Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

1

1 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

2

3 PROPOSED CHANGES FOR DOE PART 810

4 ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES

5

6 NNSA - SNOPR ROLLOUT MEETING

7

8 Department of Energy

9 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

10 Forrestal Building

11 Washington, D.C.

12

13

14 Monday, August 5, 2013

15 1:00 p.m.

16

17

18

19

20 Reported by: Natalia Thomas, 

21 Capital Reporting Company

22
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2 PARTICIPANTS:

3 CAROL BERRIGAN, NEI

4 DAVID BLEE, US Nuclear Infrastructure Council

5 DWIGHT CATES, Fluor Corporation

6 PREETI CHAUDHARI, U.S. Department of Energy

7 STEVEN CLAGETT, U.S. Department of Commerce

8 JEREMY COHN, Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems, Inc.

9 RICHARD FRUEHAUF, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC

10 TED GARRISH, Chem2Hill

11 RICHARD GOOREVICH, DOE/NNSA

12 TED JONES, NEI

13 AJAY KUNTAMUKKALA, Hogan Lovells US LLP

14 MELISSA MANN, Urenco Inc.

15 LINDSAY MEYER, Venable LLP

16 CRAIG PIERCY, American Nuclear Society

17 MARK RESNER, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

18 BROOKE SMITH, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

19 KATE STRANGIS, NNSA Office of General Counsel

20 RICHARD STRATFORD, U.S. Department of State

21 ELINA TEPLINSKY, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

22
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

3

1 C O N T E N T S

2 Welcome - Strangis 4

3 NNSA: Part 810 Revisions Summarized - 5

4 Goorevich

5 State - Stratford 48

6 NRC

7 - Smith 54

8 - Resner 60

9 Commerce - Clagett 72

10 Questions/Comments 83

11
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

4

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 MS. STRANGIS: My name is Katie Strangis. I 

3 am in the NNSA Office of the General Counsel. And I 

4 think most of you know me, either by face or by name. 

5 Welcome you all for coming today and welcome to those 

6 of you who called in on the phone. I think there are 

7 quite a bit more people calling in than actually could 

8 make it today.

9 A few of the ground rules. Just a reminder, 

10 if you are not a DOE employee, you need an escort if 

11 you leave this room, and we have people around that can 

12 do that if you need to go to a restroom or something. 

13 The way this is going to work is we have the panel up 

14 here. Rich is going to go through the most recent 

15 draft. And after that, we will be hearing from our 

16 interagency partners. We have Steve Clagett from the 

17 Department of Commerce, Mark Resner and Brooke Smith 

18 from the NRC, and Dick Stratford from Department of 

19 State.

20 We will take all questions at the end. We 

21 will do a question and answer session. And for that, 

22 we would appreciate it if you can stand up. And you 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

5

1 have to speak into a microphone. So somebody will be 

2 walking those around. If you are here, we would 

3 appreciate it if you would state your name and 

4 affiliation. And it would be very helpful for the 

5 court reporter who is transcribing this if you could 

6 also spell your name.

7 Just a reminder, this will be transcribed. 

8 And it will be placed online in the docket for the 

9 supplemental rule. And also just a reminder, we can 

10 only talk about what is in the version that was 

11 published last week in the Federal Register. So if 

12 there are any questions that fall outside the scope of 

13 what was in the supplemental draft, we will have to ask 

14 our panel not to answer those. And, of course, you are 

15 all welcome to submit any comments or questions online.

16 I think that is it. Take it away.

17 MR. GOOREVICH: Okay. Well, thanks to 

18 everyone who's here and everyone who has called in for 

19 taking the time this afternoon to listen to our 

20 explanation of the draft rule.

21 I have two things that I am supposed to take 

22 care of while I am up here at the podium. The first is 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

6

1 some opening remarks, which we were hoping to have 

2 Joyce Connery from the White House make. 

3 Unfortunately, Joyce found out five minutes ago that 

4 she could not make remarks off the record. And since 

5 everything is being recorded and transcribed, it is 

6 obviously on the record. So for the probably one and 

7 only time that Joyce will let me -- I am going to put 

8 my words in Joyce's mouth.

9 If Joyce could speak, what would she say? 

10 Well, the first thing she would obviously say is it is 

11 really good to be back here at DOE.

12 Joyce comes from DOE. She has very fond 

13 memories of her time here at DOE. And what she would 

14 say is this auditorium especially brings back a lot of 

15 important memories for her. This is the place where we 

16 come when we watch people retire or reorganizations are 

17 announced. So one of two things is probably going to 

18 happen for Joyce -- not me because I am speaking for 

19 Joyce -- by the end of this. She's either going to 

20 retire or be reorganized. So that is the first thing 

21 she would say.

22 The second thing she would say is that this 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

7

1 supplemental rule, although it has taken quite a bit of 

2 time to get out from the NOPR to the SNOPR, is a true 

3 interagency product. And it is a result of a lot of 

4 hard work for not only the staff within NNSA, the staff 

5 within DOE, but also from the agencies that are 

6 represented up here and for those that are also out, 

7 sitting out, in the audience, which we'll hear from in 

8 a little bit as well.

9 The idea behind the SNOPR and the NOPR was to 

10 take a look at a rule that really no longer reflected 

11 how proliferation was being conducted or how we saw 

12 proliferation and, yet, also how industry was moving 

13 forward. And the attempt to move from the NOPR to the 

14 SNOPR is truly an interagency product. And I think 

15 where we are is a lot of hard work from a lot of 

16 different people from all over Washington. And so she 

17 would certainly want to point that out and say thank 

18 you to everyone for helping move that forward.

19 The other thing that Joyce would want to say 

20 if she were up here is that the comments that are 

21 reflected in the SNOPR also are a lot of hard work from 

22 the commenters and from the public, being able to show 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

8

1 us where there were concerns, where we could improve 

2 the rule, and how we could do that. And I think 

3 hopefully that will be reflected in the discussion that 

4 we will have today.

5 We are doing this rollout a little bit 

6 differently than we did the first, the NOPR, mostly 

7 because we do want to be clear and show the interagency 

8 agreement and interagency effort that went into this. 

9 And that is why we have this panel of experts, which is 

10 a little bit different than when we did the NOPR and 

11 the webinar.

12 And I think, finally, what Joyce would want to 

13 say is along the lines of thanking you for everyone 

14 that is here and everyone who is on the call, we 

15 understand this was a very tight deadline. We found 

16 ourselves in a bit of a bureaucratic trap and having to 

17 make some decisions. And essentially, we had to go 

18 ahead and plan the date for a rollout and make it 

19 public, but it had to be published and we had to get 

20 the rule out. And we knew we were bumping up against 

21 vacation time and the traditional vacation period that 

22 people take. Our effort and our goal was to try and 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

9

1 get this out as soon as possible, but understanding 

2 that this is a tough time for people and people had 

3 made plans and some people that maybe did not have a 

4 lot of time to be able to begin to digest everything 

5 that's in the SNOPR. One of the things that we wanted 

6 to do was make sure that we did have an opportunity to 

7 interface with the public about this rule as 

8 comprehensively as possible. And, as we said in the 

9 rule, there will be another public meeting for those 

10 that either feel that they needed more time before this 

11 one or couldn't make it, colleagues that are of people 

12 who are here on the phone. If they're concerned, we 

13 will be doing another similar type of public meeting, 

14 probably in late September. We will have to find a 

15 date. And the good news is we will do it at a hotel 

16 where you don't have to, we don't have the security 

17 issues to get in. But given the tightness of the time, 

18 we decided to do it here and do it this way.

19 So is that all you would say if you were here, 

20 Joyce? And, finally, because Joyce is speaking off the 

21 record, she does want to wish a happy birthday to Rich 

22 Fruehauf from Westinghouse, who decided that this would 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

10

1 be the best way to spend his birthday, down here 

2 learning about the SNOPR.

3 What else would anyone? A man who has got 

4 everything, what does he need? He needs a SNOPR. So 

5 that is it.

6 So now let's do this. Let me roll into my set 

7 of slides, which will take us through the SNOPR. And 

8 after that, then we will give the floor to Dick. We 

9 will take a little break. And then NRC and Commerce 

10 will have their slides. And then we will get into the 

11 Qs and As.

12 Pretty simple agenda. Hopefully everyone will 

13 learn a little something and we'll get through this in 

14 a timely manner.

15 So let's go through this. So what is, for 

16 those just to review, the scope of Part 810? Well, I 

17 think, as everyone has heard, if you have come to part 

18 of the webinar or you have heard the group of us talk 

19 at any one of the many activities where we are asked to 

20 speak, Part 810 implements Section 57B of the Atomic 

21 Energy Act. And essentially, it says that it is 

22 unlawful for any person to directly or indirectly 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

11

1 engage in the production of SNM, special nuclear 

2 material, outside the United States, except upon 

3 authorization of the Secretary of Energy and he makes a 

4 determination with the concurrence of the State 

5 Department that the transfer will not be inimical to 

6 the interest of the United States. And it covers SNM 

7 activities.

8 A couple of things about this. Number one, 

9 this was what it said originally in the Atomic Energy 

10 Act. Not too long ago, the NNPA amended this to say, 

11 "engage or participate in." And you are going to see 

12 that in the SNOPR, that we picked up the newer 

13 statutory language and put it into there.

14 But what I really want to spend some time 

15 talking about is this issue of the non-inimicality and 

16 that it is in the common interests of the United 

17 States. As you will look other places in the Atomic

18 Energy Act, where you will see non-inimicality 

19 determinations, it generally means and you will 

20 generally see it, where it says, in the national 

21 security or the common defense and security of the 

22 United States. What is interesting is -- and I have 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

12

1 pointed this out before -- is that in 57B, where we 

2 talk about it, it just says, "In the interest of the 

3 United States." It allows the Department some 

4 flexibility when looking at this into not just the non5 proliferation national security interests of a 

6 particular activity or a particular technology 

7 transfer, but it also allows us to take into account 

8 other factors, including commercial.

9 So how do we classify Part 810? Well, we 

10 classify it essentially in three different ways, the 

11 activities in three different ways. There are those 

12 that are exempt: 810.2. We tried to provide, as we did 

13 in NOPR and we're doing here in the SNOPR, a clarified 

14 technical scope, which is currently not in the current 

15 regulation. And so that technical scope, which we're 

16 linking a lot more directly in the SNOPR to the NRC in 

17 the nuclear suppliers' group control list, lays out the 

18 technical bounds for how we interpret the regulation 

19 and how do we interpret the implementation of 57B. If 

20 technically it is outside the bounds of what is 

21 described in 810.2, then it is exempt. The rule 

22 doesn’t apply.
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

13

1 We can also have a group or a basket of 

2 activities that we call generally authorized. And 

3 810.6 in the SNOPR defines what is generally 

4 authorized. And we will go through that in a little 

5 bit. But this is where we have been able to make a 

6 broad determination of categories of assistance, for 

7 which the Secretary has made the non-inimicality 

8 determination and do not require his specific approval. 

9 He has essentially granted the approval based on the 

10 technology or based upon the technology and the 

11 cooperation with a particular entity or end user or 

12 country.

13 And the last is the specific authorization. 

14 And this is going to be described in the new 

15 supplemental rule under 810.7. And this is where a 

16 case-by-case inimicality determination by the Secretary 

17 is required. And we talk in some detail of exactly how 

18 that is going to take place.

19 Next one. So general and specific 

20 authorizations. So what does it mean when we talk 

21 about specific authorization? Well, requiring specific

22 authorization means that you are actually going to have 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

14

1 to prepare an application. The things about 810s is 

2 whether it is specific authorization or general 

3 authorization, some paperwork is going to be required 

4 to DOE, just a matter of whether it is going to be an 

5 application, for which the Secretary will sign off for 

6 under general authorization. There is going to be 

7 reporting to us after the fact. But if there is a 

8 specific authorization, you are going to have to 

9 prepare an application.

10 It also means that the DOE and certain aspects 

11 of DOE will take a look at the application. And it is 

12 going to go through an interagency review. It also 

13 means that in order for the State Department to make 

14 its concurrence, which is required, again, by the 

15 statute, host country assurances dealing with non16 proliferation aspects of the transfer will be required. 

17 And then the Secretary has to sign off on it. And, 

18 again, as I have mentioned several times before, this 

19 is a non-delegable authority pursuant to another 

20 section of the Atomic Energy Act.

21 If it is a generally authorized assistance, it 

22 requires reporting only. And we tried to in the SNOPR 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

15

1 lay out much clearer what those reporting requirements 

2 are going to be. And in our view, this is really going 

3 to be available for most of the foreign nuclear 

4 transactions that take place. The idea here is general 

5 authorizations make the regulation efficient. And what 

6 we are trying to do is put higher walls around the 

7 riskier transactions, much akin to what is also going 

8 on in the export control reform effort in other parts 

9 of the government.

10 So why were the changes needed? And I think a 

11 lot of you have seen this slide before. 

12 Okay. First of all, there has been no 

13 comprehensive update since 1986. In the early 1990s, 

14 following the breakup of the Soviet Union, we did make 

15 some changes regarding safety, operation safety aspects 

16 that were required to help move operational safety 

17 forward. And we did a minor change, technical change, 

18 to include accelerator-driven plutonium production 

19 systems. But there has been no major comprehensive 

20 change since 1986.

21 And what has happened since then? Well, a 

22 couple of things. The global nuclear market, I think, 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

16

1 as you all recognize, has expanded and evolved. How 

2 transactions are done between companies has become much 

3 more globalized, become much more complex. And new 

4 markets have really started to open up in areas that I 

5 don't think in 1986 we would have really thought were 

6 viable, but in today's worlds are extremely viable and 

7 have great potential. There are new vendors competing 

8 with U.S. companies. And there are new technologies 

9 being developed; SMRs, for example. In 1986, I don't 

10 think we would have thought that the idea of SMRs would 

11 have really taken off.

12 So all of that has shown us that the market 

13 has changed since the rule was last through major 

14 upgrade. And obviously, I think from what we're seeing 

15 today, I think a lot of people would agree that the 

16 rule needs to evolve to kind of match where the market 

17 is going.

18 Also, the world of national security and 

19 proliferation has evolved. The revelations from Iraq 

20 certainly shocked the world. For example, the Nuclear 

21 Suppliers Group adopted its dual use controls because 

22 of that. You have seen a lot of revelations have come 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

17

1 out of the Khan network. And what was going on in 

2 Libya and Malaysia has shown that proliferation has 

3 also evolved and how proliferation has evolved. And so 

4 it has resulted in the government thinking about how do 

5 we adjust the regulatory standards to meet those 

6 proliferation concerns and the new political 

7 relationships and the new realities that are moving 

8 forward. So all of those things put together, you 

9 know, sort of leads us to the conclusion that the rule 

10 does need to be adjusted and to be updated.

11 Our fundamental approach has remained 

12 unchanged. The Secretary has the discretion to make 

13 general authorizations or require specific 

14 authorizations. And, again, it is based on the 

15 statutory requirements in 57B, which stem from the non16 inimicality finding.

17 In making the non-inimicality finding, we 

18 maintain in this rule, in this version of the rule, 

19 what we had in the NOPR and what is in the current 

20 rule, which is we list the criteria by which in the 

21 analysis we make these determinations. These include 

22 national security considerations, diplomatic 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

18

1 considerations, and trade considerations. The only 

2 place where we essentially don't need to make those 

3 determinations on inimicality will be for transfers of 

4 what we call sensitive nuclear technology enrichment 

5 and reprocessing. Because of other aspects of the 

6 Atomic Energy Act, we do not have the ability to go 

7 ahead and make a general authorization determination.

8 Whenever there is a request for transfer, 

9 there are certain government assurances required by 

10 those elements of the Atomic Energy Act that make 

11 general authorization impossible for us to grant for 

12 those technologies to anyone. And so for that, we will 

13 always maintain that those require specific 

14 authorization.

15 How do we go about making the non-inimicality 

16 determination? Well, you know, I think this is going 

17 to be the crux of a lot of the questions that we are 

18 going to get. How do we make that determination? What 

19 information do we get? I think the easiest way by 

20 which we can describe it and I think the model that we 

21 are advocating as we go forward is really looking at 

22 how we do this for the 123 process. And, as I think 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

19

1 most people know, when you do the 123 process -- and I 

2 think Dick is going to talk a little bit about it in 

3 his slides after mine -- we do what is called an NPAS, 

4 non-proliferation assessment statement, which goes up 

5 with the actual 123 text to Congress and sort of lays 

6 out, "This is what we know about the partner country. 

7 This is what we believe, where they are, and various 

8 aspects of their nuclear and national security and non9 proliferation policies. This is what we know, and this 

10 is what we expect." And so we have the NPAS. It is 

11 signed by both the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary 

12 of State. It is accompanied with the NPAS and the 

13 agreement along with a letter from the Nuclear

14 Regulatory Commission. And it's interagency-cleared 

15 and cleared through the intelligence community. And so 

16 we believe it to be the best standard and the best 

17 information we have on making the non-inimicality 

18 determination associated with a country.

19 Under the current rule, where we have lists of 

20 countries that require specific authorizations, we 

21 don't always have that information that is available to 

22 us to make that determination. And for us, we had to, 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

20

1 when we looked at the rule, we had to, sit down and 

2 make a determination. Does the lack of information 

3 mean that the Secretary can make that non-inimicality 

4 finding?

5 And especially when we add on top of that the 

6 desire, as we mentioned when we did the rollout for the 

7 NOPR, that we wanted this new rule to be in line with 

8 the spirit of the broader export control reform effort, 

9 which is where there would only be positive lists, you 

10 know, instead of the negative lists, countries that 

11 require a higher standard, we wanted to have a list 

12 where we wanted countries to have more expedited 

13 treatment, we needed a standard which was 

14 nondiscriminatory in its application. And so we looked 

15 at the 123 process. And that is what we have advocated 

16 in the earlier rule, and that is what we are advocating 

17 moving forward now.

18 So what are the goals of the proposed changes? 

19 Well, effective threat reduction. At its heart, 57B is 

20 a non-proliferation rule. It impacts nuclear trade 

21 significantly. We understand that. I think we take 

22 that to heart. And I think we want to try and find a 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

21

1 way to balance that with the second bullet, which is 

2 effective nuclear trade support.

3 I think it is fair to say part of our broader 

4 non-proliferation policy is the fact that we have such 

5 a strong commercial nuclear market that essentially can 

6 influence nuclear and non-proliferation policy in those 

7 countries which we get access to. And so we have to be 

8 able to balance the effective threat reduction with the 

9 effective nuclear trade support.

10 And the third thing is efficient regulations. 

11 Look, we understand this is a bulky regulation when it 

12 comes to application today. It is not the smoothest, 

13 as we would like. It is probably not the smoothest 

14 that you would like as applicants. So we are really 

15 trying hard to balance the effective threat reduction 

16 with the effective trade support and trying to 

17 implement it as efficiently as possible. And so that 

18 is what our goal is and what we are trying to do. It 

19 is striking this balance. And that is what we think, 

20 the direction we are heading, and what we have achieved 

21 here with the supplemental rule.

22 So where are we with the status of this? 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

22

1 Well, right now, we have the initial notice of proposed 

2 rule, which came out in September of 2011. I have gone 

3 through what it meant to address them. And we got what 

4 we wanted. We said in the webinar we wanted public 

5 comments. We got a lot of public comments and a lot of 

6 good public comments that we have taken our time, all 

7 of us up here and the other elements of the 

8 interagency, to look at these public comments and to 

9 try and bring together the best ideas from the public 

10 with our ideas and how to strike that balance.

11 So now what we have is the supplemental notice 

12 of the proposed rulemaking. And I am going to go 

13 through those elements now and where we felt that we 

14 could be responsive to the comments that we got.

15 So what did we learn from the comments? Well, 

16 the first thing we learned was that there were 

17 concerned associated with the proposed change to the 

18 generally authorized country list from the restricted 

19 country list. So, you know, as I described our 

20 methodology and our thinking and our broad conceptual 

21 ideas behind how we were going to make the inimicality 

22 findings or the non-inimicality findings and moving it 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

23

1 from a negative list to a positive list, obviously 

2 there were countries and destinations that move from 

3 one list to another. And so that was something that we 

4 took a hard look at from the comments we received.

5 The other thing was a perceived increase in 

6 proposed activities subject to specific authorization. 

7 This really stemmed from when we tried to add for the 

8 first time the technical scope to the controls in 

9 moving this forward. And, as we said during the 

10 webinar and we have made in other public fora, that was 

11 really based upon a number of things: our multilateral 

12 obligations to organizations like Nuclear Suppliers 

13 Group, our NPT obligations, and based upon past 

14 licensing history and precedent that we have made here 

15 at DOE and that others had made here in other similar 

16 licensing requirements and that other U.S. agencies or 

17 commissions have made in the past. And so we tried to 

18 lay that out in the technical scope. And I think a lot 

19 of people were surprised when they looked at it because 

20 when you go from no technical scope to the technical 

21 scope we laid out, there were things on there that 

22 people probably didn't think had been licensed before 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

24

1 or were part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group's thinking 

2 or where the government had made a determination that 

3 those technologies fell under an NPT obligation. So I 

4 think that surprised some people, but I will also be 

5 honest that there were elements of this that we could 

6 have written a lot clearer and that we could have been 

7 provided more information on. And so we have gone 

8 through and tried to clarify that in the supplemental 

9 rule.

10 And the applicability was unclear regarding 

11 some of the activities, meaning there were some things 

12 and some questions of whether an activity was covered 

13 or not covered and we have gone through and tried to do 

14 this.

15 The other thing that we heard loud and clear 

16 was that the process itself, having nothing to do with 

17 the rule but how we do our work here at DOE, was slow, 

18 opaque, and unpredictable. I am not sure that I would 

19 agree with that characterization, but the message was 

20 received. And we knew it before we put the rule out 

21 because, as we said during the webinar, we have also 

22 been working on how to improve our internal processes 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

25

1 with regards to the rule. So those comments 

2 essentially reinforced what we already knew and really 

3 helped us to redouble our efforts in that area. And we 

4 will get into a little discussion of that as well as we 

5 move forward.

6 So the next slide, how the SNOPR process 

7 responds to comment, I think from our view, we feel 

8 that the supplemental rule is more open, there are 

9 better explanations, the proposed destination 

10 reclassification was retained with minor changes, and 

11 we are going to be talking about how to improve the 

12 process a lot better.

13 So let's get into the first and what I think 

14 is the major aspect of the initial comments we got and 

15 what we did with the supplemental rule. I think, as we 

16 have talked about in the past, when we made the switch 

17 from the negative to the positive list and then we made 

18 the linkage of the positive list to the 123 process, 

19 essentially there was a change in countries. We 

20 recognized that full up. And we understand that it 

21 created or we didn't understand at the time exactly how 

22 that was going to impact certain aspects of day-to-day 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

26

1 operations of many U.S. persons or U.S. industries. 

2 The comments helped clarify that. But one of the 

3 things that it did also tell us was that it reinforced 

4 the fact that we did have in our minds the best way to 

5 determine the inimicality finding because we really 

6 didn’t get any comments that stated there was another 

7 way to do it. It was more a question about countries 

8 moving from one list to another and how it affected 

9 certain aspects of, as I said, day-to-day operations.

10 So there was no change proposed from the NOPR 

11 to the SNOPR for 117 destinations. Forty-four major 

12 nuclear trading partners would remain generally 

13 authorized. Seventy-three destinations presenting 

14 proliferation issues would continue to require specific 

15 authorization. Russia, China, and India would continue 

16 to require specific authorization. And I went through 

17 the reasons for that during the webinar. And we can 

18 revisit that if folks need to in the question and 

19 answer period. And certain projects in Mexico and 

20 Chile would continue to be authorized. But what we did 

21 hear and what we did find were ways to allow some of 

22 the projects within Mexico and Chile to be generally 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

27

1 authorized. And those would essentially be those 

2 projects that are under project and supply agreements, 

3 which essentially makes up most, if not all, of the 

4 nuclear aspects and commercial aspects in Mexico and 

5 Chile. So I think we found ways to address that.

6 Let's move to the next one. The key basis for 

7 proposed classification, as I said, was the 123. So 

8 what slips over? So Kazakhstan, Ukraine, UAE would be 

9 generally authorized. And these are countries for 

10 which we had 123s in place and countries that have 

11 dynamic and important nuclear markets. And so they 

12 would move from right now requiring the specific 

13 authorization of the current rule to being generally 

14 authorized.

15 The 77 countries for which our specific 

16 authorizations would still be required -- when we went 

17 back and looked at it, there's very little or no 

18 nuclear trade that's going on. We don't have a 123 

19 agreement. So there are really no prospects from a 

20 government standpoint that we see where nuclear trade 

21 is going to rise to the level of significance to where 

22 123 -- and I think probably most importantly, you know, 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

28

1 we don't really have a good sense of what the nuclear 

2 policies are of most of these countries, either from a 

3 policy of civil nuclear use or their policies on non4 proliferation. So that is our thinking.

5 As nuclear programs emerge and as we are 

6 negotiating and we put into effect more 123s, the idea 

7 is that then we will have a basis to make the non8 inimicality findings. And the way that we structured 

9 the rule is that you will notice that the list is an 

10 appendix. And the reason it is an appendix to the rule 

11 is so that way we don't have to go through a rulemaking 

12 every time we want to update the list. And the idea is 

13 to make it as simple as possible. So that when 123 

14 comes into effect, then the Secretary of Energy, with 

15 the concurrence of the State Department and consulting 

16 with the other agencies, can then go ahead through 

17 Federal Register notice and, with a little bit of 

18 rulemaking paperwork, be able to add the 123, that 

19 country for which we have a 123, to the general 

20 authorization list.

21 Okay. Let's move on to the next one. What 

22 else does the SNOPR do? It exempts lawful permanent 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

29

1 resident aliens and protected foreign nationals. This 

2 wasn't clear in the existing rule. So what we are 

3 saying is if someone is here under a green card or is a 

4 PRA or is a protected foreign national, they are to be 

5 treated as a U.S. person. And they would not require -

6 - actually, wouldn’t be under the scope of the rule at 

7 all.

8 SNOPR generally authorizes access to nuclear 

9 technology. If foreign nationals are employed at U.S. 

10 nuclear facilities if the employee signs a 

11 confidentiality agreement is authorized in accordance 

12 with NRC standards, which I think Mark is going to talk 

13 about later and the employer reports the authorized 

14 access to DOE.

15 Where did this come from? This is new from 

16 the NOPR to the SNOPR. When we did the country list 

17 flip from the bad guy to the good guy and linked it to 

18 the 123 finding, 123 determination in the process, one 

19 of the comments that we got was, "Hey, although there 

20 may not be a lot of significant nuclear exports with 

21 some of these countries that flip, there are a lot of 

22 foreign nationals that are employed at U.S. nuclear 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

30

1 installations and that these persons are here pursuant 

2 to the access requirements of the NRC."

3 When we looked at those comments, we sat down 

4 with the NRC and the interagency, and we said, "Is it 

5 right? And is it fair? Do we want to essentially 

6 double-regulate the same activity? Do we want to 

7 regulate, apply 810 over somebody for which the NRC has 

8 allowed them to have access to do a certain job at a 

9 nuclear installation in the United States?" It didn't 

10 seem logical or right to us to be in a position where 

11 the NRC says an individual can have access to the 

12 facility to do a job, only for the Department of Energy 

13 to come in and make the determination potentially that 

14 the person cannot do the job while he is there.

15 And so in talking with the interagency and 

16 talking with the NRC, the determination was made that 

17 the NRC really had jurisdiction over this area and not 

18 us since they were making the access determination and 

19 we were only making a determination on whether they 

20 could actually have access to information from the 

21 company so that they could do their job.

22 And so the way we have phrased this in here is 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

31

1 if you are essentially hiring a foreign national and 

2 you meet all the NRC access requirements, just report 

3 it to us. It will be generally authorized, regardless 

4 of what country they're from, in moving forward, what 

5 country they're from. And so that is essentially going 

6 to be an important exception that we were making to the 

7 country rules from the public comments we got because 

8 we could certainly see the reasoning and the impact 

9 that the rule would have behind it. And I think it 

10 created a difficult regulatory situation which the 

11 government at large could be placing upon U.S. 

12 companies.

13 The other thing that we have done in this rule 

14 is we have taken a look at the deemed exports or the 

15 deemed reexports. And there will be no changes to how 

16 we are going to handle that for now. That could change 

17 in the future, but right now in the supplemental rule, 

18 there are going to be no changes.

19 And I think let's move on to the next slide, 

20 Jessica. So the existing rule -- the other thing that 

21 we did is that we have tried to make the rule clearer 

22 with regards to the technical scope and to the reactor 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

32

1 section. So the existing rule right now talks about 

2 production reactors, but we have always implemented it 

3 from the very beginning as including all reactors since 

4 all reactors produce plutonium.

5 What the SNOPR now does is expressly cover all 

6 reactors, but what we did is we clarified the scope 

7 within the reactor of how far the rule expands. If you 

8 look in the current rule, there's no explanation. So 

9 if someone says, "I want to do work here in this part 

10 of the plant" or "I want to move technology associated 

11 with another part of the plant. Am I in or am I out?" 

12 because nuclear plants are fairly large and involve a 

13 lot of different kinds of technologies -- so what we 

14 have done is we have expressly covered all reactors, 

15 but we narrowed the scope or clarified the scope of the 

16 reactor technology to be the nuclear island in the 

17 primary coolant loop. So everything from the steam 

18 generators on into the island is covered by 810.

19 If it is outside the steam generator, then it 

20 is Department of Commerce. And I think that now what 

21 we have done is we have clarified between Commerce 

22 regulations and our regulations exactly what is going 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

33

1 to be the scope of 810 coverage versus Commerce 

2 coverage. And I think that this matches up pretty 

3 closely to how the NRC also defines the controls for a 

4 nuclear reactor, also with the Department of Commerce. 

5 So it aligns the three agencies up very nicely.

6 Moving forward, so the next one is operational 

7 safety. We currently have some aspects of operational 

8 safety in the current rule. We talked about getting 

9 rid of it in the first proposed rule. And part of it 

10 was -- and I think, as we talked about during the 

11 webinar -- that it created a difficult situation 

12 because there was no agreed definition of what was 

13 operational safety. And, quite frankly, I think we 

14 struggled as much as applicants struggled in trying to 

15 define what was operational safety versus what was safe 

16 operations.

17 Obviously, the comments we got reflected some 

18 concern with us doing that, making that change. And 

19 then, unfortunately, the accident at Fukushima happened 

20 and we started to realize how important the fast track 

21 that we had put in place really back in the early 1990s 

22 for prodding assistance to former Soviet Union reactors 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

34

1 was going to play in the rule moving forward.

2 And so what we are going to do is we are going 

3 to retain a couple of things. We are going to retain 

4 the fast track for when there is an imminent 

5 radiological hazard. Okay? And, quite frankly, the 

6 best example I can think of right now is Fukushima. If 

7 there's an imminent radiological hazard, you pick up 

8 the phone, what the rule, current rule, says, call us. 

9 We'll talk about it for a couple of minutes. And then 

10 if we all agree that that is the case, the staff will 

11 inform the Secretary and then you will be approved to 

12 go ahead and do what you need to do to fix that 

13 problem, to address the concern. And then we will 

14 worry about the paperwork later. That is going to be 

15 retained.

16 We have also added a definition of operational 

17 safety to try and establish a standard by which 

18 operational safety work can go forward. I think from 

19 our standpoint, it is the best definition we could come 

20 up with within Department of Energy, with the Office of 

21 Nuclear Energy, and working with the interagency. It 

22 may be something that in the future again, we may look 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

35

1 at moving forward, but that definition is important for 

2 us from a regulatory standpoint. And why is it 

3 important for us from a regulatory standpoint? Because 

4 we are also adding in two new elements into the 

5 regulation regarding operational safety.

6 First is operational safety to foreign 

7 reactors, which are under IAEA safeguards. And there, 

8 using this definition that we have, we are saying, hey, 

9 if it is something that you are providing to a foreign 

10 reactor that is safeguarded, you can go ahead and use 

11 the operational safety definition, but you have to 

12 check with us first. You can use it as a way to 

13 generally authorize your transfers, but there is a 45-

14 day period for which we have to respond. Given that 

15 the current specific authorization process is supposed 

16 to be within 90 days, we try to do it within 90 days, 

17 this means in half the time, we will get back to you. 

18 And we will tell you whether your activity falls within 

19 the scope, within the technical scope of that 

20 definition of operational safety.

21 The other thing that we are doing within the 

22 reg, which is foreign assistance on operational safety 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

36

1 aspects to U.S. reactors, one of the things that we 

2 were seeing more and more of and we expect to see a lot 

3 more of following Fukushima is a lot more of this sort 

4 of peer review, international peer review, of safety 

5 standards within reactors and nuclear facilities. And 

6 when certain entities like INPO or WANO, utilities want 

7 them to come and do this peer review, we have come to 

8 the conclusion that the rule should not get in the way 

9 of that. And so that can also be generally authorized 

10 underneath the new rule, that kind of operational 

11 safety support. And, again, it's 45 days. Just let us 

12 know within 45 days. We will confirm that it is 

13 happening. And then it is just a reporting requirement 

14 as if it would have been generally authorized. So 

15 those are two new areas associated with operational 

16 safety. Okay.

17 So other proposed changes. Well, we clarified 

18 that if you have a Commerce and State-approved export, 

19 you would be exempt from the Part 810 in order to avoid 

20 duplication of regulation. So if Steve or the State 

21 Department has granted you a license on specific 

22 nuclear assistance or nuclear technology, you would be 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

37

1 exempt.

2 For the most part, it shouldn’t be a problem 

3 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since they do 

4 the hardware in nuclear materials and we do the 

5 technology and the assistance. But we wanted to 

6 clarify that from the Commerce and State.

7 Public information. We worked hard with the 

8 interagency to clarify and to ensure that there is 

9 consistency with the public information definitions 

10 that we have of what is in the public domain and what 

11 isn't so that, you know, obviously companies and 

12 individuals that required multiple licenses were 

13 looking and using the same terminology, the same litmus 

14 test, the same standards with regards to essentially 

15 the same information.

16 Activities with remote connection to special 

17 nuclear material. We have tried to clarify that. So 

18 there was some concern that we mentioned mining in the 

19 first revision in the NOPR. We have clarified that by 

20 not including it in the supplemental, that it is not 

21 going to be covered.

22 Medical isotope production. We have looked at 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

38

1 medical isotopes. When it doesn't involve special 

2 nuclear materials, it would not be covered by the 

3 supplemental rule.

4 Fusion work, obviously, with the big science 

5 project such as Iter and others. There were questions 

6 about what part of the fusion science world was going 

7 to be covered, and we have clarified that as well and 

8 other back-ended activities related to medical 

9 isotopes, such as the production of moly-99 for medical 

10 isotope use. There are aspects and certain techniques 

11 of the moly-99 recovery process that would be not 

12 covered by the 810 supplemental rule.

13 And then, finally, activities carried out by 

14 IAEA personnel would be generally authorized. So we 

15 have clarified where that was because there was a 

16 question internally within the U.S. government and from 

17 people on the outside who were being sponsored to go to 

18 work at the IAEA by the U.S government because 

19 obviously supporting the IAEA is something we want to 

20 do.

21 So now that takes us through very briefly the 

22 changes, some of the major changes, that we made to the 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

39

1 rule. So now I want to talk a little bit about the 

2 process issue because it was something that was 

3 highlighted during the public comment period.

4 We understand the point that the specific 

5 authorization process takes a bit of time. We 

6 understand that it requires the Secretary of Energy, 

7 cabinet-level official, to sign off on all the specific 

8 authorizations. And we understand that the process 

9 needs to be more transparent, predictable, and 

10 efficient. One of the things I think that those of you 

11 who work directly with us know from time to time, we 

12 try to do our best to ensure that we can implement this 

13 in a way, implement the rule in a way, that does not 

14 place companies at disadvantages, competitive 

15 disadvantage or any other disadvantage. That is our 

16 goal to try and do that.

17 At times, some of the circumstances, I think, 

18 as some of you have heard me and others say, those 

19 circumstances are out of our control. We try our best 

20 to influence all aspects of the 810 process, but 

21 sometimes we're not always successful in doing so. So 

22 we try our best to do this. But let me take you 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

40

1 through a little bit of the current specific 

2 authorization process. And then we will get into some 

3 of the things that we are doing to try and improve the 

4 process in conjunction with putting out the new rule.

5 So this is the current process and something, 

6 a slide, that I have used before. And, as you can see, 

7 we essentially break the process up into three stages. 

8 The first stage is the initial review, meaning when we 

9 get the application that comes in from an applicant, we 

10 take a look at it. And if it is something that we 

11 believe within my office, something that can go 

12 forward, meaning it meets all the requirements of the 

13 regulation, we then start the analysis. And what the 

14 analysis is is the non-inimicality finding. And it is 

15 in the supplemental. It is going to be in 810.9; 

16 whereas, there are the 10 elements that we take a look 

17 at with regard to how we take a look at it. And, 

18 again, this is where the Secretary -- we are making a 

19 judgment in making a recommendation to the Secretary

20 that the proposed transfer is not inimical to the 

21 common interests of the United States. So it includes 

22 what do we know about the country, what do we know 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

41

1 about the activity, what do we know about the

2 technology, and what do we know about the commercial 

3 market and the potential loss of trade if it's not 

4 approved moving forward.

5 That then goes through DOE, through NNSA staff 

6 review. The DOE Office of Nuclear Energy takes a look 

7 at it. And then it goes through our legal reviews. We 

8 then send it to the interagency, which is really the 

9 second stage. And there it goes through State, 

10 Commerce, NRC, and Department of Defense review. We 

11 give them 30 days to take a look at the license. And 

12 this is in line with the 30 days, which you will see 

13 also in the Department of Commerce and the State 

14 Department ITAR regulations, 30-day review for the 

15 interagency. At the same time, State Department will 

16 then request formal assurances from the host 

17 government.

18 Once we have everyone's feedback from the 

19 interagency and as long as nobody has said, "No. This 

20 is a bad idea" or raised any significant concerns and 

21 we have the assurances, we then repackage it, we draft 

22 the license approval recommendation to the Secretary. 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

42

1 And it then goes through because it is a package it is 

2 a package to the Secretary the review internally within 

3 NNSA and DOE. And then it goes to the Secretary for 

4 approval. That is the process.

5 And I think, as many of you know, part of the 

6 problem there isn't us preparing the analysis. If we 

7 understand the application and all the information is 

8 there, we can prepare the analysis pretty quickly. It 

9 is not the review. Agencies, we do a pretty good job 

10 of doing the review. The long-term intent is the 

11 assurance process. And, again, a lot of that is 

12 outside of our reach. We do our best with the State 

13 Department to try and get foreign governments to move 

14 forward. We have come up with a few ideas here 

15 recently in working with some of the countries for 

16 which we have the most challenges in getting assurances 

17 from. And we are working to develop new fast track 

18 approaches with some of those countries on the 

19 assurances. It is not part of the supplemental rule, 

20 but it is something that is important for us to get 

21 right because in our view, we are not going through the 

22 effort of the supplemental rule to have the process 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

43

1 still be bogged down by the same problems. So we want 

2 to go through and do this.

3 So next slide. But we can find time and save 

4 some time on our internal processes. Even though we do 

5 a good job, we know we can do better. And so what we 

6 have tried to do is really piggyback upon a broader 

7 effort that is going on here within NNSA, which was 

8 announced in this very auditorium, which was that NNSA 

9 as an organization is going to seek to become ISO-9001-

10 compliant. And so what we want to do is we want to 

11 actually take the 810 process and not only become ISO12 9001-compliant. We actually want to take it to the 

13 point where we can get certified.

14 And so what we have done is we have taken a 

15 six-sigma approach that we have obviously borrowed from 

16 GE. And my goal was to hire Jack Donaghy from 30 Rock 

17 to take us through this, but he wasn't available. So 

18 we have settled with another expert in this process to 

19 come and help us do this.

20 We are in the phase within the six-sigma 

21 process of talking to the customer through the 

22 interview process, trying to understand where we have 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

44

1 duplication, where we have gaps, what the expectations 

2 are with regards to the 810 process moving forward. 

3 Then what we are going to do is then actually go 

4 through the entire six-sigma process, which should get 

5 us to the point where we can then go through the ISO6 9001 certification process.

7 I think what we are going to find is that 

8 there are overlaps, there is time to be saved, and that 

9 there are places that we can find efficiencies and 

10 streamline. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of the 

11 details because what I don't want to do is end up in 

12 the typical government program analyst kind of position 

13 where I pretend that I know the answer before we really 

14 do get the answer. And I have left the team alone to 

15 be able to come back with the raw, unvarnished truth 

16 and the recommendations to us on where we are going 

17 wrong and where we can do better. Okay?

18 So other ideas that we are looking at on the 

19 table and some stuff, ideas, that have come forward to 

20 us through the public comment period and just that we 

21 have heard from others on the side are that we are 

22 going to be publishing a Part 810 guide, including 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

45

1 advisory opinions. So as we give companies advisory 

2 opinions on certain technology questions, certain 

3 country questions, certain business relationship 

4 questions, we will sanitize those when we make what we 

5 believe are important interpretations for how we are 

6 looking at the rule, how we are looking at certain 

7 things. And we are going to publish those as advisory 

8 opinions.

9 We are working to reduce the response times 

10 for foreign government assurances. I want to be 

11 careful what I say here because we are actively 

12 negotiating with a few governments right now on how to 

13 shorten those response times. We have our ideas. They 

14 have some ideas. I will be taking a trip with State 

15 Department colleagues in the very near future to a very 

16 important country which we have a significant problem 

17 with. They seem motivated and we are motivated to get 

18 this fixed and to reduce those response times. So we 

19 are working on that. Although that will not be part of 

20 the six-sigma review, it is a very important part of 

21 the work that we see moving forward.

22 We are going to develop and implement an e-
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

46

1 licensing system. I talked about it a little bit at 

2 the webinar, that we had the question in front of us. 

3 We didn't know whether the cost was going to be worth 

4 it given the limited number of 810 specific 

5 authorizations that we do. But given the fact that we 

6 want to publish a Part 810 guide, that we want to 

7 publish advisory opinions, we decided that it was 

8 probably worth it to go ahead and design and implement 

9 an e-licensing system, which would be essentially one10 stop shopping. It would also get us out of the paper 

11 chase that we go through and would hopefully 

12 standardize a lot of the application process for our 

13 applicants. It would also help us implement the fast 

14 track procedures for the authorization of activities 

15 that present the lowest proliferation risk. And those 

16 are the ones that I talked about in the operational 

17 safety and some of the deemed export aspects that we're 

18 going to be creating fast track avenues for within the 

19 supplemental rule and what is going to reduce the time 

20 for internal DOE and interagency reviews because no 

21 longer can people say, "I can't find that piece of 

22 paper" because they are going to be able to log right 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

47

1 into the system and be able to have all of the 

2 information that is there from the applicant, from us, 

3 from the other agencies, and hopefully will expedite 

4 moving the whole process forward.

5 We are talking with important stakeholders 

6 regarding the e-licensing system and getting more ideas 

7 out there. It is probably not going to be a sort of 

8 completed project when we first implemented. Our hope 

9 is to implement it in various phases. And our goal is 

10 to have the first phase of the e-licensing system with 

11 some of these things like the Part 810 guide and the 

12 advisory opinions up and running at about the same time 

13 that we would issue a final rule. So that our goal is 

14 that we would essentially -- when the time comes, we 

15 are going to basically turn the page and basically drag 

16 the 810 process into the Twenty-First Century in 

17 hopefully one flick of the switch.

18 And the last slide, Jessica. So the 

19 conclusion. This is what the supplemental rule is. 

20 This is where we are heading with regards to the 

21 process improvement. Our goal is to, as I said, 

22 facilitate nuclear trade. We are hoping to update and 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

48

1 modernize, be more open, effective, and efficient, but 

2 we can't do so at a cost where we compromise our 

3 proliferation controls. It is this balance that we are 

4 trying to strike. We appreciate the work and effort 

5 that the public has gone into providing comments on 

6 this. And to us, these are the comments. These are 

7 important in making sure that we get the balance right 

8 and moving forward.

9 So, with that, I think I have used up more 

10 than my time and Joyce's unofficial time. So let me 

11 turn it over now to Dick.

12 MR. STRATFORD: Okay. I am Dick Stratford. 

13 And I had the State Department office that handles

14 pretty much every aspect of peaceful nuclear affairs. 

15 We handle the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Zangger 

16 Committee. We're the ones who negotiate the 123 

17 agreements, which is a growth industry these days since 

18 I am now up to 12 agreements that we either have to 

19 finish negotiating or extend them. And three more 

20 countries have called up and said, "We are interested 

21 in a 123, too." I think we're probably going to wind 

22 up doing it certainly with two out of the three. The 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

49

1 third one I'm not so sure they are really going to have 

2 a nuclear program.

3 We are also responsible for the State 

4 Department's review of Part 810 requests. Now, we have 

5 a somewhat limited role in 810s, but we are on the 

6 critical path because, whereas, DOE has to consult with 

7 other agencies. Before they put a recommendation to 

8 the Secretary, they need State Department concurrence 

9 in the case of specific authorizations of nuclear 

10 technology transfers. Now, how does that work? DOE 

11 sends me a letter setting out what the application is 

12 asking for, what their analysis is, and what they 

13 propose to do with it, which in most cases is to 

14 approve it. But before they do that, they need certain 

15 assurances from the foreign government.

16 And let's go to the next slide. Foreign 

17 government assurances have been long time required. 

18 And what we need is we need to know that it is for 

19 peaceful uses, it is not for explosive devices, not for 

20 any military purpose, and no retransfer without written 

21 consent.

22 So in a period of usually no more than three 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

50

1 days, the licensing officer in my office prepares a 

2 cable, which goes out to the country concerned, which 

3 says, "The following transaction or transfer to you of 

4 nuclear technology is under consideration by the 

5 Secretary of Energy. And in order to allow this to 

6 happen, we need certain assurances from you about what 

7 will or will not happen to that technology.

8 Now, some have said, "Well, if you have a 123 

9 agreement, it is almost a foregone conclusion, isn't 

10 it?" Yes. Generally speaking, it is. And, even if we 

11 don't have a 123 agreement, you can still make a Part 

12 810 technology transfer. We just might look at it a 

13 little more closely.

14 Now, some have said, "Well, you have an 

15 agreement with China, India, and Russia. Why don't you 

16 just go general authorization?" Well, the answer is 

17 obvious, which is they each have a nuclear explosive 

18 program. And we don't have a track with a nuclear 

19 explosive program.

20 So if someone says, "I am going to go do 

21 something in Russia," if it is on the peaceful side of 

22 the equation, the answer is almost certainly yes. If 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

51

1 it is tied up with the nuclear side, the answer is 

2 probably no, but there is a middle ground. Like, for 

3 example, there was a time with India, where we never 

4 would have approved transfers to BARC in India. It was 

5 affiliated with the weapons establishment.

6 But then as we got further along what we used 

7 to call the glide path -- this is before the 2005 

8 announcement -- we lightened up a little bit. We began 

9 to distinguish between parts of BARC that were clearly 

10 weapons-related and parts of BARC that were clearly 

11 civilian in their focus, just like Los Alamos, for 

12 example. It is a weapons lab, but there is all kinds 

13 of technology being developed that is not just for 

14 weapons but for peaceful purposes.

15 So if you say BARC today, we would look at it 

16 and say, "Okay. What part of BARC? And what are the 

17 dangers that the technology will be diverted to a 

18 weapons use?"

19 And then we make a judgment. And our judgment 

20 goes back to DOE, which says, "Yes. We don't have a 

21 problem with that" or "This makes us very nervous. 

22 Let's talk about it before we go out there and ask for 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

52

1 assurances."

2 How long do assurances take? Some countries 

3 get back to us fairly quickly, in a matter of a couple 

4 of days. Some have been known to go for 12 months 

5 without an answer. In one case, the applicant was 

6 getting somewhat cranky about the fact that they 

7 weren't allowed to go ahead with their transaction. 

8 And I said, "Look, tell the science officer in capital 

9 to please go in and see the relevant agency and ask 

10 them what the holdup is."

11 So science officer went in and asked. And the 

12 answer was, "Well, the holdup is I have no idea who you 

13 are talking about, never heard of this company before 

14 in my life, wouldn’t know where to find them."

15 So I went back and said, "All right. Call the 

16 applicant. Tell the applicant to call his client and 

17 tell the client to make himself heard in the relevant 

18 agency."

19 That worked. Client contacted the agency, 

20 said, "This is who I am. And would you kindly give the 

21 assurances?" Then they finally came through.

22 Now, as I said, some countries are worse off 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

53

1 than others in terms of replying promptly, but we are 

2 going to try in some cases to fix that in a generic 

3 sense. And, as Rich said, he's going out probably 

4 sometime in late August, early September to a 

5 particular country to try to speed things up. And I am 

6 sending along one of my very best people to see if we 

7 can make that happen.

8 Next slide. Yes, tech transfers are important 

9 to the industry. That is why we try to speed up the 

10 assurance requests. And, oh, by the way, when the 

11 assurance request comes back with the assurances, how 

12 long does it take State to get back to DOE? Usually 

13 two to three days. It's two to three days on the way 

14 in before the cable goes out and it's two to three days 

15 after the cable comes back that I sign the letter back 

16 to DOE that says, "Yes, we concur. Please go ahead." 

17 That is self-explanatory.

18 Next slide. And there isn't one. Okay. So 

19 let me stop there. Bottom line is we are on the 

20 critical path. We don't take that much time to respond 

21 to the process. And I think we can do a little better 

22 in terms of nudging people who are not responsive as 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

54

1 quickly as we would hope they would be.

2 I will stop there.

3 MS. STRANGIS: Why don't we take this time to 

4 take a ten-minute break? I think we have several 

5 people that will be by the doors and can escort groups 

6 of people to the restrooms. And we will start back 

7 here at around 2:20.

8 (Whereupon, there was a brief recess.)

9 MS. STRANGIS: If everyone can take their 

10 seats, we are going to start back again, I think, with 

11 Brooke. Right? Brooke?

12 MS. SMITH: Thank you. So good afternoon. My 

13 name is Brooke Smith, and I am going to talk about NRC 

14 export controls found in 10 CFR Part 110. And then I 

15 am going to turn it over to Mr. Mark Resner, who works 

16 in our Office of Nuclear Security and Incident

17 Response, to talk to you a little bit about our 

18 security requirements and regulations regarding 

19 unauthorized site access, which are tied to the general 

20 authorization for foreign nations that Rich had talked 

21 about, also known as the deemed exports.

22 So briefly, I am just going to go through Part 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

55

1 110. I normally give a Part 110 101, but this is going 

2 to be a little more high level than that and just start 

3 with like the legal basis. It's the same for Part 810, 

4 different sections, but it's the Atomic Energy Act of 

5 1954, as amended, or what gives NRC authority to 

6 regulate exports. In our case, it is of nuclear 

7 equipment and materials, not the technology. However, 

8 I will get into it a little later. If you do have an 

9 export license from the NRC, the technology that goes 

10 along with what is authorized in that license does not 

11 need a separate Part 810 authorization. And then the 

12 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 and then other 

13 bilateral and multilateral obligations are incorporated 

14 into our Part 110 regulations.

15 Next slide. So I am not going to read this to 

16 you, but NRC actually has jurisdiction for exports as 

17 well as imports, though imports are mostly authorized 

18 through the general license similar to the general 

19 authorization that you find in Part 810. So we would 

20 issue licenses for complete reactors, the major 

21 components of a reactor, different materials, nuclear 

22 materials, and radioactive materials, as well as waste.
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

56

1 So this is a diagram of a typical pressurized 

2 water reactor and a typical boiling water reactor. And 

3 I just use this here to illustrate what NRC's Part 110 

4 regulations, the scope. It doesn't cover everything 

5 that you would find at a nuclear power reactor. It 

6 would be consistent with Part 810 that Rich discussed, 

7 the nuclear island, and the primary coolant systems. 

