Meeting Questions:

Webinar - Proposed Changes to the 10 CFR Part 810 Regulation

Jay Kraemer Asked: Are the dates in 810.15 of the proposal merely place holders or were they 

intended as the actual dates relevant to the savings clause?

Malcolm Critchley Asked: Will the slides be available after the call

Richard Hill Asked: Will we get copies of the presentation?

Jay Kraemer Asked: What were the criteria for determining which countries were listed in 

810.6(b)(1) of the proposal and which would be subject to a specific authorization requirement?

Sheila Koza Asked: Why does the proposed rulemaking exclude the Phillipines & Indonesia 

from general authorizations for technology exports when they are authorized to receive exports 

of components under 10 CFR 110.26?

Edward Baker Asked: Will the material being presented be available electronically after the 

presentation?

Kerry Contini Asked: 1. The provisions of general and specific authorizations talk only about 

assistance to countries, not to individuals. Are we supposed to assume the "deemed export to the 

home country" part that connects a national to a country? 2. The provisions about how to apply 

for a license to transfer technology to a foreign national seem to refer only to an employment 

context. Are we supposed to assume that a license would be required to transfer technology to a 

foreign national who is not an employee of the transferor, e.g., someone employed by a different 

company but located in the US? What about visitors to plants?
Roger Spinnato, (INPO and WANO) Asked: In light of the nuclear accident at the Fukushima 

Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, general authorization should be retained and expanded to apply 

explicitly to the safety-related assistance and benchmarking activities of commercial nuclear 

reactor operators and industry organizations charged with promoting the highest levels of safety 

and reliability in the operation of commercial nuclear power plants. Given the need to enhance 

global nuclear safety, why has the DOE proposed eliminating the general authorization contained 

in current § 810.7(c)?

Volker Pasternak, EPRI Asked: By not listing Mexico as generally authorized, commerce would 

become more complicated and increase the burden on US business. Is this intended?

Donald Irwin Asked: Will DOE process 810 applications under current regulations submitted 

now, but before proposed regulations are finalized? If so, will they be reviewed under current 

standards? If not, what standards will DOE use? What should a conscientious entity do between 

now and the date the proposed regs are issued in final form?

dcat Asked: Does NNSA have an estimate of the number of additional specific authorizations it 

will need to process for foreign employee as a result of the new rule? My company employs

nuclear workers from an Asian country that has not previously required authorization. Will 

NNSA hire more staff to process the multitude of new authorization requests? How long will the 

process take?

Westinghouse Asked: If the goal of the proposal is to bring the Part 810 rules into conformity 

with NSG Guidelines, why is a general deemed export rule retained and even formalized when 

almost every other NSG member does not have any general deemed export rule?

Roger Spinnato, (INPO and WANO) Asked: Has the DOE considered granting genera 

authorization to INPO and WANO activities?

Piet van der Heide Asked: 810.11(c) seems to impose an additional administratvie load on 

administring in an international program who has access to what detailed information. Is this 

correct? It seems we have now to administer in detail the parts of the technology each individual 

(foregin national) has access to.
Barbara Vaccaro Asked: Are these slides going to be made available to participants after the 

webinar?

Hogan Lovells Asked: How do you define "certain uranium milling activities," as referenced in 

810.2?

Harrison Akins Asked: Will this presentation will be available after the webinar?

Westinghouse Asked: You said it was evident why India was not on the generally authorized list 

as proposed in the revised Part 810 regulation, even though there is a 123 Agreement in place. 

When and how will DOE address any additional requirements under the Hyde Act on industry 

for nuclear cooperation with India and Indian entiities since this proposal does not seem to 

discuss those?

Donald Irwin Asked: Under the proposed regulations, will it always be necessary to obtain a 

specific authorization for any citizen of a nation that is not on the list in proposed sec. 

810.6(b)(1) to work at a nuclear power plant in a technical capacity, unless that person already 

holds a green card? If so, that places a large burden on DOE and on utilities, as well as restricting 

the qualified labor market. If there are exceptions under the proposed regs, what are they?

Richard Hill Asked: We have been asked to provide PWR systems information and PRA 

information for a plant in China. Is this authorized? Also, isn't there a 123 agreement with 

China?

Carol Berrigan Asked: Will these slides be available after the Webinar?

Scott Lumadue Asked: Will a printable version of the slide show be made available?
k P Lau Asked: Since China is a weapon state and a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and 

the US has 123 agreement with China and we have sold them the most advanced nuclear reactor 

system, AP1000, why is China not the the general authorized list?

Carol Berrigan Asked: When will comment letters and other materials be posted on 

regulations.gov?

Hogan Lovells Asked: Has DOE improved processing time for deemed export specific 

authorization applications, e.g., is DOE taking less than a year and a half to process such 

applications?

Suzanne Bullitt Asked: Will this presentation be made available at the close of the webinar?

jane in dc Asked: can you forecast the change expected in the number of activity reports industry 

will be required to submit under the new rule?

Ben Flowe Asked: Can you make these slides available for download? Very hard to follow and 

do notes with such a quick presentation.

nbolin Asked: Will a copy of the presentation slides be made available?

Blair Woodring Asked: dpes this affecting the suppliers of fabrications or semi finished metal 

products (valve bodies, pump bodies, heavy fasteners, and specialy alloys) ?

Melissa Mann Asked: With extension of the comment period until December 7, 2011, will 

NNSA also be extending the date by which requests for specific authorization must be submitted 

for activities that are currently generally authorized (pursuant to the savings clause in the 

NOPR)?
Volker Pasternak, EPRI Asked: Are the "deemed export" rules harmonized with DOC's rules or 

are there differences?

Hogan Lovells Asked: 1. Has DOE improved processing time for deemed export specific 

authorization applications, e.g., is DOE taking less than a year and a half to process such 

applications?

Jay Kraemer Asked: What consideration was given to either including China, India, and or 

Russia (two of whom are themselves NSG members and all of whom have 123 Agreements with 

the US) as generally authorized destinations, and what led DOE to maintain each of them as 

"restricted?"

Ted Jones/NEI Asked: What is DOE’s assessment of the likely impact on U.S. exports to the 

countries that the Proposed Rule would make ineligible for general authorizations, given that 

many of the affected countries - including Chile, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, and the Philippines -

are building, planning or considering new nuclear plants? What is DOE’s assessment of the 

likely impact on bilateral relationships of raising new barriers to technology transfer? What was 

the basis for these changes?

Jason Zorn Asked: The Obama administration has come out strongly in favor of clear and 

predictable regulations. The President has stated that agencies of the Federal government must 

only adopt regulations only after a reasoned determined that its benefits justify its costs, and that 

agencies must tailor their regulations to impose the lease burden on society. The President also 

affirmed that the regulatory system must promote economic growth, innovation, 

competitiveness, and job creation. It is clear that a thorough regulatory analysis for the proposed 

rule would have aided DOE in better appreciating the significant adverse impacts of this rule, 

and to realize that the benefits would be minimal or non-existent. The Federal Register Notice 

for the proposed rule does not indicate that DOE conducted a regulatory analysis. Can you 

discuss why a regulatory analysis was not conducted, and whether or not such a regulatory 

analysis would have been beneficial?

Jay Kraemer Asked: For ongoing activities now generally authorized but proposed to require a 

specific authorization, would DOE entertain a proposal to "grandfather" them, subject to a 
requirement of notice before a date certain and an opportunity for DOE to object (as in current 

810.7(b)?

Hogan Lovells Asked: 1. Has DOE improved processing time for deemed export specific 

authorization applications, e.g., is DOE taking less than a year and a half to process such 

applications? 2. Regarding the 19 general authorization reports for Mexico, Philipines, and 

Jordan - it appears that specific authorizations now will be required, putting an additional burden 

on DOE. What is the basis for requiring specific authorization for these countries going forward, 

and were there any problems identfied from the reports that caused the change? 3. The change in 

the country list will clearly result in additional specific authorization applications submitted to 

DOE. Does DOE have adequate resources to handle this increased workload?

Piet van der Heide Asked: 810.11(d) "to avoid, so far as practicable, the transfer of enabling 

design or manufacturing technology" in enrichment seems to make it impossible for a company 

in an international cooperation program to exchange its personnel internationally. I.e. an 

individual (US citizen) exposed to our R&D and manufacturing in Europe and returning to the 

US seems to be prohibited of sharing with EU colleagues when back in the US. This is against 

the principle of the international cooperation where we want to learn from each others best 

practices. Can you comment on this interpretation of 810.11(d)?

Vijay Sazawal Asked: It is interesting that the speaker invoked 1986, NSG amd 10CFR110 in 

his presentation. What he obviously missed is the big picture: 1. Cold War is over, the nonproliferation challenges are not communist and pseudo communist countries of the past. 2. The 

NSG has more members on its list and the rules are mostly uniform for all approved for nuclear 

commerce. 3 NRC has a transparent process. On the other hand, NNSA has an opaque process 

which, rather than becoming translucent, has aggressively become more opaque, more 

bureaucratic and more burdensome. This is against President's National Export Initiative, and 

will surely kill the future nuclear commerce. By judging industry interest from the applications 

you get, you are grossly underestimating the industry plight. Make the process transparent - give 

us firm time limits by when you will have approvals - do what many other countries promoting 

nuclear commerce are doing. Think out of the box. CUT THE RED TAPE.

Carol Berrigan Asked: U.S. companies are generally averse to activities that risk criminal 

punishment. Given the criminal penalties for violations of Part 810, ambiguities in the rule cause 

businesses to act very conservatively when conducting any activity that could possibly be subject 

to the rule. In other words, the lack of clarity in the rule and the unreasonable duration of the 

processes associated with getting DOE approval have effectively deterred many business from 

legitimate commercial opportunities. Has the DOE considered the opportunity costs that the 
many ambiguities in Part 810 have had or will have for legitimate commercial activity? What 

additional measures will DOE take to improve the clarity of the final rule? Will additional 

guidance be made available to all stakeholders?

Edward Baker Asked: If you don't get to all the questions, will you post the questions and 

answers on DOE's website like NRC does for questions that don't get answered during Reg Info 

Conference sessions?

Westinghouse Asked: Please clarify that "place holders" means in respect of dates given in 

810.15 as proposed? This is not clear to those who have not seen the question asked.

Michael Hopkins Asked: Is it possible to get a list of all the questions asked and distributed with 

the slides, if indeed the slides are made publically available?

Richard M. Springman Asked: Do the provisions of 810.2 (10) "storage of irradiated nuclear 

material" and (12) "Movement of irradiated nuclear materials, including specially designed 

containers therefor" include spent fuel and spent fuel casks/canisters?