March 25, 2015 

MEMORANDUM TO: Marissa G. Bailey, Director 

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, 

 and Environmental Review 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards 

FROM: Matt Bartlett, Project Manager /RA/ 

Enrichment and Conversion Branch 

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, Safeguards, 

 and Environmental Review 

Office of Nuclear Material Safety 

 and Safeguards 

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF MARCH 4 AND 5, 2015, MEETING WITH THE 

INDUSTRY AND STAKEHOLDERS TO DISCUSS FUEL CYCLE 

REGULATORY ACTIVITIES AND THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF 

REGULATION 

The staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) met with representatives of the 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), fuel cycle industry, and members of the public on March 4 and 5, 

2015, in Atlanta, Georgia. The purpose of the Category 2 public meetings was to discuss the 

draft Acute Chemical Exposures and Natural Phenomena Interim Staff Guidance (ISG), Fuel 

Facility Inspection Program Activities, Revised Fuel Cycle Oversight Process, and Cumulative 

Effects of Regulation. The meeting announcement is available in the Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System (ADAMS) under the accession number ML15041A056. In 

addition to the above meetings, the NRC also conducted a Category 3 public meeting on the 

afternoon of Thursday, March 5, 2015, on the current Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 74 rulemaking. The Part 74 meeting summary will be provided 

separately. 

Acute Chemical Exposures: 

The workshop on Acute Chemical Exposures Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) provided an 

overview of the guidance contained in the draft ISG addressing all relevant chemical hazards 

regulated by the NRC. Industry and NRC agreed that the ISG only applies to chemicals 

regulated by the NRC and the scope of the NRC jurisdiction is not being expanded. The NRC 

described a number of information sources that staff would use when evaluating the proposed 

CONTACT: Matt Bartlett, NMSS/FCSE 

 (301) 287-9112 
M. Bailey 2 

standards for acute chemical exposures. Some of the information sources include the 

Emergency Response Planning Guidelines, the Globally Harmonized System of Classification 

and Labelling of Chemicals, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Skin 

Notations, among others. Databases and standards identified in the ISG are established by 

national and international organizations. Industry noted that many of these databases differed 

from each other and thus could result in different licensees developing different standards for 

the same chemical. 

Also, industry noted that there is limited information that provides risk-informed thresholds for 

the complex mixture of chemicals that exist at some fuel cycle facilities. The NRC indicated that 

the agency would be willing to consider a broad range of proposals for chemical standards, as 

long as the basis was traceable, documented and provided sufficient information to the NRC for 

review. The NRC noted that there is no requirement that all licensees use the same standard 

and there are instances where different licensees use different standards in their Integrated 

Safety Analysis (ISA). In the absence of a broadly accepted standard and significant safety 

benefit, industry continues to view the requirement to address acute chemical exposure 

pathways as requiring a significant amount of effort to develop and justify a reasonable 

threshold. The NRC stated that 10 CFR Part 70 regulations for an ISA require licensees to 

address all credible accidents and mitigate or prevent those that are intermediate- or 

high-consequence. The NRC also noted that the identification of the hydrogen fluoride dermal 

standards used by most licensees did not require a significant effort. The NRC also stated that 

accidents from acute chemical exposures should include all credible exposure pathways. 

Industry stated that a qualitative approach to acute chemical exposures should be used for 

workers and that the inhalation pathway be considered all inclusive for these purposes. The 

NRC did not support this position as there have been accidents in fuel cycle facilities where the 

consequences have been dominated by the dermal exposure pathway and not the inhalation 

pathway. The NRC stated that staff would consider any approach that provides a reasonable 

basis for classifying accident consequences consistent with 10 CFR 70.61. Industry intends to 

provide comments by the May 18, 2015, due date. 

Natural Phenomena Hazards: 

The workshop facilitated interaction between the NRC and industry on the fuel cycle facilities 

draft Generic Letter (GL) and draft ISG on Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH). During the 

meeting, the NRC presented a summary of the GL and ISG and provided draft responses to 

several NEI comments on the Draft GL that had been received during the public comment 

period (the comment period was open from August 8, 2014, to November 6, 2014). 

During discussions related to the NPH GL, industry requested verification that if no new 

accident sequences were identified during the evaluation required by the set of requested 

actions in the GL, then no additional documentation would be required. The NRC staff stated 

that sufficient justification must be submitted to the NRC to verify compliance with the NPH 

performance requirements. References to existing documentation, including the ISA can be 

used to provide such justification. Some members of industry expressed concern that the GL 

would require facilities to define buildings as items relied on for safety (IROFS). The NRC 
M. Bailey 3 

indicated that the designation of IROFS would be (and has always been) facility-specific, but 

that all items relied on to meet the performance requirements would need to be IROFS, 

consistent with the regulations. If a licensee relies upon a system, structure, or component 

(e.g., a building) to meet a performance requirement, it needs to be designated as an IROFS. 

Certain licensees have defined their process buildings as IROFS; however, doing so is not the 

only method for meeting the performance requirements when considering the effects of NPH. 

During its remarks, the NRC staff indicated that the draft ISG on NPH has been published for 

public comment, with a due date of April 10, 2015, for comments. The NRC staff re-affirmed its 

intentions to issue the final ISG in the same timeframe as the final GL. Industry intends to 

submit comments on the draft ISG by the April 10, 2015, due date. 