8 And items would have to be especially designed or 

9 prepared equipment.

10 Next slide. Appendix A to Part 110 provides 

11 an illustrative list of reactor equipment that falls 

12 under NRC's export licensing jurisdiction. And we have

13 essentially what is a definition of a reactor at the 

14 beginning of that appendix. And that language that you 

15 see up on the screen are items within or attached 

16 directly to the reactor vessel: equipment which 

17 controls the level of power in the core and components 

18 which normally contain or come into direct contact with 

19 or control the primary coolant of the reactor core. 

20 That kind of gives us the scope of what a reactor is 

21 for purposes of NRC export controls. And that comers 

22 actually directly from the NSG, the Nuclear Suppliers 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

57

1 Group, definition of nuclear reactor.

2 So the next slide is a list. Appendix A, as I 

3 mentioned, is illustrative. However, the first four 

4 components on that list we would license as major 

5 components. And they apply the same licensing criteria 

6 as if you were shipping a complete reactor. And so 

7 that is the reactor pressure vessel, the online reactor 

8 fuel charging and discharging machines, complete 

9 control rod drive system, and reactor primary coolant 

10 pumps.

11 The next slide lists the minor reactor 

12 equipment. And this is derived from the Nuclear 

13 Suppliers Group control list as well, the Part 1 list. 

14 And I want to highlight the very last bullet there, 

15 "Any other component especially designed or prepared 

16 for use in a nuclear reactor," any of the components 

17 that are part of the system or items described in 

18 Appendix A. So I just bring this up because one of the 

19 things that Rich has done within the scope of Part 810 

20 is make it clear that Part 810 is also consistent with 

21 the control list derived from the Nuclear Suppliers 

22 Group.
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

58

1 One thing I would like to point out with NRC's 

2 jurisdiction is while these are illustrative, we can 

3 make case-by-case determinations based on the 

4 information provided to us by potential applicants as 

5 long as it is consistent with the concepts, you know, 

6 the scope of what we control, the principle of 

7 especially designed or prepared for, and also 

8 consistent with section 109B of the Atomic Energy Act 

9 for these minor reactor components and equipment.

10 Next slide. So we also like Part 810 except 

11 for we have not the technology but the equipment and 

12 components. We would have export licensing 

13 jurisdiction over the fuel cycle facilities and then 

14 the especially designed or prepared components for 

15 those facilities. So this is just a diagram 

16 illustrating the fuel cycle.

17 And in Part 810 -- I think it is 810.2, Rich, 

18 lists the scope? -- there is a reference to the NRC 

19 appendices in there. And those again are derived from 

20 the NSG control list. And these again provide an 

21 illustrative list of what would fall under NRC's export 

22 licensing jurisdiction.
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

59

1 And, just briefly, outside of the scope of 

2 Part 810, NRC also regulates for export control 

3 purposes radioactive materials. It is typically what 

4 you would see for medical and industrial use and that 

5 are found in a device or sealed source.

6 So Dick had mentioned Department of State has 

7 a concurring role in Part 810 review process. We have 

8 a consultative role. And that is actually found 

9 directly in 57B. So any such determinations by the 

10 Secretary of Energy shall be made only with the 

11 concurrence of the Department of State after 

12 consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

13 So we have a very close working relationship with DOE, 

14 NNSA. And, with rare exception, we are able to provide 

15 our views and input within that 30-day time period that 

16 Rich and his staff request views from the NRC in. 

17 Usually we are able to just simply say we have no 

18 objection to this proposal. Any questions or concerns 

19 we have we work closely with the Part 810 staff and 

20 usually have those answered pretty quickly or provide 

21 our input and receive response. So it is a very 

22 collaborative process. And I have been doing it for 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

60

1 eight years. And we have, with rare exception, always 

2 been able to work very well together and meet that 30-

3 day deadline.

4 So before I turn it over to Mark to talk about 

5 NRC's security requirements and unauthorized site 

6 access regulations, I just wanted to provide the 

7 transition. Rich had talked about the deemed export. 

8 And that is found in 10 CFR in the SNOPR, in the 

9 proposed section, 10 CFR 810.6(b), where it talks about 

10 transfers of technology to a citizen or national of a 

11 country or territory not listed in the appendix to Part 

12 810 and working at an NRC-licensed facility. So Mark 

13 is going to go into detail about that program and how 

14 it is implemented at our U.S. NRC-regulated facilities.

15 Thank you.

16 MR. RESNER: Good afternoon. I'm Mark Resner, 

17 the Access Authorization Program Coordinator for NRC. 

18 Our program covers 104 nuclear power plants throughout 

19 the continental United States. The objective of our 

20 program is to provide high assurance -- let me 

21 emphasize high assurance -- that people are trustworthy 

22 and reliable so that they will not commit radiological 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

61

1 sabotage or threaten the public health and safety or 

2 the common defense.

3 We use a defense-in-depth strategy at the 

4 plants. It's not only guards, gates, and guns, but it 

5 is also other programs that we incorporate to that that 

6 are not visible programs.

7 At most plants, although they have different 

8 footprints, generally the outer ring or the outermost 

9 ring is called the owner-controlled area. That would 

10 be parking lots, admin. Facilities. As you proceed 

11 inward, the requirements to go further into the plant 

12 are obviously more stringent. The second ring is the 

13 protected area, what we call the protected area. And 

14 those are areas that could have strategic targets 

15 within those sites. And then the innermost controlled 

16 area, which is the vital areas, which would be the 

17 control room and other more serious, more sensitive 

18 areas.

19 When you enter the plant, there are armed 

20 guards, gates, and guns. There are armed security 

21 guards. Employees are badged. For those employees who 

22 have been granted access, unescorted access, to get
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

62

1 into the protected area, not only do they have the 

2 badge, but they have to use the hand geometry in some 

3 of the cases to identify who they are to get into their 

4 protected area. Some sites have iris scanners. And, 

5 as you go into the protected area, there are explosive 

6 sniffers, no cameras, no computers.

7 In combination with these guards, gates, and 

8 guns, we have a fitness-for-duty program, which is drug 

9 and alcohol. We have a behavior observation program. 

10 And we have an insider mitigation program. And all of 

11 these programs integrate together.

12 Can we go to the next slide? This kind of 

13 illustrates the basic footprint of the sites to give 

14 you an idea.

15 Next slide, please. There are three types of 

16 access. Generally there are two main types: 

17 unescorted access. Then there is escorted access. And 

18 then we have a category that's called unescorted access 

19 authorization. With unescorted access, you are 

20 required to go through a criminal history program, 

21 fingerprinting, which I will get into the next slide,

22 credit history, employment history, references, 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

63

1 credibility checks. In addition, you are required to 

2 undergo plant access training. You have to score at 

3 least an 80 percentile on that test. For the 

4 unescorted access, you have to successfully pass the 

5 drug and alcohol test. You are entered into a random 

6 drug-testing pool.

7 For the escorted access -- and the next slide, 

8 please -- the elements for unescorted, the first thing 

9 that is done is the individual comes to the site. They 

10 are provided a consent and advisement form. It lets 

11 them know that your name is going to be checked against 

12 these databases and you are going to have a criminal 

13 history check. Essentially, they sign it and give us 

14 our permission. If they don't, they don't get access 

15 to the plant.

16 There is a five-page personal history 

17 questionnaire, which includes foreign countries that 

18 you have traveled to, much like the government SF-86 

19 forms; verification of sure identity, which is done 

20 through biometric; employment history evaluation -- if

21 there's no employment, if it's been education, then 

22 they have to verify that through the schools -- credit 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

64

1 history check; character and reputation evaluations; 

2 criminal history review; and psych assessment. The 

3 psych assessment has to be done by a professional 

4 psychologist.

5 The criminal history review, each plant 

6 fingerprints the people. It is sent in to the NRC. 

7 The NRC then sends those prints to the FBI Criminal 

8 Justice Information System. In turn, the FBI through 

9 law and statutory approval, provides the data back to 

10 us. We then send that back to the licensee.

11 The licensee reviewing official takes all of 

12 this information together with the criminal history, 

13 the credit checks, makes an evaluation, a determination

14 of whether that individual is trustworthy and reliable 

15 and then granted unescorted access.

16 For escorted access, there are procedures. 

17 The plant has procedures. There is a visitor control 

18 register, which they have to be entered into prior to 

19 entering a plant or coming to the plant; confirmation 

20 of the visitor's identity. Whether or not they have 

21 been denied access at another plant, that is checked; 

22 visitor badges; escort training. The escorts have to 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

65

1 be trained in what the individual will be doing, 

2 working on, what they are doing at the plant. The 

3 escorts have to be in constant communication with 

4 security, armed security.

5 And, if I may back up for just a minute, our 

6 regulations, what -- we regulate the NRC licensees 

7 through 10 CFR, Code of Federal Regulations. In 

8 particular, for access authorization, you will see in 

9 the next couple of slides, it is primarily done under 

10 10 CFR 73.56. If somebody has been granted unescorted 

11 access and it is within a 365-day period, they can go 

12 to another site. And the elements are on the left, the 

13 consent and advisement once again, the PHQ, the 

14 personal history questionnaire; verification of true 

15 identity; and the employment history evaluation; if it 

16 is within 30 days, consent and advisement, personal 

17 history questionnaire, verification of true identity.

18 Next slide, please. Our regulations are 

19 codified in 73.55, which is the physical security 

20 requirements, which are also tied to 73.56. Fifty21 seven has to do with the criminal history program. And 

22 Part 26 is fitness for duty. That's drug and alcohol. 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

66

1 In 2010, a new rule was promulgated that the licensees 

2 had to implement in March. It provided enhancements to 

3 psychological assessments. It had to be done by a 

4 professional psychologist, requires information sharing 

5 between reactor licensees. And what that is, we 

6 require that they have a system that anybody who has 

7 been granted access or denied access has to be entered 

8 into a system. The licensees currently use something 

9 called the PADS. It is Personnel Access Database 

10 System. We don't dictate which system they use, only 

11 that all licensees have to have access to that. So, 

12 going back, if a visitor shows up or anybody shows up, 

13 that is one of the checks they do is go in there. And 

14 have they ever been denied, it will be flagged within 

15 PADS.

16 We expanded our behavior observation 

17 requirements. We have annual supervisor reviews of the 

18 employees. Recently -- well, in 2010, there was 

19 something that occurred. An individual became 

20 radicalized. It was in the media. He had worked at 

21 five different plants, essentially was flying below the 

22 radar. So what we did, the behavior observation 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

67

1 program, which I mentioned earlier, we worked with the 

2 NCTC to have them review that, the Radicalization Unit 

3 over there, particularly with things that would 

4 identify people that potentially are becoming 

5 radicalized. So that program, the behavior observation

6 program, is currently being -- those upgrades are 

7 currently being incorporated into that program.

8 The reinvestigation of criminal history and 

9 credit history records for all individuals with 

10 unescorted access, at the plant, there are groups of 

11 people who have significant knowledge of the 

12 safeguards, control room, the guards. We call it the 

13 critical group. Their reinvestigation period is more 

14 frequent. It is every three years. And then we have 

15 the normal population that is not the critical group. 

16 And their reinvestigation period is longer. It is not 

17 as frequent.

18 Next slide, please. We regulate through 10 

19 CFR regulations, but we also provide guidance to the 

20 licensees through what we call reg guides, 566, 567 

21 insider mitigation. The minimum IMP, insider 

22 mitigation, elements are provided, security 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

68

1 determination; in other words, a criminal history, 

2 background checks; number two, initial and random 

3 substance abuse testing; three, psychological 

4 assessments. And during the psych assessments, too, if 

5 anything is detected, they can be referred to a medical 

6 professional for further review, annual supervisor 

7 review, and periodic reinvestigations.

8 The guidance that governs the access 

9 authorization program is what we call NEI0301. We 

10 worked in combination with the Nuclear Energy 

11 Institute. And they prepare the guidance based on our 

12 regulations, what the plants have to do. And we 

13 endorse that guidance. The plants then commit to that 

14 guidance in their physical security plants. And it 

15 actually becomes a condition of their license that NRC 

16 issues to them. So they're bound by that.

17 Next slide, please. NEI0304 again is the 

18 behavior observation. And we are currently upgrading 

19 the training on that. And essentially what it boils 

20 down to, to put it in simple words, if you see 

21 something, say something. You get a diverse population 

22 at the plants. You have nuclear engineers, the 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

69

1 laborers. And, you know, some people may feel that 

2 they don't want to rat out a coworker, a fellow laborer

3 or something. But we make it very clear and the 

4 licensees make it very clear that they are required to. 

5 If you see something, say something.

6 All of these programs, the fitness for duty, 

7 the behavior observation, insider mitigation, are all 

8 designed to work together. On the insider mitigation, 

9 the denial, as I said earlier, as you proceed inward 

10 into the plant, it becomes more stringent. The 

11 requirements, to get into a vital area within the 

12 plant, one of the requirements is a 31-day vital area 

13 access. In other words, the supervisor has to sign off 

14 on anybody who is getting access to a vital area and 

15 provide a reason why they need that continued access to 

16 that area or what they are going to be doing. And that 

17 has to be done every 31 days.

