the Resource Management Board's role.^14 In May 2007,
               NRO's management team formed a board of deputy division directors
               that meets weekly. The board is responsible for developing
               decision-making processes if certain milestones are in danger of
               not being met, and NRO therefore has to significantly shift
               resources. While NRO expects the board to recommend actions to
               mitigate the impact on overall scheduling if such changes are
               required, it is unclear whether the board will have any role in
               generally setting priorities and directing resource allocation.
               Without such clarification, NRO may miss opportunities for more
               effectively managing multiple activities associated with reviewing
               as many as 20 applications, certifying designs, granting early
               site permits, and reviewing applications for limited work
               authorizations. NRC managers recognize this problem and plan to
               address it.

    ^10During 2007, NRC resolved two identified conflicts of interest with
    using DOE laboratories to support NRO. NRC managers said they faced these
    conflicts mainly because relatively few companies and individuals with
    specialized skills do not have links to a potential applicant or reactor
    designer. NRC management is considering whether to use two other DOE
    laboratories with identified conflicts of interest.

    ^11Commissioners indicated and NRC staff confirmed that these factors
    apply when allocating resources during budget execution only and should
    not be applied in preparing budget requests. These factors include 11 for
    COL applications, 2 for design certifications, and 3 for early site
    permits.

    ^12According to NRC officials, a contractor's FTE of work costs about
    double that of an NRC permanent staff's FTE of work. Cumulatively,
    proposed agreement and contract ceilings from fiscal year 2007 through
    fiscal year 2012 total more than $300 million, including nearly $25
    million in support from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S.
    Geological Survey.

    ^13As of early September 2007, NRC had committed about $7 million in
    fiscal year 2007 funds for five DOE laboratories to perform preparedness,
    preapplication, and licensing work and about $2 million for commercial
    contractors to perform preparedness activities.

    According to NRO officials, some efforts are still under way and the
    effectiveness of others cannot be determined until the application review
    begins. Consequently, NRO plans to periodically assess the project
    management approach's effectiveness.

    ^14In July 2007, NRO renamed the Change Management Board to the Resource
    Management Board.

    NRC Has Significantly Revised Its Overall Regulatory Framework and Review
    Process, but Several Activities Are Still in Progress

    In redesigning its regulatory framework to better resolve issues early and
    promote standardization and predictability in the licensing process, NRC
    reached out to stakeholders, particularly those who would be seeking
    certification for designs or applying for licenses. Industry stakeholders
    generally consider NRC's design-centered review approach and revised
    framework to be an improvement over NRC's prior process. However, NRC has
    not explained to applicants how it plans to implement its revised
    processes for accepting (docketing) a COL application, requesting
    additional information, or conducting hearings. These uncertainties may
    limit expected efficiencies and predictability regarding the total time a
    COL applicant needs to obtain a license.

    NRC Has Revised Most Key Regulations and Guidance with Considerable Involvement
    of Stakeholders

    During the past 4 years, NRC has taken several steps to significantly
    revise and augment its primary regulatory framework to prepare for
    licensing and construction of new reactors. This framework consists of
    NRC's 10 CFR Part 52 rule; guidance to aid licensees in developing COL
    application content, such as the Regulatory Guide 1.206; safety and
    environmental standard review plans that guide reviewers in evaluating
    applications; and criteria to guide inspectors examining operational
    programs and construction activities. The framework also includes
    ancillary rules and guidance related to security, limited work
    authorization, and fitness for duty. (See table 4 and app. I for more
    information about the framework's major components and remaining work.)

    Table 4: Major Components of NRC's New Reactor Licensing Regulatory
    Framework

    Source: NRC.

    ^a72 Fed. Reg. 49351 (Aug. 28, 2007).

    In revising and augmenting this regulatory framework, NRC took steps to
    convey key changes and solicit feedback through public meetings and formal
    interactions with stakeholders to help resolve issues early.^15 NRC also
    solicited information from potential applicants for planning purposes. In
    addition, NRC frequently reached out to applicants and reactor designers
    during 2006 and 2007 regarding new reactor licensing by

               o supporting the formation and activities of design-centered
               working groups for COL applicants and design certification
               applicants to help standardize COL application content and format
               and clarify NRC's expectations for the level of detail in COL
               applications;^16 and
               o holding several public meetings related to specific technical
               areas--such as digital instrumentation and control, probabilistic
               risk assessment, and seismic analyses--and operational program
               areas, including quality assurance, reactor component manufacturer
               inspections, training, and emergency planning.

    NRC accelerated some schedules to have key components of the regulatory
    framework in place before applications are submitted. Both applicants and
    NRC acknowledge that the accelerated, overlapping time frames for power
    companies to prepare their COL applications while NRC revises its
    regulatory framework have neither been ideal nor fully avoidable.
    Specifically, NRC did not promulgate its Part 52 rule until August 28,
    2007, 4 months after originally planned. NRC is still in the process of
    completing some rules and guidance related to both licensing and
    construction activities. Applicants expressed some concern that NRC's
    review of applications, in some areas, could change as long as these
    components remain incomplete. For example, in September 2006, NRC proposed
    a rule to update physical protection requirements, which officials told us
    is not due out in final form until 2008. In addition, its limited work
    authorization rule, while substantially complete, will not be
    available in final form before October 2007, and NRC is in the process of
    developing associated guidance. NRC has not yet told applicants how it
    will apply resources to limited work authorization applications or how
    this will affect individual COL application review schedules. Also,
    because NRC only recently solicited public comments to further update its
    environmental guidance, applicants may have more difficulty developing
    specific COL content for unresolved issues. Furthermore, NRC is continuing
    to develop several components of the Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and
    Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) process, such as the final closeout review for
    ensuring all criteria are met. Finally, NRC has just begun its multiyear
    process of staffing its Construction Inspection Program; efforts to date
    have primarily included conducting a range of quality assurance
    inspections activities.

    ^15Participants at the public meetings of the design-centered working
    group we observed primarily represented NRC, COL applicants, reactor
    designers, or the Nuclear Energy Institute. Similarly, public comments on
    the proposed rule for Part 52 were mainly provided by industry
    stakeholders. The Department of Homeland Security and the Environmental
    Protection Agency also commented.

    ^16NuStart and UniStar--two nuclear energy consortia composed of electric
    power companies and reactor design companies--have supported the
    design-centered working group's standardization efforts.

    While NRC Has Taken Steps to Advance the Design-centered Review Approach, Some
    Aspects of the Implementation Process Are Not Yet Complete

    NRC and applicants have taken steps to advance how the design-centered
    review approach will be implemented during 2008 and 2009 to facilitate
    NRC's review of applications for at least 20 COLs, 3 design
    certifications, 1 design certification amendment, and 1 early site permit,
    as well as 1 or more limited work authorizations. Figure 3 presents a
    simplified diagram of the COL application review process, including
    estimated time frames associated with each aspect of the review; major
    preapplication activities and postlicensing activities associated with the
    completion and verification of ITAAC after the Commission grants the COL;
    and information about the construction time period should an applicant
    choose to build a plant.

    Figure 3: Major Aspects of the COL Review Process

    ^aOnly the COL application safety review process is illustrated here.
    Early site permit, design certification, and limited work authorization
    activities also may affect timelines and the scope of some activities.

    ^bNRC currently is considering internally recommended changes to its
    hearing process.

    ^cSome draft Environmental Impact Statement activities also occur in phase
    1.

    NRC officials expect to develop schedule estimates for each application
    after it is received, conduct an estimated 60-day initial review of
    technical sufficiency and completeness as a basis for docketing an
    application; and if the application is found acceptable, develop an
    estimated schedule for completing the review. The COL review process
    includes three primary areas of review: the safety/technical review, which
    results in a Safety Evaluation Report; the environmental review, which
    results in an Environmental Impact Statement; and the adjudicatory review,
    which results in hearing findings/orders.

    Throughout the safety and environmental reviews, NRC typically develops
    several hundred requests for additional information that range in length
    and complexity to ascertain the sufficiency of the information the
    applicant has provided so that NRC can develop its findings. NRC officials
    estimated that the safety review will take 30 months, the environmental
    review 24 months. Prehearing activities take place concurrently with the
    staff's reviews, while the hearing on any contested issues and on the
    uncontested portion of the application takes about 12 months once NRC
    staff have completed their safety and environmental review documents.

    COL applicants and reactor designers told us they support NRC's
    design-centered review approach. They expect that standard applications
    will enable NRC staff, to the maximum extent practical, to use a "one
    issue, one review, one position" strategy. They said this approach is
    feasible if applicants and NRC staff implement it as intended, in
    accordance with guidance set out in NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.206 and
    Standard Review Plan. Most applicants and managers stated that they plan
    to be thorough, timely, and disciplined in implementing the process for
    reviewing COL applications. However, they also expected that some
    processes and procedures will be clarified during the implementation
    process. Furthermore, several COL and design applicants jointly developed
    detailed matrixes to identify all reference COL application parts that are
    identical to the design and all subsequent COL application parts that are
    identical to the reference COL. These parts are incorporated by reference,
    other parts are clearly identified as including some similar content, and
    the remaining parts are clearly identified as site specific. Also, the
    Nuclear Energy Institute and applicants developed standard templates for
    certain parts of the application content--for example, some operational
    programs--and NRC agreed to their use.^17

    While NRC has substantially defined its COL review process, it is not yet
    clear how the agency will implement a few key components. For example, NRC
    is revising the acceptance review process and the conduct of hearings in
    response to an internal task force's recommendations. Consequently,
    uncertainties remain about how these processes will be implemented, which
    may make it more difficult for applicants to know what information they
    must provide and how NRC will review their applications:

               o Clarifying recent acceptance review process changes. In June
               2007, 3 months before it expected to receive the first COL
               applications, NRC announced it would expand its acceptance review
               process to include not only an evaluation of the application's
               completeness but also its technical sufficiency. NRC also
               increased the allotted amount of time for this review from 30 to
               60 days. The intent of the new process is to enable NRC to
               identify areas of potential concern early in the process and
               discuss them with the applicant. NRC expects that applicants will
               submit high-quality, complete applications for docketing. By the
               end of September 2007, NRC plans to publicly release associated
               internal guidance that its staff will use for deciding whether to
               accept, delay, or reject docketing.^18

               o Better managing the request for additional information process.
               Such requests to assess technical sufficiency during the review
               process have been a central component of prior safety and
               environmental reviews, yet a few steps remain to better ensure
               efficiency. NRC is still developing its process for tracking
               requests for additional information from applicants. However, NRC
               cannot yet coordinate these requests to multiple applicants who
               are using the same reactor design, which may lead to unnecessary
               duplication of effort. For example, in some instances, applicants
               using the same reference reactor design may be asked the same
               question, and one applicant may have already provided a
               satisfactory answer. If NRC's tracking system were in place, the
               second reviewer could have access to the previously submitted
               information, thereby avoiding another request for information and
               improving the efficiency of the review. Several COL applicants
               also expressed concern that duplicative or unnecessarily detailed
               requests for information may result because many of the reviews
               will be conducted simultaneously by multiple reviewers. Until the
               revised process is available to staff and communicated to
               stakeholders, it is unclear whether NRC will gain intended
               efficiencies in applying the design-centered review approach to
               its request for information process.

    ^17While most COL applicants said that 65 percent to 80 percent of their
    application's content will be standardized, this percentage does not
    equate to the amount of time or resources NRC will need to review the
    application. According to the applicants, the 20 percent of content that
    is not standardized represents site-specific safety and environmental
    analyses that require far more than 20 percent of both COL applicants' and
    NRC's time and resources to complete.

    ^18NRC officials told us that the acceptance review assessment also will
    inform how it develops the review schedule for each application.

               o Addressing ITAAC process implementation concerns early. Some NRC
               staff and COL applicants said they would benefit from further
               discussion about how NRC will (1) oversee the applicant's
               implementation of ITAAC for the construction and operation of the
               new nuclear reactor units and (2) determine that an ITAAC is
               complete. In addition, applicants will need to inform NRC about
               certain procurement and construction activities, such as the
               acquisition of major parts.
               o Completing revisions to the hearing process. NRC is revising its
               policy for conducting hearings on both the contested and
               uncontested portions of applications.

                            o In June 2007, NRC issued a proposed policy
                            statement that would allow the Atomic Safety and
                            Licensing Board Panel to consolidate hearings on
                            contentions related to the standardized portions of
                            multiple applications.
                            o The process for hearings for the uncontested
                            portion of the COL proceeding may change. The
                            Commission plans to seek legislative authority from
                            the Congress to eliminate the statutory requirement
                            to conduct a hearing even if no one has requested it
                            in order to conserve resources. If a hearing must be
                            held, however, the Commission has taken steps to
                            assume responsibility for conducting the uncontested
                            portion of hearings. Currently, the Atomic Safety and
                            Licensing Board Panel is responsible for conducting
                            all of NRC's hearings, not just those associated with
                            new reactor applications. NRC assumes that it would
                            save considerable staff and Panel resources if the
                            Commission takes the responsibility for this portion
                            of the hearings because it could conduct a different
                            style of hearing.

               Beyond the changing processes and unresolved technical issues that
               remain--such as evaluating applicants' use of digital
               instrumentation and controls, NRC faces some general constraints
               because of the short or overlapping time frames between the
               preparation of its regulatory framework and process and the
               submission of applications starting in October 2007. For instance,
               for the environmental component of NRC's review, NRC would prefer
               to have about 22 months of preapplication discussions with the
               applicants to allow staff to plan its work more effectively and
               identify potential areas of concern. However, these discussions
               are at the applicant's discretion; none of the fiscal year 2008
               applications will begin with this lead time, and some may have had
               as little as 2 months. Also, while NRC has scheduled considerable
               resources to conduct design certification reviews concurrently
               with its COL reviews, applicants have announced plans to use two
               new reactor designs that have not been submitted to NRC for
               certification, a reactor designer is amending its previously
               certified design, and another designer may also revise its design.
               These additional changes likely will tax NRC's resources and
               stafftime.

    			  Conclusions

               NRC has made major strides in developing its new licensing process
               for nuclear reactors to improve timeliness and provide more
               predictability and consistency during reviews. Nevertheless, NRC
               will face a daunting task in implementing this new process while
               at the same time facing a surge in applications over the next 18
               months.

               We recognize that NRC cannot prepare for all contingencies in its
               review of license applications under this new process, but we also
               find that NRC could be better positioned to manage the process if
               it further refined the criteria and processes it has already put
               into place. First, while NRC has identified factors for staff to
               consider in developing the fiscal year 2008 budget proposal for
               new reactor activities, it has not made plans to use these factors
               in making resource allocations and schedule decisions. As a
               result, NRC may find it difficult to set priorities as it begins
               to review applications early next year. Second, NRC has not
               implemented some reviewer and management support tools that are
               intended to facilitate efficiency and productivity, and may not
               devote sufficient resources to their completion in the future.
               Third, NRO established the Resource Management Board to recommend
               actions when the office is at risk of missing major milestones.
               However, NRO has not specified the extent to which the board is
               responsible for generally setting priorities or allocating
               resources, which is likely to be much more challenging once
               applications are submitted. NRC managers plan to clarify the
               board's responsibilities. Finally, the design-centered approach is
               premised, in part, on streamlining the review process through
               standardization. However, NRC has not worked out a process for
               coordinating multiple, similar requests for additional
               information, which could facilitate greater efficiencies.

    			  Recommendations for Executive Action

               To better ensure that its workforce is prepared to review new
               reactor applications and its review processes more efficiently and
               effectively facilitate reviews, we recommend that NRC take the
               following four actions:

    			                          o Fully develop and implement criteria for setting
                            priorities to allocate resources across applications
                            by January 2008.
                            o Provide the resources for implementing reviewer and
                            management tools needed to ensure that the most
                            important tools will be available as soon as is
                            practicable, but no later than March 2008.
                            o Clarify the responsibilities of NRO's Resource
                            Management Board in facilitating the coordination and
                            communication of resource allocation decisions.
                            o Enhance the process for requesting additional
                            information by (1) providing more specific guidance
                            to staff on the development and resolution of
                            requests for additional information within and across
                            design centers and (2) explaining forthcoming
                            workflow and electronic process revisions to COL
                            applicants in a timely manner.

    			  Agency Comments

               We provided NRC with a draft of this report for its review and
               comment. In written comments, NRC agreed with our recommendations.
               (See app. II.) In addition, NRC provided comments to improve the
               report's technical accuracy, which we have incorporated as
               appropriate.

    			  Scope and Methodology

               To examine the steps NRC has taken to prepare its workforce to
               review new reactor license applications and manage its workload,
               we obtained information about its workforce preparation by
               reviewing NRC documents, conducting semi-structured interviews
               with several managers directly responsible for the planning and
               implementation of new reactor licensing activities, and observing
               internal NRC meetings. More specifically, we reviewed strategy and
               commission papers, licensing program planning documents and
               briefings, and a range of documents regarding reorganization,
               staffing, training, hiring, contracting, and project scheduling.
               We supplemented this information through interviews with NRC
               managers in NRO; the offices of Nuclear Security and Incident
               Response, Nuclear Regulatory Research, General Counsel, and Human
               Resources; the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; and the
               Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. We also observed several
               NRO-specific internal management meetings and employee training
               sessions, and NRO staff demonstrated their Microsoft Project tool
               and associated scheduling models and templates. We updated NRC
               workforce data presented in our January 2007 report entitled Human
               Capital: Retirements and Anticipated New Reactor Applications Will
               Challenge NRC's Workforce. We also obtained budget data from NRC's
               Office of the Chief Financial Officer  and determined that these
               data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

               To examine the steps NRC has taken to develop its regulatory
               framework and key processes, we reviewed various NRC reports,
               meeting transcripts and minutes, and strategy and commission
               papers and supplemented this information with interviews with
               cognizant NRC managers. We conducted semi-structured interviews
               with representatives from 2 nuclear power consortia and 16 of the
               17 electric power companies that have announced plans to file a
               COL application, as well as 2 reactor design companies. We also
               interviewed officials of the Nuclear Energy Institute; the Union
               of Concerned Scientists; the Institute of Nuclear Power
               Operations; Winston and Strawn, LLP; and the Georgia Public
               Service Commission. In addition, we observed several of NRC's
               design-centered working group and public meetings focused on new
               reactor licensing activities, and attended conferences held on new
               reactor licensing.

               As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
               contents of this report, we plan no further distribution until 30
               days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to
               appropriate congressional committees, the Chairman of NRC, the
               Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other
               interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
               upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
               charge on the GAO Web site at [22]http://www.gao.gov .

               If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
               contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov. Contact points
               for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
               be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
               contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

               Mark E. Gaffigan
    			  Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment

    			  Appendix I: Major Components of NRC's New Reactor Licensing Framework

    			  Source: NRC.

               Appendix II: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

               Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    			  GAO Contact

               Mark E. Gaffigan, (202) 512-3841 or [23]gaffiganm@gao.gov

    			  Staff Acknowledgments

               In addition to the individual named above, Richard Cheston,
               Assistant Director; Amanda Leissoo; Sarah J. Lynch; Amanda Miller;
               Omari Norman; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; Julie E. Silvers; and
               Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.

    			  GAO's Mission

               The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
               investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
               meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
               the performance and accountability of the federal government for
               the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
               evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
               recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
               informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
               commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
               accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    			  Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

               The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
               no cost is through GAO's Web site ( [24]www.gao.gov ). Each
               weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
               correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
               newly posted products every afternoon, go to [25]www.gao.gov and
               select "Subscribe to Updates."

    			  Order by Mail or Phone

               The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
               are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
               Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
               Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
               discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

               U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
               Washington, D.C. 20548

               To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
    			  TDD: (202) 512-2537
    			  Fax: (202) 512-6061

               To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

               Contact:

               Web site: [26]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
    			  E-mail: [27]fraudnet@gao.gov
    			  Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    			  Congressional Relations

               Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [28]JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
               512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
               Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548

    			  Public Affairs

               Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [29]Beckers@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
               U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
               Washington, D.C. 20548

    (360784)

    To view the full product, including the scope
    and methodology, click on [30]GAO-07-1129 .

    For more information, contact Mark Gaffigan at (202) 512-3841 or
    gaffiganm@gao.gov.

    Highlights of [31]GAO-07-1129 , a report to congressional committees

    September 2007

    NUCLEAR ENERGY

    NRC's Workforce and Processes for New Reactor Licensing Are Generally in
    Place, but Uncertainties Remain as Industry Begins to Submit Applications

    Nearly three decades after the last order for a new nuclear power reactor
    in the United States, electric power companies plan to submit 20
    applications in the next 18 months to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    (NRC) for licenses to build and operate new reactors. Since 1989, NRC has
    developed a new license review process that allows a power company to
    obtain a construction permit and an operating license through a single
    combined license (COL) based on one of a number of standard reactor
    designs. NRC expects its new process to enhance the efficiency and
    predictability of its reviews. GAO reviewed NRC's readiness to evaluate
    these applications by examining the steps NRC has taken to (1) prepare its
    workforce and manage its workload and (2) develop its regulatory framework
    and review process for new reactor activities. GAO reviewed NRC documents
    for new reactor workforce staffing and training, examined NRC's guidance
    for the review of license applications, interviewed NRC managers and
    representatives of nearly all of the COL applicants, and observed NRC's
    public meetings.

    [32]What GAO Recommends

    GAO is making recommendations to better ensure that NRC's workforce and
    review processes efficiently and effectively facilitate the review of new
    reactor license applications. In commenting on a draft of the report, NRC
    agreed with GAO's recommendations.

    NRC has taken many steps to prepare its workforce for new reactor
    licensing reviews, but several key elements of its preparations are still
    underway. As a result, uncertainties remain about NRC's ability to manage
    its workload associated with the surge of applications. Specifically, NRC
    has increased its funding for new reactor activities, created the Office
    of New Reactors and reorganized several other offices, and hired a
    significant number of entry-level and midlevel professionals. To assist
    its staff in reviewing the applications, NRC also plans to contract out
    about one-third of its fiscal year 2008 workload. However, several
    elements of NRC's preparatory activities are still in progress, including
    hiring for some critical positions; developing key training courses; and
    developing computer-based tools intended to enhance consistency and
    coordination in reviewing like sections of COL applications. In addition,
    NRC has not fully developed criteria for setting priorities if the
    workload exceeds available staff and contractor resources. Finally, while
    the Office of New Reactors established a cross-divisional resource
    management board early in 2007 for coordinating certain office review
    activities, it has not clearly defined the extent of the board's
    responsibilities.

    NRC has significantly revised its regulatory framework and review process
    to prepare for licensing new reactors, but until NRC completes certain
    additional actions, it may not fully realize the anticipated benefits of
    the new process. NRC has revised, augmented, and clarified most rules,
    guidance, and inspection oversight criteria to provide for early
    resolution of issues, standardization, and predictability in the license
    review process. However, NRC has not yet completed several actions to
    implement this process. For example, NRC only recently modified its
    acceptance review process to include an evaluation of the application's
    technical sufficiency in addition to its completeness. NRC plans to
    complete new acceptance review guidance and tools reflecting this change
    by the end of September 2007. NRC also is refining its process for
    tracking requests to each applicant for more information but has not
    developed a coordinating mechanism to avoid unnecessarily requesting
    information from multiple applicants.

    Anticipated COL Applications by Fiscal Year

    Source: NRC.

    Note: Information as of September 10, 2007.

    References

    Visible links

      21. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-105
      22. http://www.gao.gov/
      23. mailto:gaffiganm@gao.gov
      24. http://www.gao.gov/
      25. http://www.gao.gov/
      26. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
      27. mailto:fraudnet@gao.gov
      28. mailto:JarmonG@gao.gov
      29. mailto:Beckers@gao.gov
      30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1129
      31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1129
    *** End of document. ***