UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

SECRETARY April 11 , 2016 

COMMISSION VOTING RECORD 

DECISION ITEM: SECY-16-0005 

TITLE: CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE 

REVISED FUEL CYCLE OVERSIGHT PROCESS 

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

Memorandum (SRM) of April 11 , 2016. 

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

sheets, views and comments of the Commission. 

Enclosures: 

1. Voting Summary 

2. Commissioner Vote Sheets 

cc: Chairman Burns 

Commissioner Svinicki 

Commissioner Ostendorff 

Commissioner Baran 

OGC 

EDO 

PDR 

Annette L. Vietti-Cook 

~-~ Secretary of the Commission 
VOTING SUMMARY - SECY-16-0005 

RECORDED VOTES 

APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAINING N/P* COMMENTS DATE 

Chrm. Burns x x 3/29/16 

Comr. Svinicki x x 3/22/16 

Comr. Ostendorff x x 3/1/16 

Comr. Baran x x 2/26/16 

*Not Participating 

2 
TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

Approved 

NOTATION VOTE 

RESPONSE SHEET 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 

CHAIRMAN BURNS 

SECY-16-0005: CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT FOR 

THE REVISED FUEL CYCLE OVERSIGHT PROCESS 

Disapproved XX Abstain Not Participating -- --

COMMENTS: Below XX Attached None 

I appreciate the staff's work on the conceptual development for a Revised Fuel Cycle Oversight 

Process (RFCOP). Although continued development of such a program might have some merit 

and be worthwhile under different circumstances, I do not approve the proposal to proceed with 

such development as set forth in SECY 16-0005. Continued development of a RFCOP would 

likely achieve only minimal additional safety or security benefits for the fuel cycle facility 

program . In that light, given our focus in Project Aim on the effectiveness and efficiency of our 

programs and given that the existing fuel cycle oversight process is effective and ensures the 

safety and security of licensed activities at these facilities, I do not support further development 

of a RFCOP. 

Entered in STARS 

Yes x --

No 

Date 
NOTATION VOTE 

RESPONSE SHEET 

TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

Approved __ 

COMMISSIONER SVINICKI 

SECY-16-0005 - CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT 

FOR THE REVISED FUEL CYCLE OVERSIGHT 

PROCESS 

Disapproved XX Abstain --

Not Participating __ 

COMMENTS: Below Attached XX None --

031lr.. 116 

)

DATE 

Entered on "STARS" Yes No --'--
Commissioner Svinicki's Comments on SECY-16-0005 

Cornerstone Development for the Revised Fuel Cycle Oversight Process 

I acknowledge the extensive labor that has gone into the staff's work over the past 

approximately 8 - 10 years to revise the Fuel Cycle Oversight Process but I continue to assess 

that the resources put into this effort over that time have not been and will not be commensurate 

with any resulting enhancement to safety and security that would derive from the continuation of 

this process. Consequently, I disapprove the actions proposed by the staff and, in so doing, 

support discontinuing any further effort to develop the Revised Fuel Cycle Oversight Process. 

In the years I have been monitoring this work, I have yet to be presented with any basis or 

regulatory gap calling for the fundamental revision of the inspection framework for these 

facilities. The Commission's endorsement of the staff's conclusion back in 2012 that "the 

existing [fuel cycle] oversight process is effective and ensures safety and security" and the 

Commission's judgement that "the activities undertaken to enhance the NRC's fuel cycle 

oversight process are truly that - enhancements - and are a lower funding priority" was 

intended to communicate the view that the Commission was not convinced that these activities 

were addressing any safety and security gaps. [See SRM-SECY-11-0140.] Four years later, 

the current paper does nothing to alter this conclusion. 

Our resources must be devoted to issues with actual safety and security significance. Elaborate 

redesigns of processes that are both familiar and effective - change for the sake of change -

cannot be justified. At bottom, the proposed cornerstones and their continued refinement into a 

revised oversight process would simply continue us on the road towards mimicking the reactor 

oversight process for the oversight of fuel cycle facilities even though we know that these 

facilities exhibit a significantly lower hazard profile. As noted in the Commission's public 

meeting on February 25, 2016, the staff has already applied a number of insights and enhanced 

efficiencies to the fuel cycle inspection and oversight process. These implemented actions are 

sufficient. 

