SECR

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

14

ETARY November 4, 2013

COMMISSION VOTING RECORD

DECISION ITEM: SECY-13-0093

TITLE: REPROCESSING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - STATUS

AND NEXT STEPS

The Commission acted on subject paper as recorded in the Staff Requirements Memorandum

(SRM) of November 4, 2013.

This Record contains a summary of voting on this matter together with the individual vote

sheets, views and comments of the Commission.

RichardJLaur

Acting Secretary of the Commission

Attachments:

1. Voting Summary

2. Commissioner Vote Sheets

cc: Chairman Macfarlane

Commissioner Svinicki

Commissioner Apostolakis

Commissioner Magwood

Commissioner Ostendorff

OGC

EDO

PDR
VOTING SUMMARY - SECY-13-0093

RECORDED VOTES

NOT

APRVD DISAPRVD ABSTAIN PARTICIP COMMENTS DATE

CHRM. MACFARLANE

COMR. SVINICKI

COMR. APOSTOLAKIS

COMR. MAGWOOD

COMR. OSTENDORFF

x

x

x

X 10/7/13

X 10/21/13

X 10/17/13

X 10/18/13

X 10/7/13

x

x
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

NOTATION VOTE

RESPONSE SHEET

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary

Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane

SECY-13-0093 - REPROCESSING REGULATORY

FRAMEWORK - STATUS AND NEXT STEPS

Approved __ Disapproved X Abstain

Not Participating

COMMENTS: Below Attached X None

DATE

Entered on "STARS" Yes X No
Chairman Macfarlane's Comments on SECY-13-0093

"Reprocessing Regulatory Framework - Status and Next Steps"

I do not approve continued development of a regulatory basis for reprocessing under the

plan provided by staff. A 20-year development plan with a few staff is not practical or

sustainable. It is likely that national policies on spent fuel management and technologies will

have significantly evolved by its conclusion. More importantly, the Commission remains

challenged in maintaining a sufficient level of resources to address licensing and rulemaking

priorities that are more certain in the reactor, materials, and waste arenas.

I believe the draft regulatory basis and gap analysis provided by the staff in 2011

represents an important milestone in understanding future regulatory needs and provides an

appropriate point to suspend rulemaking efforts at this time. I also note industry support for

developing a new technology-neutral regulatory framework. In this context, it is still important

for the agency to maintain an appropriate level of technical and policy expertise in advanced

fuel cycle issues - especially if national policies change or certain licensing needs emerge in the

future. Within budgeted resources, the staff should still remain cognizant of developments in

advanced fuel cycle technologies and evolving national fuel cycle policies. This should include

coordination and participation with the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

Agency, as appropriate in regulatory and scientific programs. The staff should also continue to

participate and provide expertise in international activities involving reprocessing, such as the

review and development of safety, security, and environmental standards. The staff should only

pursue technical work on advanced fuel cycle issues, such as chemical consequence and risk

assessments tools, that may be also beneficial to effectively regulating the safety of other types

of fuel cycle facilities.

The staff should periodically assess the reprocessing framework, in an integrated

manner with assessing regulatory needs that are associated with long-term spent fuel storage,

transportation, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (e.g., research, rulemaking, and licensing

activities). The staff should inform the Commission if a reprocessing application becomes

imminent, or if it is appropriate to restart rulemaking efforts because of significant changes in

national policy.

Allison . Macfarlane Date
NOTATION VOTE

RESPONSE SHEET

TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary

FROM: COMMISSIONER SVINICKI

SUBJECT: SECY-13-0093 - REPROCESSING REGULATORY

FRAMEWORK - STATUS AND NEXT STEPS

Approved XX Disapproved Abstain

Not Participating _

COMMENTS: Below XX Attached None

I approve the staff's recommended Option 4, the development of a reprocessing-specific rule in

a new part of the Commission's regulations, referred to notionally as "10 CFR Part 7X." As

stipulated by Commissioner Magwood in his vote, however, the continued development of the

framework should be limited - for the time being - to the areas of risk considerations (Gap 5)

and general design criteria (Gap 9). As proposed by Commissioner Ostendorff, the staff should

provide a notation vote paper to the Commission presenting the results of this limited scope

effort, upon its completion, as well as recommendations regarding next steps. I approve the

staff's continued involvement in national and international technical exchanges and standards

development. I acknowledge the staff's efforts, which continue, with modest resources, to

prepare this agency to address the possibilities of alternative fuel cycles and technologies of the

future.

'NATURE

10/71/13

E d TDATE

Entered on "STARS" Yes _.No
NOTATION VOTE

RESPONSE SHEET

TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary

FROM: Commissioner Apostolakis

SUBJECT: SECY-1 3-0093 - REPROCESSING REGULATORY

FRAMEWORK - STATUS AND NEXT STEPS

Approved Disapproved X Abstain

Not Participating

COMMENTS: Below X Attached None

I disapprove the staffs recommendation to develop a new rule. The staff has not provided a

compelling justification to expend the proposed large resources during a time of limited agency

resources. We need to focus our resources on ensuring operational safety and security of

existing facilities, as well as reviewing pending and expected licensing requests.

Staff should remain cognizant of both domestic and international developments in advanced fuel

cycle technologies and evolving fuel cycle policies. Once a license application becomes likely,

staff should provide the Commission with options and recommendations on how to proceed.

SIGNATU&fE

10117/13

DATE

Entered on "STARS" Yes x No
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

NOTATION VOTE

RESPONSE SHEET

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary

COMMISSIONER MAGWOOD

SECY-13-0093 - REPROCESSING REGULATORY

FRAMEWORK - STATUS AND NEXT STEPS

Approved X Disapl

Not Participating

COMMENTS: Below

roved Abstain

Attached 9 None

SIGNATURE

11r CkfATE 213

DATE

Entered on "STARS" Yes V No
Commissioner Magwood's Comments on

SECY-13-0093, "Reprocessing Regulatory Framework - Status and Next Steps"

I appreciate the staff's continuing efforts to craft a path-forward for the agency's activity

to develop a regulatory framework for reprocessing in the face of considerable

uncertainty regarding future government policy and industrial interest regarding the

construction of recycling plants in the U.S. This uncertainty has characterized the

agency's work in this area for several years. This is an appropriate time for the

Commission to decide whether to continue a program or to terminate this effort entirely.

I have stated in many venues that I am skeptical that a commercial reprocessing facility

based on current technology will be built in the United States in any foreseeable future.

(If this supposition is incorrect, industry is welcome to present the agency with an

application based on 10 CFR Part 50; as discussed in the subject SECY paper, while

not optimal, Part 50 is sufficiently flexible to enable an application to proceed.) But I

also believe that technologies currently being explored in laboratories around the world

might yet find their way to large-scale use.

A technology that addresses the proliferation, economic, environmental challenges that

are often associated with current technologies could provide an enhanced option for a

more sustainable and environmentally sound future. It makes sense for the NRC to

consider how it might best respond to such a development. In some ways, the state of

spent nuclear fuel recycling today might be very much like the state of advanced light

water reactors 30 years ago. At that time, few believed that new plants would be built in

the U.S.; but NRC proceeded to develop a framework optimized for the construction of

Generation I1I+ plants. This framework, 10 CFR Part 52, is in use today and is serving

us well.

Ideally, as noted in the Chairman's vote on this paper, we could shift our attention to a

technology-neutral framework that would serve a broad range of advanced technology

purposes. Whatever the outcome of the current decision process, it is worth the

Commission's time to consider pursuing that approach. I also agree with the Chairman

that a reasonable approach would be to require staff to maintain a basic capability in

this area that would be available should circumstances require us to develop a

framework or respond to an application in the future.

However, in my experience, it is difficult, if not impossible for a technical organization to

maintain a capability without a programmatic imperative. There are simply too many

demands on the staff and too many emerging needs to assure that critical skills and
knowledge are maintained as an ancillary effort. Without a clear programmatic

structure, the agency will lose the capability to respond adequately to future potential

applications. In addition, I believe that the development a clear programmatic structure

could help advance our continuing efforts to risk-inform our regulatory approach to other

large fuel facilities. That said, I also agree with Commission Apostolakis that the

resources assigned to the project proposed by the staff appear exorbitant given the

current financial environment. In that light, committing to a 20 year effort, especially

given the many uncertainties, strikes me as overambitious at this time.

Therefore, I approve a modified version of staff's recommendation of Option 4. I

approve staff's proposal to proceed with the development of a framework, but limiting

the effort to the development of risk considerations (Gap 5) and general design criteria

(Gap 9). Rather than a 20-year program, staff should develop a program based on

completion of these elements. At that stage, consistent with Commissioner Ostendorff's

recommendation, staff should provide a new decision paper to the Commission to

present the results of its efforts and seek guidance regarding any future steps.

In presenting its conclusions and recommendations to the Commission, staff should

provide its most up-to-date assessment of the prospects for the construction of recycling

facilities in the US, the state of Department of Energy activities in this area, and the

staff's recommendation for the next phase of work. Staff should also consider whether

its development of a risk-informed approach to reprocessing facility regulation provides

insights that may be applied to other nuclear facilities.

Finally, staff should remain cognizant of relevant efforts in the U.S. and overseas and

inform the Commission should the policy or industrial environment with regard to spent

fuel recycling change before the next staff paper is provided to the Commission. Staff

should also be prepared to engage other U.S. government agencies as necessary as

they consider issues relevant to the safety implications of building and operating

recycling facilities.

William D. Magwood, IV Date
NOTATION VOTE

RESPONSE SHEET

TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary

FROM: COMMISSIONER OSTENDORFF

SUBJECT: SECY-13-0093 - REPROCESSING REGULATORY

FRAMEWORK - STATUS AND NEXT STEPS

Approved X Disapproved Abstain

Not Participating _

COMMENTS: Below X Attached None

I approve staff's recommendation of Option 4, which would serve as the framework for

completing the regulatory gaps. I also approve staff's efforts to continue involvement in

national and international standards development and technical exchanges. This

should all continue to be done at the current funding level. Further, staff should provide

a Commission Notation Vote Paper after resolution of Gap 5, "Safety and Risk

Assessment Methodologies and Considerations for a Reprocessing Facility," with a

recommendation on whether rulemaking should continue.

SIGNATURE

DATE

Entered on "STARS" Yes No