April 26, 2010

MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas G. Hiltz, Chief 

Advanced Fuel Cycle, Enrichment,

 and Uranium Conversion Branch

Special Projects and Technical

 Support Directorate

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety

 and Safeguards

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

 and Safeguards

FROM: Matthew A. Bartlett, Project Manager /RA/

Advanced Fuel Cycle, Enrichment,

 and Uranium Conversion Branch

Special Projects and Technical

 Support Directorate

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety

 and Safeguards

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

 and Safeguards

SUBJECT: APRIL 12, 2010, TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SUMMARY TO 

DISCUSS SEISMIC AND STRUCTURAL ISSUES RELATING TO 

THE INTERNATIONAL ISOTOPES APPLICATION FOR A 

DECONVERSION FACILITY (TAC NO. L32739)

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a conference call between

representatives from the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (Center) at the

Southwest Research Institute, the Office of Research, International Isotopes Inc., and their 

contractor on April 12, 2010. The call was to discuss eight talking points which the NRC

provided to the applicant regarding the seismic and structural review. The goal of the meeting 

was to ensure International Isotopes Fluorine Products, Inc. (IIFP) was aware of the level of 

information needed by the NRC to complete the review and obtain feedback from the applicant 

on the availability of additional information. 

The conference call provided clarification on the information available from IIFP and provided a 

time frame for obtaining additional information. The IIFP indicated several of the topics

discussed in the talking points required further site characterization and development of the 

detailed plant design. The information would become available in the late summer and fall of 

2010 and would be provided to the NRC in response to Requests for Additional Information 

(RAIs). In the mean time, the IIFP indicated they would be able to compile and submit the 

criteria used for the design basis and conceptual information needed to address RAIs. In 

addition, IIFP agreed to provide the NRC periodic updates on the status of the design

development, site characterizations, and seismic evaluation as these progressed.

CONTACT: Matt Bartlett, FCSS/NMSS

 (301) 492-3119
T. Hiltz 2

The NRC plans to provide the applicant draft RAIs which incorporate the talking points 

discussed in the call. Although the detailed facility design may continue throughout the summer, 

both the NRC and IIFP agreed that information on design methodology, conceptual information, 

and criteria would be useful for advancing the review.

Enclosure 1 provides a list of individuals who participated in the telephone conference. 

Enclosure 2 contains a list of the talking points that the staff provided to IIFP and a summary of 

the telephone discussion. 

Docket No.: 40-9086

Enclosures:

As stated

cc w/enclosures: 

John J. Miller, CHP

4137 Commerce Circle

Idaho Falls, ID 83401
T. Hiltz 2

The NRC plans to provide the applicant draft RAIs which incorporate the talking points 

discussed in the call. Although the detailed facility design may continue throughout the summer, 

both the NRC and IIFP agreed that information on design methodology, conceptual information, 

and criteria would be useful for advancing the review. 

Enclosure 1 provides a list of individuals who participated in the telephone conference. 

Enclosure 2 contains a list of the talking points that the staff provided to IIFP and a summary of 

the telephone discussion. 

Docket No.: 40-9086

Enclosures: 

As stated

cc w/enclosures: 

John J. Miller, CHP

4137 Commerce Circle

Idaho Falls, ID 83401

DISTRIBUTION: 

FCSS r/f AFCB r/f DRahn, FCSS MRaddatz, FCSS

ML101030206

OFFICE FCSS/AFCB FCSS/MODB FCSS/AFCB

NAME MBartlett LAllen THiltz

DATE 4/19/10 4/21/10 4/26/10

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Enclosure 1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS

INTERNATIONAL ISOTOPES FLUORINE PRODUCTS, INC.

PROPOSED DECONVERSION FACILITY

April 12, 2010

NAME AFFILIATION

Mita Sircar U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) – Research 

Herman Graves NRC – Research 

Matt Bartlett NRC – NMSS 

John Stamatkos Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (Center)

Asad Chowdhury Center

Simon Hsiung Center

John Miller International Isotopes Fluorine Products, Inc. (IIFP)

Jim Thomas IIFP Contractor

Gary Hollins IIFP Contractor
Enclosure 2

TALKING POINTS FOR SEISMIC AND STRUCTURAL TECHNICAL REVIEW

REGARDING THE INTERNATIONAL ISOTOPES FLUORINE PRODUCTS, INC.

DECONVERSION FACILITY

1. Characterize the following hazards at the annual probability of 10B5 (highly unlikely): Tornado, 

wind, snow, flood, and aircraft crash [added rain during conference call].

The applicant indicated that the information could be drawn from the Probability Hazard 

Analysis and submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). However, 

seismic review would require local site evaluations which would be conducted once the 

property was deeded to International Isotopes Fluorine Products, Inc. (IIFP). Information in 

the application on seismic hazards is based on estimates which must be confirmed by 

further site characterization. The applicant agreed to provide NRC the status of the work to 

address the Requests for Additional Information (RAIs) as their geotechnical, geophysical, 

and site work progresses over the summer. The full information should be available by the 

fall of 2010. The NRC Project Manager indicated this submittal date may impact the review 

schedule.

2. Discuss the potential hazards due to (i) industrial and military facilities, (ii) gas pipelines, and 

(iii) transportation routes per Regulatory Guide 1.91.

Additional information on industrial and military facilities and transportation is available and 

can be provided. The applicant plans to conduct surveys to identify the onsite utility and gas

lines after the land acquisition and will submit the necessary information to NRC when 

available. The applicant stated that they have the information about the transportation route 

and hazardous material data in relation to RG 1.91 and will provide those to NRC in 

response to the RAIs.

3. Characterize site geotechnical medium, including soil settlement and allowable bearing 

capacity for design, and assess liquefaction potential at the site.

The applicant has chosen to use the 2,500-year return period ground motions from the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) national seismic hazard maps as the bases for 

seismic design. The technical bases for selecting a 2,500-year return period ground motions 

is the risk-graded approach for nuclear facilities described in DOE-1020. In addition, the 

applicant asserts that the USGS 2,500-year ground motions are conservative compared to 

design ground motions used for nearby Louisiana Energy Services and Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant facilities. However, NRC noted that IIFP needs to confirm that these assumptions are 

conservative, especially given the potential for local soil conditions to amplify ground motions. 

IIFP anticipates they will have a civil contractor in place in early summer of 2010 to conduct 

both geotechnical and geophysical characterization of the site. The geotechnical and 

geophysical investigation activities are expected to start in June with a report prepared in 

August. This time frame could impact the review schedule.

4. Demonstrate that the seismic hazard bounds all other hazards at the site for the design of 

Process Buildings, including providing information on load combinations.

Items 4 and 8 were combined with item 1 above.
2

The applicant stated that they plan to develop the site-specific seismic response spectra and 

then prepare the comparison with other natural phenomena hazards to demonstrate the 

bounding hazard. This work can be done after the geotechnical study, which is scheduled to

be conducted over the summer of 2010.

5. Provide a description of the method used for the structural analyses of Process Buildings 

with emphasis on seismic analysis, including modeling methodology and computer 

codes used.

The applicant stated that these issues will be decided after they finalize a contract with an 

engineering firm tentatively late fall of 2010. NRC expressed that a face-to-face meeting 

with the applicant’s technical staff may help to understand and clarify these issues. 

The applicant agreed to provide additional information on the design methodology used for 

the seismic analysis. The applicant is evaluating the level of detail regarding the design 

methodology and computer codes to incorporate into the application. NRC agreed that 

details were not needed in the application, but the applicant should provide sufficient 

information to assess the reasonableness of its analysis methodology.

6. Provide information about the structural and foundation design of Process Buildings with 

emphasis on seismic design.

Items 6 and 7 were grouped (see 7).

7. Provide facility site plan and horizontal and vertical cross-sectional drawings of the 

conceptual structural design of Process Buildings.

The applicant indicated that the information requested in 6 and 7 would not be available until 

the detailed design is underway in the fall of 2010. The NRC stated that details of the design 

(exact size/location of the members) are not required for the review. However, an overview 

of the design criteria, e.g., overall structural arrangement, load transfer path, interaction of 

the structures/foundations with equipment, and major components would enable the 

reviewers to proceed to assess the reasonableness of the facility design. The applicant 

indicated this information should be available before completion of the detailed design.

8. Determine the effects of building collapse resulting from a ground motion corresponding to 

an annual probability of 10B5 on consequences.

Item 8 was grouped with the seismic issues in items 1 and 4.

Number 8 was grouped with the seismic issues in number 1 and 4. 

The applicant intends to determine the effects of ground motion in accordance with

DOE-STD-1020. However, the applicant also pointed out the consideration of items relied 

on for safety, prevention techniques, and consequence analysis would be used to justify the 

annual probability. (Note: Another approach that may be considered is the methods outlined 

in the American Society of Civil Engineers 43-05.)

The applicant indicated they would provide a schedule of their planned activities for 

geotechnical, geophysical, site-specific seismic response spectra, and site work planning –

along with a periodic update on the status of the studies.