/16 
TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

Approved 

NOTATION VOTE 

RESPONSE SHEET 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 

Commissioner Ostendorff 

SECY-16-0005 - CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT 

FOR THE REVISED FUEL CYCLE OVERSIGHT 

PROCESS 

Disapproved X Abstain Not Participating 

COMMENTS Below Attached X None 

SIGN~<A!t 

DATE 

Entered in "STARS" Yes x No 
Commissioner Ostendorff's Comments on SECY-16-0005 - "Cornerstone Development 

for the Revised Fuel Cycle Oversight Process." 

I thank the staff for their work on SECY-16-0005. I continue to believe that the fuel cycle 

oversight process (FCOP) is effective and ensures safety and security. The actions the staff and 

industry have already taken to enhance the existing FCOP are reasonable and sufficient. 

Therefore, I disapprove the staff's recommended approach. The staff should discontinue 

development of the Regulatory Framework and Cornerstones. The staff should continue its 

interactions with industry and stakeholders as the staff implements the current enhancements to 

the FCOP. 

In my vote on COMSGB-15-0004, "Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal," I approved a decrease 

in funding for the revisions to the FCOP. Particularly in these times of decreasing resources, 

our activities should be driven by a safety or security need or a significant effectiveness or 

efficiency enhancement. During the February 25, 2016, Commission briefing on Fuel Cycle 

Facilities, the staff acknowledged the changing environment and noted the number of fuel 

facilities that are approved but not built, the number of fuel facilities that have closed, and the 

decreasing number of licensing actions demonstrating that the program is stable. The staff also 

noted that the revised FCOP would improve the efficiency of the use of inspection resources . 

However, the staff went on to state that some of those efficiencies are already in place with the 

expanded use of inspection teams and enhanced pre-planning for inspections. With such 

process improvements already in place, and the associated efficiencies already realized , I see 

no basis for the continued development of the revised FCOP. 

I want to briefly comment on the use of Integrated Safety Assessments (ISAs). Relying upon 

the current ISAs-that have proven effective in identifying safety significant fuel cycle 

processes-remains essential. In my visits to fuel cycle facilities, I continue to note the unique 

nature of each of these facilities. In my discussions with the licensees and their operators, it is 

clear that they understand the importance of both ISAs and items relied on for safety (IROFS) 

and use that terminology in their daily interactions. These unique fuel facilities develop sitespecific ISAs and IROFS that would not significantly benefit from a generic framework that does 

not have its basis in the ISAs. The enhancements made to the current FCOP program will rely 

upon these ISAs as the basis of the inspection program , as it should. 

Page 1 of 1 
TO: 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

NOTATION VOTE 

RESPONSE SHEET 

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary 

Commissioner Baran 

SECY-16-0005 - CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT 

FOR THE REVISED FUEL CYCLE OVERSIGHT 

PROCESS 

Approved _K__ Disapproved Abstain Not Participating 

COMMENTS Below 

Entered in 

STARS 

Yes XX 

No 

Attached X None 

-z..-( z... '- /I(, 

DATE 
Commissioner Saran's Comments on SECY-16-0005, 

"Cornerstone Development for the Revised Fuel Cycle Oversight Process" 

This paper reflects the NRC staff's thoughtful work over a number of years. As the 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) explained, the cornerstones "formulate the 

mission and safety objectives the NRC has for fuel cycle facilities." Developing cornerstones 

(and the associated key attributes and inspectable areas) lays the foundation for a more riskinformed and performance-based inspection program for fuel cycle facilities . 

The NRC staff's work has benefitted from feedback from ACRS, licensees, and other 

stakeholders. ACRS examined the recommended cornerstones and found them to be "an 

adequate basis for the development of the revised Fuel Cycle Oversight Process." Although 

some industry stakeholders have generally challenged the need to revise the fuel cycle 

oversight process, the staff notes that they have "expressed no substantive objections or 

concerns with the cornerstone approach or the staff's recommended cornerstones." 

For these reasons, I approve the staff's recommended cornerstones, as described in 

Enclosure 2 of the paper. Those eight cornerstones are: criticality safety, chemical operational 

safety, occupational radiation safety, public radiation safety, emergency preparedness, security, 

and material control and accounting. As ACRS recommends, the staff should appropriately 

incorporate any cybersecurity requirements established by the ongoing expedited rulemaking 

into the revised fuel cycle oversight process. 

I look forward to the staff's continuing efforts to develop the inspection procedures, 

significance determination process, and performance assessment process necessary to pilot 

and then fully implement the revised fuel cycle oversight process.