18 Self-disclosure. You are required, anybody 

19 who is arrested once they are granted unescorted access 

20 and even before, when they are making application, they 

21 have to make a self-disclosure if they have ever been 

22 arrested for anything or charged, formally charged.
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

70

1 In 2011, we were always looking to enhance our 

2 program. We noticed a slight increase in the failure 

3 to disclose. You might have a worker go out who has 

4 been granted unescorted access, gets busted for a DUI, 

5 comes back to the plant, doesn't want to lose their 

6 job. So they don't report that they have been 

7 arrested. And we are working with the FBI. Next 

8 Generation of CJIS right now, they have a program that 

9 is called Rap Back. And we are going to be included in 

10 that pilot program. We have a draft MOA, memorandum of 

11 agreement, which if someone is arrested and is put into 

12 the NCI system, it will immediately notify us. And we 

13 will, in turn, notify the licensee that this individual 

14 should not be allowed back on site. And so it should 

15 provide us a good enhancement about failures to report.

16 Next slide, please. This is just a pictorial, 

17 the initial background criminal history check that is 

18 required, insider mitigation, behavior observation, 

19 fitness for duty. It is all aimed at assuring 

20 trustworthiness and reliability.

21 And bounding all of that is we have NRC 

22 inspection process. What the licensee is required to 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

71

1 do, we have NRC inspectors who go out on a regular 

2 basis to inspect the programs and make sure that what 

3 they are required to do by regulations, that they are, 

4 in fact, doing it. And with respect to the inspection 

5 program, if they find there could be civil penalties, 

6 there could be a notice of violation. And if it's 

7 egregious, it could end up being pursuing a criminal 

8 prosecution of it.

9 Next slide, please. In addition to the other 

10 programs, in 2002, under Chairman Meserve, we developed 

11 an MOU with the Terrorist Screening Center. Everybody 

12 that is granted unescorted access or denied, they are 

13 entered in the PADS on a monthly basis. We take all 

14 those names with a 12-month retrospective look. And 

15 that information is provided to the FBI Terrorist 

16 Screening Center to determine whether it is a person of 

17 interest on that list. And if there is, then we have 

18 procedures on how to handle it.

19 Right now, again, as I said, we are always 

20 looking to the future and trying to enhance the 

21 program. The biometric identity of individuals is 

22 paramount to us. And anybody can make up a document, 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

72

1 provide it.

2 So we are working with US VISIT. And also we 

3 have a draft MOU with Department of Defense Biometrics 

4 Identity Agency. That will give us -- somebody who is 

5 arrested in the United States may not be in an FBI 

6 database, but they may show up in the AVIS, which is 

7 the DOD. They have supporting partner agreements with 

8 foreign countries and anywhere that they make 

9 collections, anywhere that there is a military base.

10 And that's it.

11 MR. CLAGETT: I think in the whole 810 review 

12 process, we work together as an interagency team to try 

13 to do away with as much overlap as possible to make 

14 clear which agencies had jurisdiction and to have a 

15 somewhat parallel structure in our processes and 

16 reviews when it was feasible and possible. And this 

17 chart was just put out by our Commerce International

18 Trade Administration. It is a very rough overview as 

19 to who has jurisdiction in the nuclear field. When you 

20 talk about nuclear power, what does Commerce have 

21 jurisdiction? It is basically everything that no one 

22 else either has or wants. It is not the glorious 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

73

1 reactor, which is special nuclear material technology. 

2 It's turbines and generators. You know, it's health 

3 and safety equipment, general infrastructure, materials 

4 and manufacturing. And the good thing about it as far 

5 as nuclear power, the vast majority of those items that 

6 are in a nuclear power plant that Commerce controls 

7 have very limited licensing requirements.

8 Commerce also has a part, as Rich mentioned, 

9 in the NSG, Nuclear Suppliers Group. We administrate 

10 the dual-use regime. That is, those have both a 

11 nuclear and a non-nuclear end use. And Commerce 

12 licenses both technology as well as hardware. Many 

13 things on the nuclear suppliers dual-user list are more 

14 aimed at an enrichment-type end use or weapons end use. 

15 There aren't that many unique nuclear power things 

16 except for maybe zirconium material, which is used in 

17 tubes and reactors and a few other materials. Most 

18 things have a little bit more of a tint towards an 

19 enrichment concern or weapons concern.

20 Also in the Commerce control list, we try to 

21 be as specific as possible. We have parameters. For 

22 instance, we don't control all vacuum pumps. As you 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

74

1 know, that vacuum pumps which have in this case, we use 

2 an enrichment-type end use. So, again, we try to limit 

3 our scope of controls and make it specific, I think, as 

4 Rich tried to do with his as well, until some people 

5 know really what we are concerned about.

6 We also have our broad controls as well. 

7 These are the nuclear end use controls. Sometimes you 

8 hear people talk about catch-up. These apply to 

9 everything which is subject to the AR. I mean, it 

10 applies to that vacuum pump as well as your pencil, 

11 your pen, your coffee cup. This will impose a license 

12 requirement, anything subject to the AR for certain 

13 activities, nuclear explosive activities, unsafeguarded 

14 nuclear activities, and the following activities, 

15 whether safeguarded or not: enrichment facilities or 

16 heavy water production facilities. These apply to 

17 everywhere except for very few countries. A few 

18 countries are exempt, like Great Britain, France, some 

19 of the NATO countries, Japan. It also applies to 

20 everyone. Like DOE exempts themselves from their own 

21 regulations. We don't exempt DOE from ours. So we do 

22 impose a license requirement upon DOE if they are 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

75

1 working in the nuclear-related area of certain 

2 countries.

3 Next slide. But, again, what is not subject 

4 to the 744.2 controls? At first it sounds like 

5 everything nuclear. But mining and milling are 

6 excluded, just as they are in Rich's; fusion reactors 

7 Tokomak and Iter. Commerce does license certain things 

8 to the Iter program, but it is predominantly dealing 

9 with who are the partners in the Iter program? And in 

10 general, fusion is exempt.

11 Also, most of you are familiar with IAEA 

12 safeguard facilities. In a previous slide, it talked 

13 about unsafeguarded activities. Those are 

14 traditionally your unsafeguarded power plants. But if 

15 you're dealing with the safeguarded power plants in the 

16 world, in the vast majority of the world, generally 

17 there is no licensing requirement unless that item 

18 itself would require a license to that particular 

19 country. For instance, when we get into, say, we 

20 recently received the export inquiry for stainless 

21 steel pipe for use in a nuclear power plant in the PRC.

22 In 744.2, in general, nuclear power plants, 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

76

1 commercial power plants in the PRC do not trigger a 

2 licensing requirement under Part 744.2. So if you had 

3 to export stainless steel pipe or a turbine or 

4 switching gear to like Qinshan or Daya Bay or something 

5 like that, there is no additional licensing requirement 

6 put upon it.

7 Next slide. Because I am a distributor of 

8 college textbooks, I am going to get requests for 

9 foreign customers for textbooks on nuclear engineering. 

10 And, just like under the 810 regulations, textbooks are 

11 what we consider in the public domain. They are 

12 excluded from controls. And we tried to work so we 

13 have a common understanding between both regimes, both 

14 licensing regimes, as to what constitutes in the public 

15 domain. That could also be things like, you know, 

16 certain public events, like the American Nuclear 

17 Society has a meeting. You present papers and things 

18 like that. We generally consider those to be excluded 

19 from control.

20 Commerce also maintains what is called an 

21 entity list. These are lists of entities for which a 

22 license is required for all items generally. And, 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

77

1 again, sometimes it can be for nuclear reasons. It can 

2 be on there for a lot of other reasons, some for 

3 missile proliferation reasons, some for doing some 

4 exports related to IEDs that showed up in Iraq. This 

5 is, for example, one of the Russian entities. And, 

6 yet, the fact that someone is on the entity list means 

7 that there is a licensing requirement. It does not 

8 mean in itself that no licenses will be required.

9 As Dick mentioned, BARC is on our entity list, 

10 Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in India. We realize 

11 they do a lot of work, a lot of some nuclear weapons, 

12 some basic scientific. Yes, they have a license 

13 requirement for all items subject to the ER, but that 

14 doesn't mean that every license will be denied. It 

15 means that you need to get a license that will be 

16 reviewed at the end use, the commodity suitability, and 

17 decide whether or not to approve it.

18 We, too, have a deemed export rule. We need 

19 to get a license before leasing control of technology 

20 or source code to a foreign person, as formerly 

21 referred to as deemed export rule.

22 First, let me make a point. When we talk 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

78

1 about deemed export, sometimes people get confused. If 

2 you want to export technology to a French company and 

3 the French employee comes to your office and you talk, 

4 that is not a deemed export. You are exporting it to 

5 the French country. It is more akin to we are having a 

6 foreign national coming to work at your facility. And 

7 he is not working for a host company. So you are not 

8 transferring technology back to his host, person who 

9 hires him, person -- you're bringing it to a foreign 

10 person working in your facility, not to an entity back 

11 in his home country.

12 Next slide. In the Commerce Department, we 

13 look more at a person's most recent country citizenship 

14 or permanent residence. So if someone was born in 

15 China, went to Great Britain, became a Great Britain 

16 citizen, we treat them as they're from Great Britain. 

17 We also have certain exemptions under the deemed export 

18 rule, just like Rich does. You persons, if a person is 

19 granted U.S. citizenship, they might have been born in 

20 China, they came here, and become a U.S. citizen. So 

21 they are the same under our rules, also has a green 

22 card for those who are granted protected individual, 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

79

1 such as refugee status.

2 We have had some interest regarding the Part 6 

3 of form I-129. That is an export certification. It 

4 talks about if you are having a foreign national 

5 country thing and you are getting a visa. They have a 

6 license as it is required from the Department of 

7 Commerce, Department of State to release technology or 

8 technical data or if they do, do you have to get a 

9 license.

10 Next slide. So, really, with respect to the 

11 Commerce Department, how does that really impact? If 

12 you are a nuclear power plant operator, for the most 

13 part, as I showed you in that first slide, most things 

14 that are Commerce's jurisdiction at a nuclear power 

15 plant don't require a license to most destinations. So 

16 if you had a Chinese national coming to work in your 

17 nuclear power plant, you don't have to worry about him 

18 looking at your turbines or your generators. There 

19 still may be a license requirement, which will be 

20 addressed under the NRC site access requirements, but 

21 as far as our rules so you don't have to go to Commerce 

22 and say, "Do I need to get a license for this dual-use 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

80

1 part?" because he may see it, you know, what if I am a 

2 valve manufacturer. Again, it depends what type of 

3 valves you make, but for the most part, even if a 

4 license is required, it will generally be approved.

5 Chinese or Indian nationals possible, again, 

6 you know, for the most part, many of these technologies 

7 don't require license to China or India with respect to 

8 a nuclear power plant. If they are Chinese or Indian 

9 nationals and they are still affiliated with a host 

10 entity that triggers a licensing requirement, license 

11 will be required, but that is almost more -- if you had 

12 an individual who was associated with BARC and Indira 

13 Gandhi coming to work in your power plant, we almost 

14 view that more as an export to BARC and Indira Gandhi. 

15 If you are someone who worked at Indira Gandhi five 

16 years ago went to work for Tata and is now coming here, 

17 we look at that more as just an Indian national. And, 

18 you know, we just talked about trying to put in time 

19 deadlines.

20 In the Department of Commerce, we review Part 

21 810 authorizations. I guess we give our -- do we only 

22 review like -- no. I guess we give our concurrence. 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

81

1 We don't have a real say like the State Department 

2 does. But, again, our review typically takes a week or 

3 two max. DOE does a very thorough job writing up these 

4 studies. And we just generally concur in most 

5 instances.

6 We have a timeline as well. In our system, 

7 the Department of State, Department of Energy, 

8 Department of Defense are actually voting agencies. 

9 And we have an escalation process as well, which in 

10 theory, it's up in the present, day 90, though. I have 

11 been doing this for 23 years. It has never gotten 

12 quite that high. But, again, so we have a timeline, 

13 just as DOE has instituted a timeline. And we also 

14 have an electronic system I think DOE is working on as 

15 well. I mean, our system, I would say it will be far 

16 more complex than DOE's will need to be. So hopefully 

17 they won't take some of the bad things, which we have 

18 done in ours.

19 That is basically just a very quick overview. 

20 And I hope you can see from that that -- you know, I 

21 think in this new regulation from DOE that there has 

22 been a real attempt to make, you know, a parallelism 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

82

1 where it's possible and also to try to avoid a lot of 

2 those questions that we get, you know, "Should I go to 

3 DOE and get an 810? Should we come to Commerce?" But 

4 I can truthfully say in all the years I have done this, 

5 when someone does come to us, we are very good about 

6 adjudicating who has jurisdiction. We don't have the 

7 many things that we and the State Department have, 

8 whether it is a munitions item. For the most part, 

9 most of these inquiries are subtle with a phone call to 

10 Rich or phone call to Brooke or an email. So for the 

11 most part, we hope you can figure it out by yourselves, 

12 but if you can't, it's not a huge burden to contact one 

13 of the three of us. And we will work it out relatively 

14 quickly as to what agency you should go to.

15 MS. STRANGIS: Okay. Thank you to all of our 

16 speakers. And now on to the part that you have all 

17 been waiting for. We are going to take questions. And 

18 the way it is going to work is we are going to take two 

19 questions from in the room and then two from the phone 

20 and then back and forth. As a reminder, please, for 

21 people in the room, don't start speaking until you have 

22 the microphone in hand, which someone will bring to 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

83

1 you. And for everyone, if you could state your name 

2 and affiliation and spell your name, if possible, for 

3 the transcript? That would be very helpful.

4 So let's start in the room. Does anyone have 

5 a question?

6 MS. TEPLINSKY: Hi. Elina Teplinsky from 

7 Pillsbury, E-L-I-N-A T-E-P-L-I-N-S-KY. This is a 

8 question for I guess both Rich and Dick Stratford with 

9 respect to the three countries China, Russia, and 

10 India. Dick, you specifically were talking about the 

11 distinction between civil and military activities in 

12 those countries. And, Rich, you mentioned in the 

13 discussion of process improvements a potential fast 

14 track. Would there be any consideration or a fast 

15 track for activities in countries like Russia and 

16 China, for example, for exports that have previously 

17 been done before? For example, you know, if I have an 

18 AP2000 reactor and I have already sold that to a number 

19 of countries, I've gotten the specific authorizations, 

20 I am applying for new specific authorizations for China 

21 and Russia, since a lot of the review has been done 

22 already, a lot of the analysis, would you consider 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

84

1 doing some sort of a fast track process when the 

2 technology scope is the same and those exports have 

3 been conducted before?

4 MS. STRANGIS: So, unfortunately, that is a 

5 little outside the scope of what is in the supplemental 

6 rule. So we would just ask that you would submit it in 

7 writing for us to consider, --

8 MS. TEPLINSKY: Okay.

9 MS. STRANGIS: -- rather than answer here 

10 today. Sorry.

11 Anyone else in the room? Up front, I think.

12 MS. MANN: Thank you. I am Melissa Mann with 

13 the uranium enrichment company Urenco, U-R-E-N-C-O. I 

14 had a question about the deemed export for Rich and 

15 possibly for Mr. Resner. Mr. Resner went into some 

16 detail on the access authorization for nuclear power 

17 plants. Does the deemed export authorization extend to 

18 employed foreign nationals approved for access to fuel 

19 cycle facilities? And is there any additional overlay 

20 for a need to know?

21 MR. GOOREVICH: From the 810 standpoint, the 

22 way we wrote it was any U.S. facility that is done in 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

85

1 accordance with NRC access rules and regulations. So 

2 to us, it would be any place that the NRC has this 

3 program, is implementing it. So whether or not your 

4 facility is meeting all of the NRC requirements I leave 

5 to Mr. Resner.

6 MR. RESNER: All right. The types of 

7 facilities, it depends on the type of material at the 

8 facility. In the category 1's, it is usually a top 

9 secret with a single scope background, five-year 

10 investigation period. In the category 3, it is usually 

11 a secret with a national agency check and a ten-year 

12 reinvestigation period.

13 And, again, it depends on the type of 

14 material. Some of the category 1 facilities have dual 

15 regulation, both DOE and the NRC. So they are subject 

16 to the DOE HRP program as well as the NRC program. And 

17 we have reciprocity with DOE in those cases, those 

18 instances.

19 MS. STRANGIS: Okay. Let's go to a phone call 

20 question.

21 OPERATOR: If you wish to ask a question on 

22 the phone, please press *, then 1 at this time. Okay. 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

86

1 Our first question is from Ajay. Please go ahead.

2 MR. KUNTAMUKKALA: Yep. This is Ajay 

3 Kuntamukkala calling from Hogan Lovells. And the last 

4 name is spelled K-U-N-T-A-M-U-K-K-A-L-A, and I hope I 

5 haven't taken up my question time.

6 My question is on the definition of use in the 

7 new proposed rulemaking. The definition of use seems 

8 to differ slightly somewhat from the definition of use 

9 that is in the 2011 version of the proposed rule. In 

10 the 2011 version of the rule, the word "and" is used. 

11 So the use definition lists a number of use-related 

12 activities and then uses "and." And in the new 

13 proposed, revised proposed, rule, DOE is using "or" and 

14 wanted to understand whether there is any significance 

15 to that change. And was that meant to be different 

16 from the approach the Commerce Department takes with 

17 regard to the use, which is that you must have all 

18 elements of use covered in order to be eligible for the 

19 use definition?

20 Thank you.

21 MR. GOOREVICH: Yes. So the question about

22 the term of the definition use and why we changed it 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

87

1 from using the word "and" in there to "or," well, the 

2 issue simply was that our intent always was to cover 

3 each of the listed activities separately, that very 

4 rarely would we find somebody whose use would be 

5 operating, installing, maintaining, repairing, 

6 overhauling, and refurbishing all at the same time. 

7 And so, although we understand Commerce has a different 

8 view of use as it applies to their regulations for us, 

9 use does with the "or" means that that is the way that 

10 our intention was to read it going forward in the reg.

11 We had borrowed a definition from Commerce 

12 without fully understanding how Commerce was 

13 implementing it. After discussions related to 

14 something else, we came to understand it. Commerce was 

15 implementing it differently than we intended to. So 

16 that's why we made the change. In our sense, if you 

17 have to do all of those things at the same time, then 

18 very rarely would the definition of use ever come into 

19 play with regards to these rules.

20 MS. STRANGIS: Next question on the phone.

21 OPERATOR: There are no more questions in 

22 queue.
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

88

1 MS. STRANGIS: In the room? Yes? Right here.

2 MS. MEYER: Thank you. Lindsay Meyer from 

3 Venable. It's L-I-N-D-S-A-Y M-E-Y-E-R. Thank you for 

4 looking to harmonize some of the rules with regard to 

5 the deemed export. My question is whether or not there 

6 has been consideration given as to dual nationals under 

7 the 810.6(b) provision.

8 MS. STRANGIS: I think that is probably also 

9 something that we'd want in a comment form so we can 

10 consider it.

11 MS. MEYER: Okay. Thank you.

12 MS. STRANGIS: Yes? In the room? Over there.

13 MR. GARRISH: Yes. I'm Ted Garrish from 

14 Chem2Hill. And the last name is spelled G-A-R-R-I-S-H. 

15 Rich, I would like to follow up on Ajay's question on 

16 use. How do you handle consulting on the subjects, 

17 even though you don't do them?

18 MS. STRANGIS: Again, that is something that 

19 we would want in question, written form.

20 In the back? Madeleine?

21 MR. COHN: Hi. My name is Jeremy Cohn -- it's 

22 C-O-H-N -- from Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems. 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

89

1 With the original notice in 2011 -- and I appreciate 

2 that Mr. Goorevich sort of addressed this point that 

3 there was almost a doubling of the number of countries 

4 that would require specific authorization under the 

5 proposed rule change. The justification now still in 

6 the supplemental notice was that it was saying it was 

7 "in recognition of the facts" that global markets for 

8 peaceful nuclear energy and nuclear fuel cycle trading 

9 relationships have become more dynamic in recent years. 

10 And I know, Mr. Goorevich, you addressed this briefly. 

11 I was hoping you could elaborate on what exactly that 

12 meant that markets were more dynamic than in recent 

13 years and sort of why it justified the change in the 

14 proposed rule.

15 MR. GOOREVICH: Well, I think what we are 

16 seeing is when we say, "dynamic," it is really a sense 

17 of globalization, meaning that applications that we 

18 were starting to see weren't one entity to one entity. 

19 It was groups of companies coming together to be able 

20 to provide a broader spectrum of technology and bits 

21 and pieces of technology. And they were being 

22 transferred to potentially second and third parties to 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

90

1 support an activity in the final end user.

2 So what we were seeing, was globalization 

3 really taking place? And when we looked at how we were 

4 implementing the current rule, it was really point to 

5 point a model, not one that was very flexible in the 

6 way that it needed to be flexible as we were seeing 

7 more and more specialization of activities within a 

8 broader project taking place. And we were seeing the 

9 market change, the marketplace change, with regard to 

10 what kinds of technologies, what kind of support, what 

11 kind of assistance U.S. companies, applicants were 

12 considering.

13 And I think the third point, as I mentioned, 

14 was we were seeing the market evolve. So places where 

15 we now today view as being potentially vibrant markets 

16 for not just reactor sales and other facility sales but 

17 also in terms of providing support, operational 

18 support, for different nuclear installations around the 

19 world, what was changing. And so we felt that all of 

20 that was creating what we called in the preamble to the 

21 SNOPR a dynamic marketplace for us.

22 MS. STRANGIS: Are there any additional 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

91

1 questions on the phone?

2 OPERATOR: No questions in queue.

3 MS. STRANGIS: Over here?

4 MR. PIERCY: Craig Piercy, American Nuclear 

5 Society, P-I-E-R-C-Y. Rich, I just want to say ANS is 

6 pleased that you are moving forward with a revised rule 

7 and hope that this will sort of be the beginning of an 

8 adaptive phase where we see almost regularized order in 

9 terms of updates.

10 Question. In the SNOPR, there was some 

11 discussion of -- there was an economic analysis done 

12 about how things will work under the current reg versus 

13 the revised reg. Can you talk a little bit more about 

14 the conclusions of that report, what you found?

15 MR. GOOREVICH: Okay. Yes. When we were 

16 putting together the supplemental rule, obviously there 

17 were some questions about the country list and the 

18 potential impact of the number of countries moving from 

19 one potential classification to another potential 

20 classification.

21 And in talking internally within the 

22 government, we made the determination that the rule was 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

92

1 to be what was considered to be economically 

2 significant, which meant that we had to put together 

3 essentially a market impact study. And we have 

4 included that both on the DOE and Department of 

5 Commerce websites, the ITA website, Department of 

6 Commerce. And it also was made available I think as 

7 part of the Federal Register announcement or maybe it 

8 is just on the website. I can't remember exactly. I 

9 know it is definitely on the websites.

10 And essentially what we did is -- and if I get 

11 this a little wrong, I am going to ask Tom Wood, who is 

12 from PNNL and one of the economists we used, to jump in 

13 here to help me get this right. I am not an economist, 

14 and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last 

15 night. So I might get this a little bit backwards. 

16 Essentially what we did is the approach we took was to 

17 take a look at the potential marketplace for reactor 

18 sales as that was really a good way to quantify the 

19 impact of the rule and then looked at the countries and 

20 how they sort of moved from one list to another with 

21 regards to the potential value of reactor sales within 

22 those particular countries. And the way we did it was 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

93

1 to look at a number of different well-known and 

2 published economic or market surveys of moving forward.

3 And essentially what we found was that because 

4 of what we would take as the agreed potential of the 

5 reactor sales in countries that had 123s, we had 123 

6 agreements with, that were on the current specific 

7 authorization list that would slide to the general 

8 authorization, we came up with a number of what the 

9 value was based upon these four forecasts. And then we 

10 looked at the number of countries that are currently on 

11 the general authorization list that would go to 

12 specific and what the forecast said of what the value 

13 was and then compared them.

14 Our numbers depending upon the surveys that 

15 you look at, I think three of the four surveys showed 

16 that the economic impact was a net positive with the 

17 switch. The fourth one was a very, very high estimate 

18 where I don't think that anyone, any of the people that 

19 we talked to, reasonably felt that that fourth estimate 

20 was something that was going to really come to 

21 fruition. I can't remember the exact number of 

22 reactors to be built by 2030, but it was somewhere in 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

94

1 the neighborhood of like I think 300 reactors to be 

2 built between now and 2030, which I don't think any of 

3 us really think is going to happen.

4 But I think what might be useful is to ask 

5 Tom, if he is on the line still, to chime in and see if 

6 I explained that correctly. Tom?

7 Okay. Well, I don't hear Tom. So I am going 

8 to take it that I did explain that correctly. But 

9 essentially that is the sense that we came up with, was 

10 when you look at the market, the market forecasts, and 

11 then as you apply the countries and what is the 

12 forecast for each of those countries come back, it 

13 really comes up to be in our view a net positive of the 

14 change. And I think that it is clear that from another 

15 sense angle that Dick and I talked about, for those 

16 countries for which the government believes there will 

17 be significant nuclear trade, there is every attempt to 

18 put a 123 in place, which would then allow us to add 

19 those countries to the general authorization list.

20 MS. STRANGIS: Anyone else in the room? Front 

21 row, right here.

22 MR. BLEE: Yes. Hi. David Blee, US Nuclear 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

95

1 Infrastructure Council. That's B-L-E-E. Let me add 

2 that my remarks here reflect the consensus of the 

3 council, although not necessarily the views of 

4 individual member companies and organizations.

5 You know, this is obviously an extremely 

6 important area for those of us involved in nuclear 

7 commerce, particularly given the enlightenment in the 

8 markets going on overseas. So, to this end, we 

9 appreciate the hard work and dedication of the many who 

10 have looked at the NOPR 2011, heard the comments, and 

11 responded accordingly. We think while we reserve 

12 judgment on this, we will take full avail of the 

13 meeting to follow in the 90-day process, we are neither 

14 here to praise or bury you at this point.

15 But we are encouraged by what we have seen so 

16 far. I think some of the process reforms, the tighter 

17 definitions, and clearly the transparency of this 

18 process is a stark difference in terms of the last, of 

19 the 2011, exercise. We had some serious specific 

20 policy concerns with the 2011 NOPR, but we also had 

21 some serious process concerns with respect to the way 

22 that was laid out, longer comment period this time and 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

96

1 so on and so forth.

2 I am still looking for a question here, by the

3 way. You did mention process reforms of the 810 

4 procedures. And, again, we are very supportive of e5 licensing. The Commerce Department has successfully 

6 done e-business. We think we are happy to see the 

7 destovepiping up here. Rarely do you see this array of 

8 agencies working together, sitting so closely together 

9 either. So the coordination there we think is very 

10 encouraging.

11 But I would say what we hope is that going 

12 forward, that you take the lessons learned from 2011 

13 and apply them to these other things you are talking 

14 about, such as six-sigma; e-licensing; as well as, we 

15 think, extending into some other areas where perhaps 

16 improvements and refinements are needed, such as the 

17 123s.

18 So I guess the only question I have is, when 

19 is the September meeting?

20 MS. STRANGIS: I don't think we have a date 

21 yet. We are looking at late September probably, but we 

22 will put a notice out well ahead of time.
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

97

1 MR. BLEE: Okay. Thank you.

2 MR. CATES: Hi. Dwight Cates with Fluor. 

3 Last name is C-A-T-E-S. I had just a quick question, 

4 following up on the 77 countries that went from 

5 eligible to ineligible for a general authorization 

6 under the SNOPR. For those 77 countries, has -- and I 

7 guess this is a question for Rich. Do you have an 

8 estimate or some type of an understanding of with that 

9 change, how many more specific authorizations or other 

10 interactions you are going to have based on that change 

11 from licensees, people seeking authorization? Will 

12 there be a dozen? Will there be two dozen, just based 

13 on current work overseas by companies that are in those 

14 countries right now?

15 And then, secondly, would there be in your 

16 estimation some commercial impact and delay of 

17 activities in those countries that may be ongoing or 

18 about to occur based on this change?

19 MR. GOOREVICH: Okay. Yes. Actually, we do 

20 have some estimates on that. When we first looked at 

21 this, we took a look at obviously every country that is 

22 currently in the general authorization list or needs to 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

98

1 be reporting of those countries to be in compliance

2 with the 810. When we took a look at those back then, 

3 what we saw was in a given year -- or no. It was 

4 actually over a three-year period. Over a 3-year 

5 period, we saw something like only 30 -- 30 what? 

6 Thirty-seven? Thirty-nine. Sorry. Thirty-nine 

7 reports of general authorizations over a 3-year period 

8 to those 77 countries.

9 Of that, most of those, I think something like 

10 21 of those, reports dealt with what would be foreign 

11 nationals working at U.S. utilities. So under the 

12 supplemental, those would be generally authorized. So 

13 from the 39 minus the 21, we get down to 18. So we see 

14 that we are potentially somewhere along the lines of 

15 about 18.

16 But, having said that, when I move UAE, 

17 Ukraine, the Mexico, Chile PSAs, and Kazakhstan out of 

18 that, I think move those 810s, for which we are 

19 probably seeing close to about a dozen when you add 

20 those up, maybe a little bit more. And so the 

21 difference might be a handful, three, four, or five, 

22 per year. That is based upon our existing data.
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

99

1 Now, if countries weren't reporting under the 

2 general authorization, then this results in something 

3 different. I mean, obviously we don't know that. But 

4 under our numbers, we are not expecting a huge increase 

5 at all. And, in fact, you know, probably in terms of 

6 time-wise and resource-wise, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, UAE 

7 because they are associated with larger potential deals 

8 and we don't see any of those larger potential deals 

9 right now in any of those 77 countries, the time for us 

10 to be able to do those sort of 4 or 5 in those 77 

11 should be relatively easy and should be relatively 

12 short once we get the assurances from those countries.

13 MS. STRANGIS: Any other questions in the 

14 room?

15 MS. BERRIGAN: Hi, Rich. This is Carol 

16 Berrigan with the Nuclear Energy Institute. That's C17 A-R-O-L B-E-R-R-I-G-A-N. And the Nuclear Energy 

18 Institute was in the slide. You can just put us down 

19 as NEI. Rich, I had a specific question for you 

20 regarding general authorization with Mexico. I noticed 

21 that in the SNOPR, you have included activities related 

22 to INFCIRC/203, parts 1 and 2 and INFCIRC/825. This 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

100

1 largely covers the activities at Laguna Verde. Would 

2 it also include additional units at Laguna Verde if 

3 Mexico decided to move forward with them?

4 MS. STRANGIS: I think that is probably best 

5 received in a written comment.

6 MS. BERRIGAN: Okay.

7 MS. STRANGIS: Sorry. Anyone else? Over 

8 here.

9 MR. BLEE: Yes. Since so many of the 

10 questions here have been submitted for written comment, 

11 could you reilluminate the process for that in terms of 

12 when? What is going to happen in terms of submitted 

13 written comment? And how are you going to deal with 

14 that?

15 MS. STRANGIS: So this time I believe there is 

16 a 90-day comment period. And as we start receiving 

17 comments, the program is evaluating them, looking at 

18 them. We looked at every single one we received. And 

19 that is why you see a lot of the changes that you see 

20 from the original NOPR to the supplemental.

21 MR. BLEE: In other words, you will take them 

22 for comment for 90 days. You are not going to be doing 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

101

1 them -- sometimes in the process, some of these 

2 processes, they will provide clarification to 

3 procedural questions, things like that, and guidance in 

4 terms of interpretation. So essentially there is a 

5 blanket comment period for 90 days? No responses will 

6 be provided?

7 MS. STRANGIS: That is my understanding. Let 

8 me confirm. Yes. That is.

9 MR. BLEE: That is your understanding?

10 MS. STRANGIS: Yes.

11 MR. BLEE: Okay.

12 MS. STRANGIS: Down in the front.

13 OPERATOR: And, again, if you have a question, 

14 please press *1 at this time.

15 MS. STRANGIS: Is there a question on the 

16 phone?

17 OPERATOR: There are no questions on the phone 

18 line.

19 MS. STRANGIS: Thank you.

20 MS. TEPLINSKY: Hi. Elina Teplinsky with 

21 Pillsbury. Hopefully this is just a clarification 

22 question that you can answer. With respect to the 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

102

1 operational safety general authorizations at 

2 810.6(c)(2) and (c)(3), (c)(2) provides operational 

3 safety to existing nuclear reactors. And (c)(3) talks 

4 about existing proposed and new-built reactors. If you 

5 could clarify the difference between those two general 

6 authorizations?

7 And also with respect to the 45-day notice 

8 period, it states, "DOE approves activity in writing 

9 within 45 days, 45 calendar days, of the notice." If 

10 DOE does not provide a response in writing, does that 

11 mean the activity is generally authorized and the 

12 person can go ahead in conducting it?

13 MR. GOOREVICH: Okay. So the intent behind 

14 the operational safety Elina talked about in 

15 810.6(c)(2) and (c)(3), the difference between (c)(2) 

16 and (c)(3) isn't the new versus existing. The 

17 difference is in (c)(2), what we are really talking 

18 about here is a U.S. person providing furnishing 

19 operational safety to existing safeguarded civilian 

20 nuclear reactors outside the United States. And the 

21 idea being here is if you meet the definition of 

22 operational safety, it would be generally authorized. 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

103

1 And the way that we have this set up is that if we 

2 believe that it is going to be generally authorized 

3 under the operational safety, write us and tell us that 

4 that is what you plan to do. Within 45 days, we will 

5 notify you that we either agree or disagree that you 

6 meet the, that the activity meets the, definition of 

7 it. And then if it's that we agree that it does meet 

8 the definition, then you will just get a note back from 

9 us saying, "Yes. We agree it is generally authorized" 

10 and provide the reporting in accordance with 810.11 in 

11 the reporting requirement section.

12 In subsection (c)(3), what that is about is 

13 about having U.S. persons furnishing technical 

14 information to a foreign person who is helping U.S. 

15 nuclear reactors increase their operational safety. 

16 And there the difference is overseas with the overseas 

17 version, we couldn't envision a situation where for a 

18 new build, we needed to, someone needed to, provide 

19 operational safety support because the reactor really 

20 hasn't been built yet. That would be part of, as we 

21 would see it, just the 810 authorization with regards 

22 to building the reactor itself.
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

104

1 In the U.S., obviously there could be a 

2 situation where somebody who is proposing to build a 

3 reactor wants a peer review done on its potential 

4 workings and potential operations of that existing 

5 reactor as part of the NRC licensing requirements for 

6 that reactor, part of the startup for that reactor. 

7 And we wanted to make sure that that was clarified that 

8 that would also be generally authorized if it met the 

9 definition of operational safety. And, again, just let 

10 us know that that is what is going on 45 days before it 

11 happens. And we will send you back a note saying that 

12 we agree that it is generally authorized.

13 MS. STRANGIS: Do we have any other questions 

14 in the room? Right here.

15 MR. JONES: Hi. This is Ted Jones with NEI, 

16 and it's T-E-D J-O-N-E-S. My question relates to 

17 reporting requirements. In the 2011 NOPR, the 

18 reporting requirements for general authorizations had 

19 been deleted. And given that the NOPR would have 

20 dramatically tightened eligibility for general 

21 authorization, the changes to the country list, it made 

22 some sense that the reporting requirements would be 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

105

1 commensurably eased. The SNOPR proposes to reinstate

2 these requirements. What is the basis for this

3 decision and the increased regulatory burden that it 

4 would bring about?

5 MR. GOOREVICH: Quite frankly, it was a 

6 mistake in the NOPR. It should have been reporting 

7 requirements for general authorization as it was. It 

8 got past us. We noticed it as soon as it went out, but 

9 it was too late to change it. We have essentially just 

10 restated into the SNOPR what is in the current 

11 regulation with regards to the reporting requirements, 

12 but we have hopefully clarified it to make the 

13 reporting requirements a little more uniform and a 

14 little easier for everyone to move forward.

15 MS. STRANGIS: Anyone else?

16 MS. BERRIGAN: Rich, it is Carol Berrigan 

17 again with NEI. I have a question regarding the 

18 wording that you have in the SNOPR. Originally you had 

19 added to the SNOPR new exclusions for publicly 

20 available information and publicly available 

21 technology, but there had formerly been a general 

22 authorization for open meetings with a definition for 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

106

1 it, which has since been deleted in this recent 

2 publication. Is the intention that open meetings would 

3 be enveloped under public information and publicly 

4 available technology? Is that the intention and how 

5 that should be read?

6 MR. GOOREVICH: Yes. For those on the phone, 

7 yes. I was shaking my head yes. There is no intention 

8 to change that at all, but in the effort to make the 

9 definition consistent with Commerce and with NRC, we 

10 changed the words. But our senses would be that yes, 

11 open meetings would fall within that scope of publicly 

12 available information.

13 MS. BERRIGAN: Okay. Great. Another question 

14 for you is regards to peer assessments. In the 

15 preamble language, there was some discussion of 

16 organizations like INPO and WANO conducting peer 

17 assessments as important to assuring global nuclear 

18 safety. And although the SNOPR preamble discusses 

19 this, it only provides general authorization for State 

20 Department or NRC-approved programs on a general basis 

21 under 10 CFR 810.2(c)(1) or 810.6(d). How do you 

22 envision a process for this going forward in terms of 
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

107

1 peer assessment? Is this something that folks would 

2 approach the NRC or State Department about or would 

3 this be on a one-off basis each time one of these peer 

4 assessments is going on? Forty-five days in advance 

5 they would -- is that the intention? I am just trying

6 to understand from the preamble to what is in the rule 

7 what the intention there is.

8 MS. STRANGIS: I apologize again, but that 

9 sort of explanation would be something that would look 

10 for in a written comment.

11 Anyone else? If there are no other questions, 

12 keep in mind that if we decline to answer your question 

13 today -- actually, yes?

14 MS. CHAUDHARI: This is Preeti Chaudhari with 

15 the Department of Energy. And I just wanted to clarify 

16 that the comments that are received in writing will be 

17 responded to not during the open comment period but in 

18 the final rule. So there will be consideration, great 

19 consideration, of your comments. We welcome them, look 

20 forward to them, and would love to receive them. And 

21 they will be responded to, just not during the open 

22 comment period.
Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO

www.CapitalReportingCompany.com

108

1 MS. STRANGIS: Thank you.

2 If there is nothing else, thank you all so 

3 much for coming. And thank you for those on the phone 

4 who took the time to call in. We all look forward to 

5 working with you all in the future. I am sure your 

6 escorts will be happy to stop at a restroom on the way 

7 out. And have a great afternoon.

8 (Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the Part 810 

9 revisions rollout meeting was concluded.)