During the workshop, industry inquired as to what types of reviews would be conducted to close 

out the GL and Unresolved Items (URIs) that were identified as part of the staff’s inspections 

under Temporary Instruction 2600/015, “Evaluation of Licensee Strategies for the Prevention 

and/or Mitigation of Emergencies at Fuel Facilities.” The NRC staff responded that the agency 

plans to conduct vertical slice reviews of the NPH portions of the ISA and the licensee’s 

response to the GL. The URIs would most likely be closed out in an inspection report with or 

without a site audit. The NRC emphasized that in some cases, the licensee may only identify 

documentation deficiencies which would not require a change to the design basis of the facility, 

just improvements to the facility documentation. 

Region 2 Inspection Program: 

Region II provided an overview of the Division of Fuel Facility Inspection (DFFI) and a summary 

of the Material Control and Accounting, Nuclear Criticality Safety and Information Security 

inspection program areas that transferred from Headquarters to the Region. The Region also 

discussed the continued use of teams to perform inspections. Industry representatives noted 

benefits of the team, such as a single point of contact for inspections, but also noted the need to 

have more consistency e.g., in the scope and timing of information requested prior to 

inspections and the number of hours to conduct the inspections. In addition, the NRC agreed to 

initiate action to assure that requests for licensee documents are made well in advance of 

inspections to allow licensees sufficient time to compile and provide documents to staff. 

Industry also requested the NRC to consider coordination with the licensee in advance of 

developing the schedule for routine inspections and license performance reviews in the fall of 

the preceding year. Region II agreed that the draft schedule should be provided to licensees 

early in the process for planning purposes. The industry also noted that they preferred the use 

of URIs to apparent violations because the URI allows more time to determine if performance 

requirements in 10 CFR 70.61 were met, and thus, require fewer retracted licensee reports. 

Revised Fuel Cycle Oversight Process: 

The NRC staff gave a presentation on the draft cornerstones element of the Revised Fuel Cycle 

Oversight Process (RFCOP). This presentation was a continuation of a presentation given 

during a February 25, 2015, public conference call ADAMS Accession Number ML15058A122). 

The staff acknowledged the public feedback received during the February call, and announced 

 
M. Bailey 4 

that it would issue the draft Cornerstones Technical Document in the spring of 2015 for a formal 

public comment period. The NRC indicated that the project plan for the RFCOP is considered a 

living document that will be periodically updated. The NRC staff has a deadline to provide a 

SECY paper to the Commission by January 2016. 

Cumulative Effects of Regulations: 

The NRC provided updates to the various rulemakings and regulatory activities. For 10 CFR 

Part 21, industry requested a meeting after issuance of the revised regulatory basis to discuss 

the impacts specific to fuel cycle facilities. The NRC agreed this could be arranged, perhaps in 

June 2015. Industry asked if the NRC plans to issue a separate regulatory guide (RG) to 

describe the Part 21 requirements for fuel cycle facilities. The NRC stated that only a single RG 

would be developed for all applicable NRC licensees, but the RG would contain a specific 

section on fuel cycle facilities. The 10 CFR Part 26 rulemaking due dates have been extended 

by 1 year to allow the Commission to consider alternate approaches to the rulemaking. 

However, if the staff (by spring 2015) cannot come to an agreement with the Category I 

licensees on the necessary fatigue measures for security officers, the staff will focus on 

completing its regulatory basis. The NRC staff confirmed that a SECY paper has been 

submitted to the Commission recommending that the 10 CFR Part 40 rulemaking be 

discontinued. The 10 CFR Part 61 proposed rulemaking is under review by the Commission. 

Once the review is completed, the NRC staff will establish additional meeting dates and 

milestones. 

The discussion also addressed development of guidance documents. Industry noted that the 

values for soluble uranium addressed in 10 CFR Part 70.61 should be consistent with values in 

the ISG. Industry reemphasized that the NRC should issue the ISG for NPH at about the same 

time as the GL is issued. The NRC agreed that the documents should be issued as close to the 

same time as possible. Industry requested the NRC to use the integrated schedule to be 

forward looking in planning milestones. They also requested the NRC staff identify under what 

conditions new initiatives would displace items tracked on the integrated schedule. The NRC 

staff committed to continue to use the integrated schedule and supplement to track high priority 

items that are being processed to completion and work with industry to determine and adjust 

milestones to minimize the effects of cumulative effects of regulations for ongoing regulatory 

activities. 

The NRC staff also committed to review the information on the integrated schedule and 

supplement, to post these documents on the public website (http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuelcycle-fac/regs-guides-comm.html#cumeffects) and update the information at least quarterly. 

 
M. Bailey 5 

The slides for the meeting presentation are included in Enclosure 1 and the attendees list is 

available in Enclosure 2. No regulatory decisions or commitments were made during the 

meeting. 

Enclosures: 

1. Attendance List 

2. Slide Presentations 

3. March 5, 2015, Fuel Cycle Integrated 

Schedule 

4. March 5, 2015, Supplement to the Fuel 

 Cycle Integrated Schedule 

cc w/enclosures: 

Janet Schlueter 
M. Bailey 5 

The slides for the meeting presentation are included in Enclosure 1 and the attendees list is 

available in Enclosure 2. No regulatory decisions or commitments were made during the 

meeting. 

Enclosures: 

1. Attendance List 

2. Slide Presentations 

3. March 5, 2015, Fuel Cycle Integrated 

Schedule 

4. March 5, 2015, Supplement to the Fuel 

 Cycle Integrated Schedule 

cc w/enclosures: 

Janet Schlueter 

DISTRIBUTION: 

FCSS r/f 

ML15074A084 

OFFICE FCSE/ECB FCSE/ECB FCSE/ECB FCSE/ECB 

NAME MBartlett DMiller BSmith MBartlett 

DATE 03/23/2015 03/24/2015 03/ 25/2015 03/25/2015 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY