POLICY ISSUE

(Notation Vote) 

August 30, 2013 SECY-13-0093

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: REPROCESSING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK – STATUS AND NEXT 

STEPS 

PURPOSE: 

This paper responds to the Commission’s questions in Staff Requirements 

Memorandum (SRM), “Staff Requirements – SECY-11-0163 – Reprocessing Rulemaking: Draft 

Regulatory Basis and Path Forward,” dated August 30, 2012 (Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML122430189), and recommends 

finalization of the draft regulatory basis document. Staff seeks Commission direction regarding 

a path forward on the regulatory framework for licensing a reprocessing facility (i.e., production 

facility). 

BACKGROUND: 

On March 22, 2006, staff submitted SECY-06-0066, “Regulatory and Resource Implications of a 

Department of Energy Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program” (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML060370037). SECY-06-0066 described the potential regulatory and resource 

implications for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC), assuming the eventual 

licensing of spent fuel recycling facilities and advance recycling reactors. On November 18, 

2011, staff submitted SECY-11-0163, “Reprocessing Rulemaking: Draft Regulatory Basis and 

Path Forward” (ADAMS Accession No. ML113210386). SECY-11-0163 summarizes the staff’s 

progress and a path forward for updating the regulatory framework for licensing a reprocessing 

facility. In SECY-11-0163, staff provided a “Draft Regulatory Basis for Licensing and Regulating 

Reprocessing Facilities” (ADAMS Accession No. ML112081702) that addresses the regulatory 

gaps that need to be addressed to update the NRC’s regulatory framework for licensing and 

regulating a reprocessing facility. 

 

 

CONTACT: Thomas Matula, NMSS/SFAS 

 301-287-9055 
The Commissioners 2 

DISCUSSION: 

In SRM-SECY-11-0163, the Commission directed staff to address a number of questions 

related to the development of a reprocessing regulatory framework and rulemaking, including 

providing a staff recommendation and the pros and cons of staff approaches to address gaps 

and other issues identified by the staff as Commission policy decisions. Staff provides its 

responses to all the questions in SRM-SECY-11-0163 in Enclosure 1 to this paper, “Staff 

Responses to Commission’s Questions in SRM-SECY-11-0163.” As discussed below, one gap, 

Gap 1, “Regulatory Framework,” is ready for Commission decision. 

In its review of Gap 1, staff developed and assessed four possible regulatory framework options 

for licensing and regulating a reprocessing facility. Of the four options, Option 1, “Use, as is, 

existing 10 CFR Part 50,” would not require rulemaking. Regardless of which one of the four 

options the Commission approves, the following tasks, as discussed in the draft regulatory 

basis, would need to be performed: (a) assuring compliance with operator licensing and 

technical specifications; (b) developing requirements to deal with worker protection from 

radiological and chemical hazards and accidents; (c) developing applicable regulatory guidance; 

(d) resolving regulatory gaps; (e) developing a standard review plan; (f) conducting an 

environmental review; (g) updating the policy statement on reprocessing in Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization 

Facilities,” Appendix F, “Policy Relating to the Siting of Fuel Reprocessing Plants and Related 

Waste Management Facilities”; (h) assuring conformance with Commission policies and 

practices; (i) incorporating appropriate safeguards requirements; and (j) developing general 

design criteria specific for reprocessing facilities. Because these tasks need to be performed 

regardless of the option taken, the schedule and resource needs for each option are 

comparable. 

OPTIONS

Staff outlined below four regulatory framework options for licensing and regulating a 

reprocessing facility. Enclosure 1 provides a detailed discussion of pros and cons for the 

options. Following is a summary of the four options. 

Option 1 Use, as is, existing 10 CFR Part 50: 

Option 1 would maintain the status quo. Accordingly, if the NRC received an application for a 

reprocessing facility now, that facility would be licensed under the existing 10 CFR Part 50 

requirements. This is the only option that would not require revisions to the regulations, at this 

time. 

In its review of 10 CFR Part 50, staff concluded that the regulatory framework for licensing a 

reprocessing facility may not be efficient or effective. Since the 1970s, updates to 10 CFR 

Part 50 have focused on light-water reactor design and safety issues that have limited 

applicability to commercial reprocessing facility design and technology. Current 10 CFR Part 50 

regulations do not address many commercial reprocessing facility safety, security, and domestic 

safeguards issues, and are likely to contain requirements that are not applicable to a 
The Commissioners 3 

reprocessing facility. Orders or license conditions addressing known regulatory gaps and 

potential exemptions from regulations that only apply to reactors may be required to license a 

reprocessing facility under the existing 10 CFR Part 50. This could lead to a complicated, 

ineffective, and inefficient set of regulatory requirements, and, therefore, staff does not 

recommend using the existing 10 CFR Part 50 regulatory requirements. 

Option 2 Modify 10 CFR Part 50 to address licensing of a reprocessing facility: 

Promulgating modifications to 10 CFR Part 50 to address the unique safety, security, and 

safeguards issues associated with commercial reprocessing facilities will require detailed legal 

and technical analysis in order to reduce regulatory uncertainty and confusion for current 

10 CFR Part 50 licensees (i.e., nuclear power, research, and test reactors) by inadvertently 

imposing new requirements on existing reactor licensees or imposing reactor-related 

requirements on reprocessing applicants that should not be applicable to reprocessing facilities. 

In SECY-88-0169, “Rulemaking on Standardization and Licensing Reform,” dated 

June 20, 1988 (ADAMS Accession No. ML003707840), staff concluded that the agency should 

publish regulations for licensing standard plant designs separately from 10 CFR Part 50 and 

these separate regulations became 10 CFR Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for 

Nuclear Power Plants.” The current situation is similar, as the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50 

have been in use for many years by nuclear power, research, and test reactors, and are 

generally understood by applicants and the NRC staff. In its June 7, 1988, letter to the 

Commission (ADAMS Accession No. ML003707808), the Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards supported staff’s proposed 10 CFR Part 52 rule, stating that 10 CFR Part 50 “is 

already confusing because it is a multipurpose regulation that includes power reactors, 

nonpower reactors, and fuel cycle facilities.” The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

recommended against promulgating another multipurpose part of the regulations. This logic is 

still applicable. Staff concludes that revising 10 CFR Part 50 may not be efficient or effective for 

licensing a reprocessing facility. 

Option 3 Modify 10 CFR Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material.” 

In promulgating 10 CFR Part 70, the NRC did not envision that it would encompass a 

reprocessing facility. Therefore, 10 CFR Part 70 does not include requirements for operator 

licensing and technical specifications that would be needed for regulating a reprocessing facility 

as required by the Atomic Energy Act. Additionally, 10 CFR Part 70 currently does not address 

specific hazards that accompany reprocessing facilities of spent nuclear fuel that contain fission 

products and actinides in large quantities. Incorporating such requirements for a production 

facility into 10 CFR Part 70 could lead to regulatory uncertainties for existing and future 10 CFR 

Part 70 licensees. As with Option 2, confusion could result from a multipurpose rule, and, 

therefore, staff does not recommend revising 10 CFR Part 70. 

 
The Commissioners 4 

Option 4 Develop a new rule (e.g., 10 CFR Part 7x): 

A reprocessing-specific rule, contained in a new part of the Commission’s regulations, would 

provide the most effective, transparent, and efficient approach to licensing and regulating a 

reprocessing facility. Greater regulatory certainty for stakeholders would result from a new rule 

because it would not add to complexities of existing multipurpose regulations and associated 

licensing and oversight programs and licensing would be more directly against the regulations 

and not require an unusually large number of exemptions or finely tailored requirements. It also 

would incorporate applicable requirements from other Commission regulations, including 

10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 70, to develop an integrated and cohesive regulatory 

framework that addresses the specific safety and safeguards needs of a reprocessing facility. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Given the possible inefficiencies in the existing regulatory framework for licensing a 

reprocessing facility and the potential negatives associated with modifying either 10 CFR 

Part 50 or 10 CFR Part 70 to address the safety, security, and safeguards issues associated 

with commercial reprocessing facilities, staff recommends that the Commission approve 

Option 4 as the framework for reviewing the regulatory gaps and completing the regulatory 

basis document, if the Commission wants to continue development of the regulatory basis. 

Continuing involvement in reprocessing by completing the regulatory basis would enable staff to 

maintain technical expertise in the safety and safeguards of advanced fuel cycle technologies, 

respond to evolving national fuel cycle strategies, oversee and contribute to international safety 

and safeguards standards pursued by the International Atomic Energy Agency, minimize 

uncertainty for existing licensees, and continue interagency technical exchanges to ensure 

coherent integration of regulatory and scientific programs. 

If staff finalizes the regulatory basis (over the next 20 years at current resource levels), should 

the Commission decide to pursue rulemaking and authorize the necessary resources, staff 

estimates that it would take a minimum of 4 years to develop and promulgate a rule and 

associated guidance with a significant increase in annual resource expenditures. At lower 

levels of resource, considerably longer periods would be required to develop the rule. 

RESOURCES: 

The non-public Enclosure 2 to this paper, “Estimated Time and Resources,” provides the 

proposed process and estimates of time and resources to finalize the regulatory basis and 

rulemaking. 

 
The Commissioners 5 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this Commission paper and has no legal 

objections. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource 

implications and has no objections. 

 /RA/ 

 Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosures: 

1. Staff Responses to Commission’s 

 Questions in SRM-SECY-11-0163 

2. Estimated Time and Resources
The Commissioners 5 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this Commission paper and has no legal 

objections. The Office of The Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource 

implications and has no objections. 

 /RA/ 

 Mark A. Satorius 

 Executive Director 

 for Operations 

Enclosures: 

1. Staff Responses to Commission’s 

Questions in SRM-SECY-11-0163 

2. Estimated Time and Resources 

ADAMS ACCESSION NUMBER: ML13178A233 WITS 201200148 

OFFICE DSFAS DSFAS TechEd DSFAS FCSS PBPA RES NRO 

NAME TMatula JGuttmann CHue 

by email 

JPiccone 

by email 

MBailey 

by email 

TPulliam 

by email 

DCoe for 

BSheron 

by email 

MMayfield for 

GTracy 

by email 

DATE 06/26/13 06/26/13 06/26/13 06/27/13 7/11/13 7/12/13 07/10/13 07/11/13 

OFFICE NRR FSME NSIR OCFO OGC:NLO NMSS OEDO 

NAME SBahadur for 

ELeeds 

by email 

MSatorius 

by email 

MDapas for 

JWiggins 

by email 

GSuber for 

JDyer 

by email 

DLenehan 

for JBielecki 

by email 

CHaney MSatorius 

DATE 07/10/13 7/11/13 07/10/13 08/16/13 08/12/13 08/19/13 08/30/13 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY