### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 1

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 1

2

PROPOSED CHANGES FOR DOE PART 810 3

ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES 4

5

NNSA

- SNOPR ROLLOUT MEETING 6

7
Department of Energy 8
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 9
Forrestal Building 10
Washington, D.C. 11

12

13
Monday, August 5, 2013 14

1 :0 0 p .m. 15

16

17

18

19
Reported by: Natalia Thomas , 20
Capital Reporting Company 21

22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2

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

PARTICIPANTS : 2

CAROL BERRIGAN, NEI 3
DAVID BLEE, US Nuclear Infrastructure Council 4
DWIGHT CATES, Fluor Corporation 5
PREETI CHAUDHARI, U.S. Department of Energy 6

STEVEN CLAGE TT, U.S. Department of Commerce 7
JEREMY COHN, Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems, Inc. 8
RICHARD FRUEHAUF, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC 9
TED GARRISH, Chem2Hill 10

RICHARD GOOREVICH , DOE/NNSA 11

TED JONES, NEI 12
AJAY KUNTAMUKKALA, Hogan Lovells US LLP 13

MELISSA MANN, Urenco Inc. 14
LINDSAY MEYER, Venable LLP 15
CRAIG PIERCY, American Nuclear Society 16
MARK RESNER, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17
BROOKE SMITH, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 18

KATE STRANGIS, NNSA Office of General Counsel 19

RICHARD STRATFORD , U.S. Department of State 20

ELINA TEPLINSKY , Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 21

22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 3

C O N T E N T S 1

Welcome

- Strangis 4 2

NNSA: Part 810 Revisions Summarized

- 5 3

Goorevich 4

State

- Stratford 48 5

NRC 6

- Smith 54 7

- Resner 60 8

Commerce

- Clagett 72 9
Questions/Comments 8 3 10

11

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 4

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

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

am in the NNSA Office of the General Counsel. And I 3
think most of you know me , either by face or by name. 4
Welcome you all for coming today and welcome to those 5
of you who called in on the phone. I think there are 6
quite a bit more people calling in than actually could 7
make it today. 8
A few of the ground rules. Just a reminder, 9
if you are not a DOE employee, you need an escort if 10
you leave this room, an d we have people around that can 11
do that if you need to go to a restroom or something. 12
The way this is going to work is we have the panel up 13
here. Rich is going to go through the most recent 14
draft. And after that, we will be hearing from our 15
interagency partners. We have Steve Clagett from the 16
Department of Commerce, Mark Resner and Brooke Smith 17
from the NRC, and Dick Stratford from Department of 18

State. 19
We will take all questions at the end. We 20
will do a question and answer session. And for that, 21

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

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 5

have to speak into a microphone. So somebody will be 1
walking those around. If you are here, we would 2
appreciate it if you would state your name and 3
affiliation. And it would be very helpful for the 4

cour t reporter who is transcribing this if you could 5
also spell your name. 6
Just a reminder, this will be transcribed. 7
And it will be placed online in the docket for the 8
supplemental rule. And also just a reminder, we can 9
only talk about what is in the vers ion that was 10
published last week in the Federal Register. So if 11
there are any questions that fall outside the scope of 12
what was in the supplemental draft, we will have to ask 13
our panel not to answer those. And, of course, you are 14

all welcome to submit an y comments or questions online. 15
I think that is it. Take it away. 16
MR. GOOREVICH: Okay. W ell, thanks to 17
everyone who's here and everyone who has called in for 18
taking the time this afternoon to listen to our 19
explanation of the draft rule. 20

I have two things that I am supposed to take 21
care of while I am up here at the podium. The first is 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 6

some opening remarks, which we were hoping to have 1
Joyce Connery from the White House make. 2
Unfortunately, Joyce found out five minutes ago that 3

she could not make remarks off the record. And since 4
everything is being recorded and transcribed, it is 5
obviously on the record. So for the probably one and 6

o nly time that Joyce will let me

-- I am going to put 7
my words in Joyce's mouth. 8
If Joyce could speak, what would she say? 9
Well, the first thing she would obviously say is it is 10
really good to be back here at DOE. 11
Joyce comes from DOE. She has very fond 12

memories of her time here at DOE. And what she would 13
say is this auditorium especially brings back a lot of 14

im portant memories for her. This is the place where we 15
come when we watch people retire or reorganizations are 16
announced. So one of two things is pro bably going to 17
happen for Joyce

-- not me because I am speaking for 18

Joyce

-- by the end of this. She's eit her going to 19
retire or be reorganized. So that is the first thing 20
she would say. 21
The second thing she would say is that this 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 7

supplemental rule, although it has taken quite a bit of 1
time to get out from the NOPR to the SNOPR, is a true 2
interagency produc t. And it is a result of a lot of 3
hard work for not only the staff within NNSA, the staff 4
within DOE, but also from the agencies that are 5
represented up here and for those that are also out, 6
sitting out, in the audience, which we'll hear from in 7

a little bit as well. 8

The idea behind the SNOPR and the NOPR was to 9
take a look at a rule that really no longer reflected 10
how proliferation was being conducted or how we saw 11
proliferation and, yet, also how industry was moving 12
forward. And the attempt to move fr om the NOPR to the 13
SNOPR is truly an interagency product. And I think 14

where we are is a lot of hard work from a lot of 15
different people from all over Washington. And so she 16
would certainly want to point that out and say thank 17
you to everyone for helping move that forward. 18
The other thing that Joyce would want to say 19
if she were up here is that the comments that are 20

reflected in the SNOPR also are a lot of hard work from 21
the commenters and from the public, being able to sh ow 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 8

us where there were concerns, where we could improve 1
the rule, and how we could do that. And I think 2
hopefully that will be reflected in the discussion that 3
we will have today. 4
We are doing this rollout a little bit 5
differently than we did the first, the NOPR, mostly 6

because we do want to be clear and show the interagency 7
agreement and interagency effort that went into this. 8
And that is why we have this panel of experts, which is 9

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

the webinar. 11
And I think, finally, what Joyce wo uld want to 12
say is along the lines of thanking you for everyone 13
that is here and everyone who is on the call, we 14
understand this was a very tight deadline. We found 15
ourselves in a bit of a bureaucratic trap and having to 16

make some decisions. And essentia lly , we had to go 17
ahead and plan the date for a rollout and make it 18
public, but it had to be published and we had to get 19
the rule out. And we knew we were bumping up against 20
vacation time and the traditional vacation period that 21
people take. Our effort a nd our goal was to try and 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 9

get this out as soon as possible , but understanding 1
that this is a tough time for people and people had 2
made plans and some people that maybe did not have a 3
lot of time to be able to begin to digest everything 4

that's in the SNOPR . One of the things that we wanted 5
to do was make sure that we did have an opportunity to 6

interface with the public about this rule as 7
comprehensively as possible. And, as we said in the 8
rule, there will be another public meeting for those 9

that either fe el that they needed more time before this 10
one or couldn't make it, colleagues that are of people 11
who are here on the phone. If they're concerned, we 12
will be doing another similar type of public meeting, 13
probably in late September. We will have to find a 14
date. And the good news is we will do it at a hotel 15
where you don't have to, we don't have the security 16
issues to get in. But given the tightness of the time, 17
we decided to do it here and do it this way. 18
So is that all you would say if you were here, 19

J oyce? And, finally, because Joyce is speaking off the 20
record, she does want to wish a happy birthday to Rich 21

Fruehauf from Westinghouse, who decided that this would 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 10

be the best way to spend his birthday, down here 1
learning about the SNOPR. 2

What else wou ld anyone? A man who has got 3
everything, what does he need? He needs a SNOPR. So 4

that is it. 5
So now let's do this. Let me roll into my set 6
of slides, which will take us through the SNOPR. And 7
after that, then we will give the floor to Dick. We 8

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

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

Qs and As

. 11
Pretty simple agenda. Hopefully everyone will 12

learn a little something and we'll get through this in 13
a timely manner. 14
So let's go throug h this. So what is, for 15
those just to review, the scope of Part 810? Well, I 16
think, as everyone has heard, if you have come to part 17
of the webinar or you have heard the group of us talk 18
at any one of the many activities where we are asked to 19
speak, Part 810 implements Section 57B of the Atomic 20

Energ y Act. And essentially , it says that it is 21
unlawful for any person to directly or indirectly 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 11

engage in the production of SNM, special nuclear 1
material, outside the United States , except upon 2

authorization of t he Secretary of Energy and he makes a 3

determination with the concurrence of the State 4
Department that the transfer will not be inimical to 5

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

activities. 7
A couple of things about this. Number one, 8

this was what it said originally in the Atomic Energy 9
Act. Not too long ago, the NNPA amended this to say, 10
"engage or participate in." And you are going to see 11
that in the SNOPR, that we picked up the newer 12
statutory language and put it into there. 13

But what I really want to spend some time 14
talking about is this issue of the non

- inimicality and 15

that it is in the common interests of the United 16
States. As you will look other places in the Atomic 17
Energy Act, where you will see non

- inimicality 18
determinations, it generally means and you will 19
generally see it, where it says, in the national 20
security or the common defense and security of the 21
United States. What is interesting is

-- and I have 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 12

pointed this out before

-- is that in 57B , where we 1
talk about it, it jus t says, "In the interest of the 2
United States." It allows the Department some 3
flexibility when looking at this into not just the non

4
proliferation national security interests of a 5
particular activity or a particular technology 6
transfer, but it also allows us to take into account 7
other factors, including commercial. 8
So how do we classify Part 810? Well, we 9
classify it essentially in three different ways, the 10

activities in three different ways. Th ere are those 11
that are exempt: 810.2. We tried to provide , as we did 12
in NOPR and we're doing here in the SNOPR, a clarified 13
technical scope, which is currently not in the current 14
regulation. And so that technical scope, which we're 15
linking a lot more directly in the SNOPR to the NRC in 16
the nuclear suppliers' gr oup control list, lays out the 17
technical bounds for how we interpret the regulation 18

and how do we interpret the implementation of 57B. If 19
technically it is outside the bounds of what is 20
described in 810.2, then it is exempt. The rule 21
doesn’t apply. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 13

We can also have a group or a basket of 1
activities that we call generally authorized. And 2
810.6 in the SNOPR defines what is generally 3
authorized. And we will go through that in a little 4

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

broad determinatio n of categories of assistance, for 6
which the Secretary has made the non

- inimicality 7
determination and do not require his specific approval. 8
He has essentially granted the approval based on the 9
technology or based upon the technology and the 10
cooperation wi th a particular entity or end user or 11

country. 12
And the last is the specific authorization. 13
And this is going to be described in the new 14
supplemental rule under 810.7. And this is where a 15

case - by

- case inimicality determination by the Secretary 16
is requir ed. And we talk in some detail of exactly how 17
that is going to take place. 18
Next one. So general and specific 19

authorizations. So what does it mean when we talk 20
about specific authorization? Well, requiring specific 21

authorization means that you are act ually going to have 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 14

to prepare an application. The things about 810s is 1
whether it is specific authorization or general 2
authorization, some paperwork is going to be required 3
to DOE, just a matter of whether it is going to be an 4
application, for which the Secretary will sign off for 5
under general authorization. There is going to be 6
reporting to us after the fact. But if there is a 7
specific authorization, you are going to have to 8
prepare an application. 9
It also means that the DOE and certain aspects 10

of D OE will take a look at the application. And it is 11
going to go through an interagency review. It also 12
means that in order for the State Department to make 13
its concurrence, which is required, again, by the 14
statute, host country assurances dealing with non

15
proliferation aspects of the transfer will be required. 16
And then the Secretary has to sign off on it. And, 17
again, as I have mentioned several times before, this 18

is a non

- delegable authority pursuant to another 19
section of the Atomic Energy Act. 20

If it is a generally authorized assistance, it 21
requires reporting only. And we tried to in the SNOPR 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 15

lay out much clearer what those reporting requirements 1
are going to be. And in our view, this is really going 2

to be available for most of the foreign nuclear 3

tra nsactions that take place. The idea here is general 4

authorizations make the regulation efficient. And what 5
we are trying to do is put higher walls around the 6
riskier transactions, much akin to what is also going 7
on in the export control reform effort in other parts 8
of the government. 9
So why were the changes needed? And I think a 10
lot of you have seen this slide before. 11
Okay. First of all, there has been no 12
comprehensive update since 1986. In the early 1990s, 13
following the breakup of the Soviet Union , we did make 14

some changes regarding safety, operation safety aspects 15
that were required to help move operational safety 16
forward. And we did a minor change, technical change, 17

to include accelerator

- driven plutonium production 18
systems. But there has been no major comprehensive 19
change since 1986. 20
And what has happened since then? Well, a 21
couple of things. The global nuclear market, I think, 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 16

as you all recognize, has expanded and evolved. How 1
transactions are done between companies has become much 2

more globalized, become much more complex. And new 3
markets have really started to open up in areas that I 4
don't think in 1986 we would have really thought were 5

viable , but in today's worlds are extremely viable and 6
have great potential. There are new vendors competing 7
with U.S. companies. And there are new technologies 8
being developed; SMRs, for example. In 1986 , I don't 9
think we would have thought that the idea of SMRs would 10
have really taken off. 11

So all of that has shown us that the market 12
has changed si nce the rule was last through major 13
upgrade. And obviously , I think from what we're seeing 14
today, I think a lot of people would agree that the 15

rule needs to evolve to kind of match where the market 16
is going. 17
Also, the world of national security and 18
prol iferation has evolved. The revelations from Iraq 19
certainly shocked the world. For example, the Nuclear 20
Suppliers Group adopted its dual use controls because 21

of that. You have seen a lot of revelations have come 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 17

out of the Khan network. And what was goi ng on in 1
Libya and Malaysia has shown that proliferation has 2
also evolved and how proliferation has evolved. And so 3
it has resulted in the government thinking about how do 4
we adjust the regulatory standards to meet those 5
proliferation concerns and the new political 6
relationships and the new realities that are moving 7
forward. So all of those things put together, you 8
know, sort of leads us to the conclusion that the rule 9
does need to be adjusted and to be updated. 10
Our fundamental approach has remained 11

unc hanged. The Secretary has the discretion to make 12
general authorizations or require specific 13

authorizations . And, again, it is based on the 14
statutory requirements in 57B, which stem from the non

15
inimicality finding. 16
In making the non

- inimicality finding , we 17
maintain in this rule, in this version of the rule, 18

what we had in the NOPR and what is in the current 19
rule, which is we list the criteria by which in the 20
analysis we make these determinations . These include 21

national security considerations, diplomat ic 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 18

considerations, and trade considerations. The only 1
place where we essentially don't need to make those 2

determinations on inimicality will be for transfers of 3
what we call sensitive nuclear technology enrichment 4
and reprocessing. Because of other aspec ts of the 5
Atomic Energy Act, we do not have the ability to go 6
ahead and make a general authorization determination. 7
Whenever there is a request for transfer, 8
there are certain government assurances required by 9
those elements of the Atomic Energy Act that make 10
general authorization impossible for us to grant for 11
those technologies to anyone. And so for that, we will 12
always maintain that those require specific 13

authorization. 14
How do we go about making the non

- inimicality 15
determination? Well, you know, I think this is going 16
to be the crux of a lot of the questions that we are 17
going to get. How do we make that determination? What 18
information do we get? I think the easiest way by 19

which we can describe it and I think the model that we 20
are advocating as we go forward is really looking at 21
how we do this for the 123 process. And, as I think 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 19

most people know, when you do the 123 process

-- and I 1
think Dick is going to talk a little bit about it in 2

his slides after mine

-- we do what is called an NPAS, 3

non - prol iferation assessment statement, which goes up 4
with the actual 123 text to Congress and sort of lays 5
out, "This is what we know about the partner country. 6
This is what we believe, where they are, and various 7
aspects of their nuclear and national security a nd non

8
proliferation policies. This is what we know, and this 9
is what we expect." And so we have the NPAS. It is 10
signed by both the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary 11
of State. It is accompanied with the NPAS and the 12
agreement along with a letter from the Nuclear 13
Regulatory Commission . And it's interagency

- cleared 14
and cleared through the intelligence community. And so 15

we believe it to be the best standard and the best 16
information we have on making the non

- inimicality 17

determination associated with a co untry. 18
Under the current rule, where we have lists of 19
countries that require specific authorizations, we 20
don't always have that information that is available to 21
us to make that determination. And for us, we had to, 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 20

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

make a determination . Does the lack of information 2
mean that the Secretary can make that non

- inimicality 3
finding? 4

And especially when we add on top of that the 5
desire, as we mentioned when we did the rollout for the 6
NOPR, that we wanted th is new rule to be in line with 7

the spirit of the broader export control reform effort, 8
which is where there would only be positive lists, you 9
know, instead of the negative lists, countries that 10
require a higher standard, we wanted to have a list 11

where we w anted countries to have more expedited 12
treatment, we needed a standard which was 13
nondiscriminatory in its application. And so we looked 14
at the 123 process. And that is what we have advocated 15
in the earlier rule, and that is what we are advocating 16
moving forward now. 17
So what are the goals of the proposed changes? 18
Well, effective threat reduction. At its heart, 57B is 19

a non - proliferation rule. It impacts nuclear trade 20
significantly. We understand that. I think we take 21

that to heart. And I think we w ant to try and find a 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 21

way to balance that with the second bullet, which is 1
effective nuclear trade support. 2
I think it is fair to say part of our broader 3

non - proliferation policy is the fact that we have such 4
a strong commercial nuclear market that essen tially can 5

influence nuclear and non

- proliferation policy in those 6
countries which we get access to. And so we have to be 7

able to balance the effective threat reduction with the 8
effective nuclear trade support. 9
And the third thing is efficient regulatio ns. 10
Look, we understand this is a bulky regulation when it 11
comes to application today. It is not the smoothest, 12
as we would like. It is probably not the smoothest 13
that you would like as applicants. So we are really 14
trying hard to balance the effective threat reduction 15
with the effective trade support and trying to 16
implement it as efficiently as possible. And so that 17
is what our goal is and what we are trying to do. It 18
is striking this balance. And that is what we think, 19
the direction we are heading, and what we have achieved 20
here with the supplemental rule. 21

So where are we with the status of this? 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 22

Well, right now, we have the initial notice of proposed 1
rule, which came out in September of 2011. I have gone 2
through what it meant to address them. A nd we got what 3

we wanted. We said in the webinar we wanted public 4
comments. We got a lot of public comments and a lot of 5
good public comments that we have taken our time, all 6
of us up here and the other elements of the 7
interagency , to look at these publi c comments and to 8
try and bring together the best ideas from the public 9

with our ideas and how to strike that balance. 10
So now what we have is the supplemental notice 11

of the proposed rulemaking. And I am going to go 12
through those elements now and where w e felt that we 13
could be responsive to the comments that we got. 14
So what did we learn from the comments? Well, 15
the first thing we learned was that there were 16
concerned associated with the proposed change to the 17
generally authorized country list from the restricted 18
country list. So, you know, as I described our 19
methodology and our thinking and our broad conceptual 20
ideas behind how we were going to make the inimicality 21
findings or the non

- inimicality findings and moving it 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 23

from a negative list to a positiv e list, obviously 1

there were countries and destinations that move from 2
one list to another. And so that was something that we 3

took a hard look at from the comments we received. 4
The other thing was a perceived increase in 5
proposed activities subject to s pecific authorization

. 6
This really stemmed from when we tried to add for the 7
first time the technical scope to the controls in 8
moving this forward. And, as we said during the 9
webinar and we have made in other public fora, that was 10
really based upon a num ber of things: our multilateral 11
obligations to organizations like Nuclear Suppliers 12
Group, our NPT obligations, and based upon past 13
licensing history and precedent that we have made here 14

at DOE and that others had made here in other similar 15
licensing requi rements and that other U.S. agencies or 16
commissions have made in the past. And so we tried to 17
lay that out in the technical scope. And I think a lot 18
of people were surprised when they looked at it because 19
when you go from no technical scope to the techni cal 20
scope we laid out, there were things on there that 21
people probably didn't think had been licensed before 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 24

or were part of the Nuclear Suppliers Group's thinking 1
or where the government had made a determination that 2
those technologies fell under an NPT o bligation. So I 3
think that surprised some people, but I will also be 4

honest that there were elements of this that we could 5

have written a lot clearer and that we could have been 6
provided more information on. And so we have gone 7
through and tried to clari fy that in the supplemental 8

rule. 9
And the applicability was unclear regarding 10
some of the activities, meaning there were some things 11
and some questions of whether an activity was covered 12
or not covered and we have gone through and tried to do 13

this. 14

The other thing that we heard loud and clear 15
was that the process itself, having nothing to do with 16
the rule but how we do our work here at DOE, was slow, 17
opaque, and unpredictable. I am not sure that I would 18
agree with that characterization, but the message was 19
received. And we knew it before we put the rule out 20
because, as we said during the webinar, we have also 21
been working on how to improve our internal processes 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 25

with regards to the rule. So those comments 1
essentially reinforced what we already knew an d really 2
helped us to redouble our efforts in that area. And we 3
will get into a little discussion of that as well as we 4

move forward. 5
So the next slide, how the SNOPR process 6
responds to comment, I think from our view, we feel 7
that the supplemental rule is more open, there are 8
better explanations, the proposed destination 9
reclassification was retained with minor changes, and 10
we are going to be talking about how to improve the 11
process a lot better. 12
So let's get into the first and what I think 13
is the maj or aspect of the initial comments we got and 14
what we did with the supplemental rule. I think, as we 15
have talked about in the past, when we made the switch 16
from the negative to the positive list and then we made 17
the linkage of the positive list to the 123 process, 18
essentially there was a change in countries. We 19
recognized that full up. And we understand that it 20
created or we didn't understand at the time exactly how 21
that was going to impact certain aspects of day

- to

- day 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 26

operations of many U.S. persons or U.S. industries. 1
The comments helped clarify that. But one of the 2
things that it did also tell us was that it reinforced 3
the fact that we did have in our minds the best way to 4
determine the inimicality finding because we really 5
didn’t get any comments th at stated there was another 6
way to do it. It was more a question about countries 7
moving from one list to another and how it affected 8
certain aspects of, as I said, day

- to

- day operations. 9
So there was no change proposed from the NOPR 10

to the SNOPR for 117 destinations. Forty

- four major 11
nuclear trading partners would remain generally 12

authorized. Seventy

- three destinations presenting 13
proliferation issues would continue to require specific 14

authorization . Russia, China, and India would continue 15
to require s pecific authorization . And I went through 16
the reasons for that during the webinar. And we can 17

revisit that if folks need to in the question and 18
answer period. And certain projects in Mexico and 19

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

hea r and what we did find were ways to allow some of 21
the projects within Mexico and Chile to be generally 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 27

authorized. And those would essentially be those 1
projects that are under project and supply agreements, 2

which essentially makes up most, if not all, of the 3
nuclear aspects and commercial aspects in Mexico and 4
Chile. So I think we found ways to address that. 5
Let's move to the next one. The key basis for 6
proposed classification, as I said, was the 123. So 7
what slips over? So Kazakhstan, Ukraine, UAE w ould be 8
generally authorized. And these are countries for 9

which we had 123s in place and countries that have 10
dynamic and important nuclear markets. And so they 11
would move from right now requiring the specific 12
authorization of the current rule to being ge nerally 13

authorized. 14
The 77 countries for which our specific 15
authorizations would still be required

-- when we went 16
back and looked at it, there's very little or no 17
nuclear trade that's going on. We don't have a 123 18
agreement. So there are really no pro spects from a 19
government standpoint that we see where nuclear trade 20
is going to rise to the level of significance to where 21

123

-- and I think probably most importantly, you know, 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 28

we don't really have a good sense of what the nuclear 1
policies are of most of these countries, either from a 2
policy of civil nuclear use or their policies on non

3
proliferation. So that is our thinking. 4
As nuclear programs emerge and as we are 5
negotiating and we put into effect more 123s, the idea 6

is that then we will have a basi s to make the non

7
inimicality findings. And the way that we structured 8
the rule is that you will notice that the list is an 9
appendix. And the reason it is an appendix to the rule 10
is so that way we don't have to go through a rulemaking 11
every time we want to update the list. And the idea is 12
to make it as simple as possible. So that when 123 13
comes into effect, then the Secretary of Energy, with 14
the concurrence of the State Department and consulting 15
with the other agencies, can then go ahead through 16

Federal Register notice and, with a little bit of 17
rulemaking paperwork, be able to add the 123, that 18
country for which we have a 123, to the general 19

authorization list. 20
Okay. Let's move on to the next one. What 21
else does the SNOPR do? It exempts lawful perma nent 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 29

resident aliens and protected foreign nationals. This 1
wasn't clear in the existing rule. So what we are 2
saying is if someone is here under a green card or is a 3
PRA or is a protected foreign national, they are to be 4
treated as a U.S. person. And the y w ould not require

- 5

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

all. 7
SNOPR generally authorizes access to nuclear 8
technology. If foreign nationals are employed at U.S. 9
nuclear facilities if the employee signs a 10
confidentiality agreement is a uthorized in accordance 11
with NRC standards, which I think Mark is going to talk 12
about later and the employer reports the authorized 13

access to DOE. 14

Where did this come from? This is new from 15
the NOPR to the SNOPR. When we did the country list 16
flip from the bad guy to the good guy and linked it to 17
the 123 finding, 123 determination in the process, one 18
of the comments that we got was , "Hey, although there 19
may not be a lot of significant nuclear exports with 20
some of these countries that flip, there are a lo t of 21
foreign nationals that are employed at U.S. nuclear 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 30

installations and that these persons are here pursuant 1
to the access requirements of the NRC." 2

When we looked at those comments, we sat down 3

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

ri ght? And is it fair? Do we want to essentially 5

double

- regulate the same activity? Do we want to 6
regulate, apply 810 over somebody for which the NRC has 7
allowed them to have access to do a certain job at a 8

nuclear installation in the United States?" It didn't 9
seem logical or right to us to be in a position where 10
the NRC says an individual can have access to the 11
facility to do a job, only for the Department of Energy 12

to come in and make the det er mination potentially that 13
the person cannot do the job while he is there. 14
And so in talking with the interagency and 15
talking with the NRC, the determination was made that 16
the NRC really had jurisdiction over this area and not 17
us since they were making the access determination and 18
we were only making a determinati on on whether they 19
could actually have access to information from the 20

company so that they could do their job. 21
And so the way we have phrased this in here is 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 31

if you are essentially hiring a foreign national and 1
you meet all the NRC access requirements, j ust report 2
it to us. It will be generally authorized, regardless 3
of what country they're from, in moving forward, what 4
country they're from. And so that is essentially going 5
to be an important exception that we were making to the 6
country rules from the p ublic comments we got because 7
we could certainly see the reasoning and the impact 8

that the rule would have behind it. And I think it 9
created a difficult regulatory situation which the 10
government at large could be placing upon U.S. 11
companies. 12

The other t hing that we have done in this rule 13

is we have taken a look at the deemed exports or the 14
deemed reexports. And there will be no changes to how 15
we are going to handle that for now. That could change 16
in the future, but right now in the supplemental rule, 17

t here are going to be no changes. 18
And I think let's move on to the next slide, 19
Jessica. So the existing rule

-- the other thing that 20

we did is that we have tried to make the rule clearer 21
with regards to the technical scope and to the reactor 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 32

section. So the existing rule right now talks about 1
production reactors, but we have always implemented it 2
from the very beginning as including all reactors since 3
all reactors produce plutonium. 4
What the SNOPR now does is expressly cover all 5
reactors, but what we d id is we clarified the scope 6
within the reactor of how far the rule expands. If you 7
look in the current rule, there's no explanation. So 8
if someone says, "I want to do work here in this part 9
of the plant" or "I want to move technology associated 10

with ano ther part of the plant. Am I in or am I out?" 11
because nuclear plants are fairly large and involve a 12
lot of different kinds of technologies

-- so what we 13
have done is we have expressly covered all reactors, 14
but we narrowed the scope or clarified the scope of the 15
reactor technology to be the nuclear island in the 16
primary coolant loop. So everything from the steam 17
generators on into the island is covered by 810. 18
If it is outside the steam generator, then it 19
is Department of Commerce. And I think that now what 20

we have done is we have clarified between Commerce 21
regulations and our regulations exactly what is going 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 33

to be the scope of 810 coverage versus Commerce 1
coverage. And I think that this matches up pretty 2
closely to how the NRC also defines the control s for a 3
nuclear reactor, also with the Department of Commerce. 4
So it aligns the three agencies up very nicely. 5
Moving forward, so the next one is operational 6
safety. We currently have some aspects of operational 7
safety in the current rule. We talked a bout getting 8
rid of it in the first proposed rule. And part of it 9

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

webinar

-- that it created a difficult situation 11
because there was no agreed definition of what was 12
operational safety. And, quite frankly , I think we 13
struggled as much as applicants struggled in trying to 14
define what was operational safety versus what was safe 15
operations. 16
Obviously , the comments we got reflected some 17
concern with us doing that, making that change. And 18
then, unfortunately , the accident at Fukushima happened 19
and we started to realize how important the fast track 20
that we had put in place really back in the early 1990s 21
for prodding assistance to former Soviet Union reactors 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 34

was going to play in the rule moving forward. 1

And so what we are going to do is we are going 2
to retain a couple of things. We are going to retain 3

the fast track for when there is an imminent 4
radiological hazard. Okay? And, quite frankly, the 5
best example I can think of right now is Fukushima. If 6

there 's an imminent radiological hazard, you pick up 7
the phone, what the rule, current rule, says, call us. 8
We'll talk about it for a couple of minutes. And then 9
if we all agree that that is the case, the staff will 10
inform the Secretary and then you will be a pproved to 11
go ahead and do what you need to do to fix that 12
problem, to address the concern. And then we will 13
worry about the paperwork later. That is going to be 14

retained. 15
We have also added a definition of operational 16
safety to try and establish a sta ndard by which 17
operational safety work can go forward. I think from 18
our standpoint, it is the best definition we could come 19
up with within Department of Energy, with the Office of 20
Nuclear Energy, and working with the interagency. It 21
may be something that in the future again, we may look 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 35

at moving forward, but that definition is important for 1
us from a regulatory standpoint. And why is it 2
important for us from a regulatory standpoint? Because 3
we are also adding in two new elements into the 4
regulation reg arding operational safety. 5
First is operational safety to foreign 6
reactors, which are under IAEA safeguards. And there, 7
using this definition that we have, we are saying, hey, 8
if it is something that you are providing to a foreign 9
reactor that is safegu arded, you can go ahead and use 10
the operational safety definition, but you have to 11
check with us first. You can use it as a way to 12
generally authorize your transfers, but there is a 45

- 13
day period for which we have to respond. Given that 14
the current speci fic authorization process is supposed 15
to be within 90 days, we try to do it within 90 days, 16
this means in half the time, we will get back to you. 17
And we will tell you whether your activity falls within 18
the scope, within the technical scope of that 19

definit ion of operational safety. 20
The other thing that we are doing within the 21
reg, which is foreign assistance on operational safety 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 36

aspects to U.S. reactors, one of the things that we 1
were seeing more and more of and we expect to see a lot 2
more of following F ukushima is a lot more of this sort 3
of peer review, international peer review, of safety 4

standards within reactors and nuclear facilities. And 5
when certain entities like INPO or WANO, utilities want 6
them to come and do this peer review, we have come to 7

th e conclusion that the rule should not get in the way 8
of that. And so that can also be generally authorized 9
underneath the new rule, that kind of operational 10
safety support. And, again, it's 45 days. Just let us 11
know within 45 days. We will confirm that it is 12
happening. And then it is just a reporting requirement 13
as if it would have been generally authorized. So 14
those are two new areas associated with operational 15
safety. Okay. 16
So other proposed changes. Well, we clarified 17
that if you have a Commerc e and State

- approved export, 18
you would be exempt from the Part 810 in order to avoid 19
duplication of regulation. So if Steve or the State 20
Department has granted you a license on specific 21
nuclear assistance or nuclear technology, you would be 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 37

exempt. 1

For the most part, it shouldn’t be a problem 2
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since they do 3

the hardware in nuclear materials and we do the 4
technology and the assistance. But we wanted to 5
clarify that from the Commerce and State. 6

Public information. We worked hard with the 7
interagency to clarify and to ensure that there is 8
consistency with the public information definitions 9
that we have of what is in the public domain and what 10
isn't so that, you know, obviously companies and 11
individuals that required multiple licenses were 12
looking and using the same terminology, the same litmus 13
test, the same standards with regards to essentially 14

the same information. 15
Activities with remote connection to special 16
nuclear material. We have tried to clarify that. So 17

t here was some concern that we mentioned mining in the 18
first revision in the NOPR. We have clarified that by 19
not including it in the supplemental, that it is not 20
going to be covered. 21
Medical isotope production. We have looked at 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 38

medical isotopes. When it doesn't involve special 1
nuclear materials, it would not be covered by the 2
supplemental rule. 3
Fusion work, obviously, with the big science 4
project such as Iter and others. There were questions 5
about what part of the fusion science world was going 6

to b e covered, and we have clarified that as well and 7

other back

- ended activities related to medical 8
isotopes, such as the production of moly

- 99 for medical 9
isotope use. There are aspects and certain techniques 10
of the moly

- 99 recovery process that would be no t 11
covered by the 810 supplemental rule. 12
And then, finally, activities carried out by 13
IAEA personnel would be generally authorized. So we 14

have clarified where that was because there was a 15
question internally within the U.S. government and from 16
people on the outside who were being sponsored to go to 17
work at the IAEA by the U.S government because 18
obviously supporting the IAEA is something we want to 19

do. 20
So now that takes us through very briefly the 21
changes, some of the major changes, that we made to the 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 39

r ule. So now I want to talk a little bit about the 1
process issue because it was something that was 2
highlighted during the public comment period. 3
We understand the point that the specific 4
authorization process takes a bit of time. We 5

understand that it r equires the Secretary of Energy, 6

cabinet

- level official, to sign off on all the specific 7
authorizations. And we understand that the process 8
needs to be more transparent, predictable, and 9
efficient. One of the things I think that those of you 10

who work dir ectly with us know from time to time, we 11
try to do our best to ensure that we can implement this 12
in a way, implement the rule in a way, that does not 13
place companies at disadvantages, competitive 14
disadvantage or any other disadvantage. That is our 15
goal to try and do that. 16
At times, some of the circumstances, I think, 17
as some of you have heard me and others say, those 18
circumstances are out of our control. We try our best 19
to influence all aspects of the 810 process, but 20
sometimes we're not always successf ul in doing so. So 21
we try our best to do this. But let me take you 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 40

through a little bit of the current specific 1
authorization process. And then we will get into some 2
of the things that we are doing to try and improve the 3
process in conjunction with putt ing out the new rule. 4
So this is the current process and something, 5
a slide, that I have used before. And, as you can see, 6
we essentially break the process up into three stages. 7
The first stage is the initial review, meaning when we 8
get the application that comes in from an applicant, we 9
take a look at it. And if it is something that we 10
believe within my office, something that can go 11
forward, meaning it meets all the requirements of the 12
regulation, we then start the analysis. And what the 13
analysis is is the non

- inimicality finding. And it is 14
in the supplemental. It is going to be in 810.9; 15
whereas, there are the 10 elements that we take a look 16
at with regard to how we take a look at it. And, 17
again, this is where the Secretary

-- we are making a 18
judg ment in making a recommendation to the Secretary 19
that the proposed transfer is not inimical to the 20

common interests of the United States. So it includes 21
what do we know about the country, what do we know 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 41

about the activity, what do we know about the 1

techn ology, and what do we know about the commercial 2
market and the potential loss of trade if it's not 3
approved moving forward. 4
That then goes through DOE, through NNSA staff 5
review. The DOE Office of Nuclear Energy takes a look 6
at it. And then it goes thr ough our legal reviews. We 7
then send it to the interagency, which is really the 8
second stage. And there it goes through State, 9
Commerce, NRC, and Department of Defense review. We 10
give them 30 days to take a look at the license. And 11

this is in line with the 30 days, which you will see 12
also in the Department of Commerce and the State 13
Department ITAR regulations, 30

- day review for the 14
interagency. At the same time, State Department will 15
then request formal assurances from the host 16

government. 17

Once we ha ve everyone's feedback from the 18
interagency and as long as nobody has said, "No. This 19
is a bad idea" or raised any significant concerns and 20
we have the assurances, we then repackage it, we draft 21
the license approval recommendation to the Secretary. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 42

And i t then goes through because it is a package it is 1
a package to the Secretary the review internally within 2
NNSA and DOE. And then it goes to the Secretary for 3
approval. That is the process. 4
And I think, as many of you know, part of the 5
problem there isn 't us preparing the analysis. If we 6
understand the application and all the information is 7
there, we can prepare the analysis pretty quickly. It 8
is not the review. Agencies, we do a pretty good job 9
of doing the review. The long

- term intent is the 10

assura nce process. And, again, a lot of that is 11

outside of our reach. We do our best with the State 12
Department to try and get foreign governments to move 13
forward. We have come up with a few ideas here 14
recently in working with some of the countries for 15

which w e have the most challe nges in getting assurances 16
from. And we are working to develop new fast track 17
approaches with some of those countries on the 18
assurances. It is not part of the supplemental rule, 19
but it is something that is important for us to get 20

ri ght because in our view, we are not going through the 21
effort of the supplemental rule to have the process 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 43

still be bogged down by the same problems. So we want 1
to go through and do this. 2

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

some time on our int ernal processes. Even though we do 4
a good job, we know we can do better. And so what we 5
have tried to do is really piggyback upon a broader 6
effort that is going on here within NNSA, which was 7
announced in this very auditorium, which was that NNSA 8

as an o rganization is going to seek to become ISO

- 9001

- 9
compliant. And so what we want to do is we want to 10
actually take the 810 process and not only become ISO

11

9001

- compliant. We actually want to take it to the 12
point where we can get certified. 13

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

six

- sigma approach that we have obviously borrowed from 15
GE. And my goal was to hire Jack Donaghy from 30 Rock 16
to take us through this, but he wasn't available. So 17
we have settled with another expert in this process to 18

come a nd help us do this. 19
We are in the phase within the six

- sigma 20
process of talking to the customer through the 21
interview process, trying to understand where we have 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 44

duplication, where we have gaps, what the expectations 1
are with regards to the 810 process m oving forward. 2
Then what we are going to do is then actually go 3
through the entire six

- sigma process, which should get 4
us to the point where we can then go through the ISO

5
9001 certification process. 6
I think what we are going to find is that 7

there are o verlaps, there is time to be saved, and that 8
there are places that we can find efficiencies and 9
streamline. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of the 10
details because what I don't want to do is end up in 11
the typical government program analyst kind of positi on 12
where I pretend that I know the answer before we really 13
do get the answer. And I have left the team alone to 14
be able to come back with the raw, unvarnished truth 15
and the recommendations to us on where we are going 16
wrong and where we can do better. Oka y? 17
So other ideas that we are looking at on the 18
table and some stuff, ideas, that have come forward to 19
us through the public comment period and just that we 20

have heard from others on the side are that we are 21
going to be publishing a Part 810 guide, inclu ding 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 45

advisory opinions. So as we give companies advisory 1
opinions on certain technology questions, certain 2
country questions, certain business relationship 3
questions, we will sanitize those when we make what we 4
believe are important interpretations for ho w we are 5
looking at the rule, how we are looking at certain 6
things. And we are going to publish those as advisory 7
opinions. 8
We are working to r educe the response times 9
for foreig n government assurances. I want to be 10
careful what I say here bec a use we a re actively 11
negotiating with a few governments right now on how to 12
shorten those response times. We have our ideas. They 13
have some ideas. I will be taking a trip with State 14
Department colleagues in the very near future to a very 15
important country which we have a significant problem 16
with. They seem motivated and we are motivated to get 17
this fixed and to reduce those response times. So we 18
are working on that. Although that will not be part of 19

the six

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

the work that we see moving forward. 21
We are going to develop and implement an e

- 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 46

licensing system. I talked about it a little bit at 1
the webinar, that we had the question in front of us. 2
We didn't know whether the cost was going to be worth 3
it given the limited number of 810 specific 4
authorizations that we do. But given the fact that we 5
want to publish a Part 810 guide, that we want to 6
publish advisory opinions, we decided that it was 7
probably worth it to go ahead and design and implement 8

an e - licensing system, which would be essentially one

9
stop shopping. It would also get us out of the paper 10
chase that we go through and would hopefully 11
standardize a lot of the application process for our 12
applicants. It would also help us implement the fast 13
track procedures f or the authorization of activities 14
that present the lowest proliferation risk. And those 15
are the ones that I talked about in the operational 16
safety and some of the deemed export aspects that we're 17
going to be creating fast track avenues for within the 18

sup plemental rule and what is going to reduce the time 19
for internal DOE and interagency reviews because no 20
longer can people say, "I can't find that piece of 21
paper" because they are going to be able to log right 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 47

into the system and be able to have all of the 1
information that is there from the applicant, from us, 2
from the other agencies, and hopefully will expedite 3
moving the whole process forward. 4
We are talking with important stakeholders 5
regarding the e

- licensing system and getting more ideas 6

out there. I t is probably not going to be a sort of 7
completed project when we first implemented. Our hope 8
is to implement it in various phases. And our goal is 9
to have the first phase of the e

- licensing system with 10
some of these things like the Part 810 guide and th e 11
advisory opinions up and running at about the same time 12
that we would issue a final rule. So that our goal is 13
that we would essentially

-- when the time comes, we 14
are going to basically turn the page and basically drag 15
the 810 process into the Twenty

- Fi rst Century in 16
hopefully one flick of the switch. 17
And the last slide, Jessica. So the 18
conclusion. This is what the supplemental rule is. 19
This is where we are heading with regards to the 20
process improvement. Our goal is to, as I said, 21

facilitate nucle ar trade. We are hoping to update and 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 48

modernize, be more open, effective , and efficient, but 1
we can't do so at a cost where we compromise our 2
proliferation controls. It is this balance that we are 3
trying to strike. We appreciate the work and effort 4

that the public has gone into providing comments on 5
this. And to us, these are the comments. These are 6
important in making sure that we get the balance right 7
and moving forward. 8
So, with that, I think I have used up more 9
than my time and Joyce's unofficial time. So let me 10

turn it over now to Dick. 11

MR. STRATFORD: O kay. I am Dick Stratford. 12

And I had the S tate D epartment office that handles 13
pretty much every aspect of peaceful nuclear affairs. 14
We handle the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Zangger 15

Committe e . We're the ones who negotiate the 123 16
agreements, which is a growth industry these days since 17
I am now up to 12 agreements that we either have to 18
finish negotiating or extend them. And three more 19
countries have called up and said, "We are interested 20

in a 123, too." I think we're probably going to wind 21
up doing it certainly with two out of the three. The 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 49

third one I'm not so sure they are really going to have 1
a nuclear program. 2
We are also responsible for the State 3
Department's review of Part 810 req uests. Now, we have 4
a somewhat limited role in 810s, but we are on the 5
critical path because, whereas, DOE has to consult with 6
other agencies. Before they put a recommendation to 7
the Secretary, they need State Department concurrence 8
in the case of specif ic authorizations of nuclear 9
technology transfers. Now, how does that work? DOE 10
sends me a letter setting out what the application is 11
asking for, what their analysis is, and what they 12
propose to do with it, which in most cases is to 13
approve it. But befo re they do that, they need certain 14
assurances from the foreign government. 15
And let's go to the next slide. Foreign 16

government assurances have been long time required. 17

And what we need is we need to know that it is for 18
peaceful uses, it is not for explo sive devices, not for 19
any military purpose, and no retransfer without written 20

consent. 21
So in a period of usu ally no more than three 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 50

days, the licensing officer in my office prepares a 1
cable, which goes out to the country concerned, which 2
says, "The follo wing transaction or transfer to you of 3
nuclear technology is under consideration by the 4
Secretary of Energy. And in order to allow this to 5
happen, we need certain assurances from you about what 6
will or will not happen to that technology. 7
Now, some have said, "Well, if you have a 123 8
agreement, it is almost a foregone conclusion, isn't 9
it?" Yes. Generally speaking, it is. And, even if we 10
don't have a 123 agreement, you can still make a Part 11
810 technology transfer. We just might look at it a 12

little mo re closely. 13
Now, some have said, "Well, you have an 14
agreement with China, India, and Russia. Why don't you 15
just go general authorization?" Well, the answer is 16
obvious, which is they each have a nuclear explosive 17
program. And we don't have a track with a nuclear 18
explosive program. 19
So if someone says, "I am going to go do 20
something in Russia," if it is on the peaceful side of 21
the equation, the answer is almost certainly yes. If 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 51

it is tied up with the nuclear side, the answer is 1
probably no, but there is a middle ground. Like, for 2
example, there was a time with India, where we never 3
would have approved transfers to BARC in India. It was 4
affiliated with the weapons establishment. 5
But then as we got further along what we used 6
to call the glide path

-- this is before the 2005 7

announcement

-- we lightened up a little bit. We began 8
to distinguish between parts of BARC that were clearly 9

weapons - related and parts of BARC that were clearly 10
civilian in their focus, just like Los Alamos, for 11
example. It is a weapons lab, but there is all kinds 12
of technology being developed that is not just for 13
weapons but for peaceful purposes. 14
So if you say BARC today, we would look at it 15
and say, "Okay. What part of BARC? And what are the 16
dangers that the technology wil l be diverted to a 17
weapons use?" 18
And then we make a judgment. And our judgment 19
goes back to DOE, which says, "Yes. We don't have a 20
problem with that" or "This makes us very nervous. 21
Let's talk about it before we go out there and ask for 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 52

assurances." 1
How long do assurances take? Some countries 2
get back to us fairly quickly, in a matter of a couple 3
of days. Some have been known to go for 12 months 4
without an answer. In one case, the applicant was 5
getting somewhat cranky about the fact that they 6

were n't allowed to go ahead with their transaction. 7
And I said, "Look, tell the science officer in capital 8
to please go in and see the relevant agency and ask 9
them what the holdup is." 10

So science officer went in and asked. And the 11

answer was , "Well, the ho ldup is I have no idea who you 12
are talking about, never heard of this company before 13
in my life, wouldn’t know where to find them." 14
So I went back and said, "All right. Call the 15
applicant. Tell the applicant to call his client and 16

tell the client to ma ke himself heard in the relevant 17
agency." 18
That worked. Client contacted the agency, 19
said, "This is who I am. And would you kindly give the 20
assurances?" Then they finally came through. 21
Now, as I said, some countries are worse off 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 5 3

than others in terms of replying promptly, but we are 1
going to try in some cases to fix that in a generic 2
sense. And, as Rich said, he's going out probably 3
sometime in late August, early September to a 4
particular country to try to speed things up. And I am 5
sending along one of my very best people to see if we 6
can make that happen. 7
Next slide. Yes, tech transfers are important 8
to the industry. That is why we try to speed up the 9
assurance requests. And, oh, by the way, when the 10
assurance request comes back with the assura nces, how 11
long does it take State to get back to DOE? Usually 12
two to three days. It's two to three days on the way 13

in before the cable goes out and it's two to three days 14
after the cable comes back that I sign the letter back 15
to DOE that says, "Yes, we c oncur. Please go ahead." 16

That is self

- explanatory. 17

Next slide. And there isn't one. Okay. So 18
let me stop there. Bottom line is we are on the 19
critical path. We don't take that much time to respond 20
to the process. And I think we can do a little bet ter 21
in terms of nudging people who are not responsive as 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 54

quickly a s we would hope they would be. 1
I will stop there. 2

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

take a ten

- minute break? I think we have several 4
people that will be by the doors and can escort groups 5
of people to the restrooms. And we will start back 6

here at around 2:20. 7

( Whereupon, there was a brief recess.) 8

MS. STRANGIS: I f everyone can take their 9

seats , we are going to start back again, I think, with 10
Brooke. Right? Brooke? 11

M S. SMITH: Thank you. So good afternoon . My 12
name is Brooke Smith, and I am going to talk about NRC 13
export controls found in 10 CFR Part 110. And then I 14
am going to turn it over to Mr. Mark Resner , who works 15

in our Office of Nuclear Security and Incident 16
Response, to talk to you a little bit about our 17
security requirements and regulations regarding 18
unauthorized site access, which are tied to the general 19
authorization for foreign nations that Rich had talked 20
about, also known as the deemed exports. 21

So br iefly , I am just going to go through Part 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 55

110 . I normally give a Part 110 101, but this is going 1
to be a little more high level than that and just start 2
with like the legal basis. It's the same for Part 810, 3
different sections, but it's the Atomic Energy Act of 4
1954, as amended, or what gives NRC authority to 5
regulate exports. In our case, it is of nuclear 6
equipment and materials, not the technology. However, 7
I will get into it a little later. If you do have an 8
export license from the NRC, the technolo gy that goes 9
along with what is authorized in that license does not 10
need a separate Part 810 authorization . And then the 11

Nuclear Non

- Proliferation Act of 1978 and then other 12
bilateral and multilateral obligations are incorporated 13
into our Part 110 regulat ions. 14
Next slide. So I am not going to read this to 15
you, but NRC actually has jurisdiction for exports as 16
well as imports, though imports are mostly authorized 17
through the general license similar to the general 18
authorization that you find in Part 810. So we would 19
issue licenses for complete reactors, the major 20
components of a reactor, different materials, nuclear 21
materials, and radioactive materials, as well as waste. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 56

So this is a diagram of a typical pressurized 1
water reactor and a typical boiling wa ter reactor. And 2
I just use this here to illustrate what NRC's Part 110 3
regulations, the scope. It doesn't cover everything 4
that you would find at a nuclear power reactor. It 5
would be consistent with Part 810 that Rich discussed, 6
the nuclear island, and the primary coolant systems. 7
And items would have to be especially designed or 8
prepared equipment. 9
Next slide. Appendix A to Part 110 provides 10
an illustrative list of reactor equipment that falls 11
under NRC's export licensing jurisdiction. And we have 12
essentially what is a definition of a reactor at the 13
beginning of that appendix. And that language that you 14
see up on the screen are items within or attached 15
directly to the reactor vessel: equipment which 16
controls the level of power in the core and com ponents 17
which normally contain or come into direct contact with 18
or control the primary coolant of the reactor core. 19
That kind of gives us the scope of what a reactor is 20
for purposes of NRC export controls. And that comers 21
actually directly from the NSG, the Nuclear Suppliers 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 57

Group, definition of nuclear reactor. 1
So the next slide is a list. Appen d ix A, as I 2
mentioned, is illustrative. H owe ver, the first four 3
components on that list we would license as major 4
components. And they apply the same licensi ng criteria 5
as if you were shipping a complete reactor. And so 6
that is the reactor pressure vessel, the online reactor 7
fuel charging and discharging machines, complete 8
control rod drive system, and reactor primary coolant 9

pumps. 10

The next slide lists the minor reactor 11
equipment. And this is derived from the Nuclear 12
Suppliers Group control list as well, the Part 1 list. 13
And I want to highlight the very last bullet there, 14
"Any other component especially designed or prepared 15
for use in a nuclear reactor," any of the components 16
that are part of the system or items described in 17
Appendix A. So I just bring this up because one of the 18
things that Rich has done within the scope of Part 810 19

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

the control list d erived from the Nuclear Suppliers 21
Group. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 58

One thing I would like to point out with NRC's 1
jurisdiction is while these are illustrative, we can 2

make case

- by

- case determinations based on the 3
information provided to us by potential applicants as 4
long as it is consistent with the concepts, you know, 5
the scope of what we control, the principle of 6
especially designed or prepared for, and also 7
consistent with section 109B of the Atomic Energy Act 8
for these minor reactor components and equipment. 9

Next slide. So we also like Part 810 except 10
for we have not the technology but the equipment and 11
components. We would have export licensing 12
jurisdiction over the fuel cycle facilities and then 13
the especially designed or prepared components for 14

those facilities. So this is just a diagram 15
illustrating the fuel cycle. 16

And in Part 810

-- I think it is 810.2, Rich, 17
lists the scope?

-- there is a reference to the NRC 18
appendices in there. And those again are derived from 19
the NSG control list. And these again provide an 20

ill ustrative list of what would fall under NRC's export 21
licensing jurisdiction. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 59

And, just briefly, outside of the scope of 1
Part 810, NRC also regulates for export control 2
purposes radioactive materials. It is typically what 3
you would see for medical and in dustrial use and that 4

are found in a device or sealed sou rce. 5
So Dick had mentioned Department of State has 6
a concurring role in Part 810 review process. We have 7
a consultative role. And that is actually found 8
directly in 57B. So any such determinatio ns by the 9
Secretary of Energy shall be made only with the 10
concurrence of the Department of State after 11
consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 12
So we have a very close working relationship with DOE, 13
NNSA. And, with rare exception, we are able to provide 14
our views and input within that 30

- day time period that 15
Rich and his staff request views from the NRC in. 16
Usually we are able to just simply say we have no 17
objection to this proposal. Any questions or concerns 18
we have we work closely with the Part 810 staff and 19
usually have those answered pretty quickly or provide 20
our input and receive response. So it is a very 21
collaborative process. And I have been doing it for 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 60

eight years. And we have, with rare exception, always 1
been able to work very we ll together and meet that 30

- 2
day deadline. 3

So before I turn it over to Mark to talk about 4
NRC's security requirements and unauthorized site 5
access regulations, I just wanted to provide the 6
transition. Rich had talked about the deemed export. 7

And that i s found in 10 CFR in the SNOPR, in the 8
proposed section, 10 CFR 810

. 6( b ), where it talks about 9
transfers of technology to a citizen or national of a 10
country or territory not listed in the appendix to Part 11
810 and working at an NRC

- licensed facility. So Ma rk 12
is going to go into detail about that program and how 13
it is implemented at our U.S. NRC

- regulated facilities. 14
Thank you. 15

MR. RESNER: Good afternoon. I'm Mark Resner, 16
the Access Authorization Program Coordinator for NRC. 17
Our program covers 104 nuc lear power plants throughout 18
the continental United States. The objective of our 19
program is to provide high assurance

-- let me 20
emphasize high assurance

-- that people are trustworthy 21
and reliable so that they will not commit radiological 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 61

sabotage or thre aten the public health and safety or 1

the common defense. 2

We use a defense

- in

- depth strategy at the 3
plants. It's not only guards, gates, and guns, but it 4
is also other programs that we incorporate to that that 5
are not visible programs. 6
At most plants, although they have different 7
footprints, generally the outer ring or the outermost 8
ring is called the owner

- controlled area. That would 9
be parking lots, admin. Facilities. As you proceed 10
inward, the requirements to go further into the plant 11
are obviously more stringent. The second ring is the 12
protected area, what we call the protected area. And 13
those are areas that could have strategic targets 14

within those sites. And then the innermost controlled 15
area, which is the vital areas, which would be the 16

contr ol room and other more serious, more sensitive 17

areas. 18
When you enter the plant, there are armed 19
guards, gates, and guns. There are armed security 20
guards. Employees are badged. For those employees who 21
have been granted access, unescorted access, to get 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 62

into the protected area, not only do they have the 1
badge, but they have to use the hand geometry in some 2
of the cases to identify who they are to get into their 3
protected area. Some sites have iris scanners. And, 4
as you go into the protected area, there are explosive 5
sniffers, no cameras, no computers. 6
In combination with these guards, gates, and 7
guns, we have a fitness

- for

- duty program, which is drug 8
and alcohol. We have a behavior observation program. 9
And we have an insider mitigation program. And all of 10
these programs integrate together. 11
Can we go to the next slide? This kind of 12
illustrates the basic footprint of the sites to give 13
you an idea. 14
Next slide, please. There are three types of 15
access. Generally there are two main types: 16

unescort ed access. Then there is escorted access. And 17
then we have a category that's called unescorted access 18
authorization. With unescorted access, you are 19
required to go through a criminal history program, 20
fingerprinting, which I will get into the next slide, 21
credit history, employment history, references, 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 63

credibility checks. In addition, you are required to 1
undergo plant access training. You have to score at 2
least an 80 percentile on that test. For the 3
unescorted access, you have to successfully pass the 4

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

- testing pool. 6

For the escorted access

-- and the next slide, 7
please

-- the elements for unescorted, the first thing 8
that is done is the individual comes to the site. They 9
are provided a consent a nd advisement form. It lets 10
them know that your name is going to be checked against 11
these databases and you are going to have a criminal 12
history check. Essentially, they sign it and give us 13
our permission. If they don't, they don't get access 14
to the pla nt. 15

There is a five

- page personal history 16
questionnaire, which includes foreign countries that 17
you have traveled to, much like the government SF

- 86 18
forms; verification of sure identity, which is done 19
through biometric; employment history evaluation

-- if 20

there's no employment, if it's been education, then 21
they have to verify that through the schools

-- credit 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 64

history check; character and reputation evaluations; 1
criminal history review; and psych assessment. The 2
psych assessment has to be done by a profes sional 3
psychologist. 4
The criminal history review, each plant 5
fingerprints the people. It is sent in to the NRC. 6
The NRC then sends those prints to the FBI C riminal 7

J ustice I nformation S ystem. In turn, the FBI through 8
law and statutory approval, provid es the data back to 9

us. We then send that back to the licensee. 10
The licensee reviewing official takes all of 11
this information together with the criminal history, 12
the credit checks, makes an evaluation, a determination 13

of whether that in di vidual is trust worthy and reliable 14
and then granted unescorted access. 15
For escorted access, there are procedures. 16
The plant has procedures. There is a visitor control 17
register, which they have to be entered into prior to 18
entering a plant or coming to the plant; confi rmation 19
of the visitor's identity. Whether or not they have 20
been denied access at another plant, that is checked; 21
visitor badges; escort training. The escorts have to 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 65

be trained in what the individual will be doing, 1
working on, what they are doing at the plant. The 2

escorts have to be in constant communication with 3
security, armed security. 4
And, if I may back up for just a minute, our 5
regulations, what

-- we regulate the NRC licensees 6
through 10 CFR, Code of Federal Regulations. In 7
particular, for acce ss authorization, you will see in 8
the next couple of slides, it is primarily done under 9
10 CFR 73.56. If somebody has been granted unescorted 10

access and it is within a 365

- day period, they can go 11
to another site. And the elements are on the left, the 12

con sent and advisement once again, the PHQ, the 13
personal history questionnaire; verification of true 14
identity; and the employment history evaluation; if it 15
is within 30 days, consent and advisement, personal 16
history questionnaire, verification of true identit y. 17
Next slide, please. Our regulations are 18
codified in 73.55, which is the physical security 19
requirements, which are also tied to 73.56. Fifty

20
seven has to do with the criminal history program. And 21
Part 26 is fitness for duty. That's drug and alcohol

. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 66

In 2010, a new rule was promulgated that the licensees 1
had to implement in March. It provided enhancements to 2
psychological assessments. It had to be done by a 3
professional psychologist, requires information sharing 4

between reactor licensees. And wha t that is, we 5
require that they have a system that anybody who has 6
been granted access or denied access has to be entered 7
into a system. The licensees currently use something 8

called the PADS. It is Personnel Access Database 9
System. We don't dictate whic h system they use, only 10
that all licensees have to have access to that. So, 11
going back, if a visitor shows up or anybody shows up, 12
that is one of the checks they do is go in there. And 13
have they ever been denied, it will be flagged within 14

PADS. 15

We expa nded our behavior observation 16
requirements. We have annual supervisor reviews of the 17
employees. Recently

-- well, in 2010, there was 18
something that occurred. An individual became 19

radicalized. It was in the media. He had worked at 20
five different plants , essentially was flying below the 21
radar. So what we did, the behavior observation 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 67

program, which I mentioned earlier, we worked with the 1
NCTC to have them review that, the Radicalization Unit 2
over there, particularly with things that would 3
identify peopl e that potentially are becoming 4
radicalized. So that program, the behavior observation 5
program, is currently being

-- those upgrades are 6
currently being incorporated into that program. 7
The reinvestigation of criminal history and 8
credit history records f or all individuals with 9
unescorted access, at the plant, there are groups of 10
people who have significant knowledge of the 11
safeguards, control room, the guards. We call it the 12
critical group. Their reinvestigation period is more 13
frequent. It is every thr ee years. And then we have 14
the normal population that is not the critical group. 15
And their reinvestigation period is longer. It is not 16
as frequent. 17
Next slide, please. We regulate through 10 18
CFR regulations, but we also provide guidance to the 19

licens ees through what we call reg guides, 566, 567 20
insider mitigation. The minimum IMP, insider 21
mitigation, elements are provided, security 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 68

determination; in other words, a criminal history, 1
background checks; number two, initial and random 2

substance abuse tes ting; three, psychological 3
assessments. And during the psych assessments, too, if 4
anything is detected, they can be referred to a medical 5
professional for further review, annual supervisor 6
review, and periodic reinvestigations. 7
The guidance that governs the access 8
authorization program is what we call NEI0301. We 9
worked in combination with the Nuclear Energy 10

Institute . And they prepare the guidance based on our 11
regulations, what the plants have to do. And we 12
endorse that guidance. The plants then com mit to that 13
guidance in their physical security plants. And it 14
actually becomes a condition of their license that NRC 15
issues to them. So they're bound by that. 16
Next slide, please. NEI0304 again is the 17
behavior observation. And we are currently upgrad ing 18
the training on that. And essentially what it boils 19
down to, to put it in simple words, if you see 20
something, say something. You get a diverse population 21
at the plants. You have nuclear engineers, the 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 69

laborers. And, you know, some people may feel t hat 1

t h e y don't want to rat o ut a coworker, a fellow laborer 2
or something. But we make it very clear and the 3
licensees make it very clear that they are required to. 4
If you see something, say something. 5
All of these programs, the fitness for duty, 6

the be havior observation, insider mitigation, are all 7
designed to work together. On the insider mitigation, 8
the denial, as I said earlier, as you proceed inward 9
into the plant, it becomes more stringent. The 10
requirements, to get into a vital area within the 11
pl ant, one of the requirements is a 31

- day vital area 12
access. In other words, the supervisor has to sign off 13
on anybody who is getting access to a vital area and 14
provide a reason why they need that continued access to 15
that area or what they are going to be doing. And that 16
has to be done every 31 days. 17

Self

- disclosure. You are required, anybody 18
who is arrested once they are granted unescorted access 19
and even before, when they are making application, they 20

have to make a self

- disclosure if they have ever be en 21
arrested for anything or charged, formally charged. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 70

In 2011, we were always looking to enhance our 1
program. We noticed a slight increase in the failure 2
to disclose. You might have a worker go out who has 3
been granted unescorted access, gets busted f or a DUI, 4
comes back to the plant, doesn't want to lose their 5
job. So they don't report that they have been 6
arrested. And we are working with the FBI. Next 7

Generation of CJIS right now, t hey have a program that 8

is called Rap Back . And we are going to b e included in 9
that pilot program. We have a draft MOA, memorandum of 10
agreement, which if someone is arrested and is put into 11
the NCI system, it will immediately notify us. And we 12
will, in turn, notify the licensee that this individual 13

should not be allow ed back on site. And so it should 14
provide us a good enhancement about failures to report. 15
Next slide, please. This is just a pictorial, 16
the initial background criminal history check that is 17
required, insider mitigation, behavior observation, 18

fitness fo r duty. It is all aimed at assuring 19
trustworthiness and reliability. 20
And bounding all of that is we have NRC 21
inspection process. What the licensee is required to 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 71

do, we have NRC inspectors who go out on a regular 1
basis to inspect the programs and make sure that what 2
they are required to do by regulations, that they are, 3
in fact, doing it. And with respect to the inspection 4
program, if they find there could be civil penalties, 5

there could be a notice of violation. And if it's 6
egregious, it could end up being pursuing a criminal 7
prosecution of it. 8
Next slide, please. In addition to the other 9
programs, in 2002, under Chairman Meserve, we developed 10

an MOU with the Terrorist Screening Center. Everybody 11
that is granted unescorted access or denied, they a re 12
entered in the PADS on a monthly basis. We take all 13

those names with a 12

- month retrospective look. And 14
that information is provided to the FBI Terrorist 15
Screening Center to determine whether it is a person of 16
interest on that list. And if there is, then we have 17
procedures on how to handle it. 18
Right now, again, as I said, we are always 19
looking to the future and trying to enhance the 20
program. The biometric identity of individuals is 21
paramount to us. And anybody can make up a document, 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 72

provide it. 1
So we are working with US VISIT . And also we 2
have a draft MOU with Department of Defense Biometrics 3
Identity Agency. That will give us

-- somebody who is 4
arrested in the United States may not be in an FBI 5
database, but they may show up in the AVIS, whic h is 6
the DOD. They have supporting partner agreements with 7
foreign countries and anywhere that they make 8
collections, anywhere that there is a military base. 9

And that's it. 10

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

process, we work together as an interagency team to try 12
to do away with as much overlap as possible to make 13

clear which agencies had jurisdiction and to have a 14
somewhat parallel structure in our processes and 15
reviews when it was feasible and possible. And this 16
chart was just put out by our Commerce International 17

Trade Administration . It is a very rough overview as 18
to who has jurisdiction in the nuclear field. When you 19
talk about nuclear power, what does Commerce have 20
jurisdiction? It is basically everything that no one 21

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

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 73

reactor, which is special nuclear material technology. 1
It's turbines and generators. You know, it's health 2
and safety equipment, general infrastructure, materials 3
and manufacturing. And the good thing about it as far 4

a s nuclear power, the vast majority of those items that 5
are in a nuclear power plant that Commerce controls 6
have very limited licensing requirements. 7
Commerce also has a part, as Rich mentioned, 8
in the NSG, Nuclear Suppliers Group. We administrate 9

the du al

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

nuclear and a non

- nuclear end use. And Commerce 11
licenses both technology as well as hardware. Many 12
things on the nuclear suppliers dual

- user list are more 13

aimed at an enrichment

- type end use or weapons end use. 14
There aren't that many unique nuclear power things 15
except for maybe zirconium material, which is used in 16

tubes and reactors and a few other materials. Most 17
things have a little bit more of a tint towards an 18
enrichment concern or weapons concern. 19

Also i n the Commerce control list, we try to 20
be as specific as possible. We have parameters. For 21
instance, we don't control all vacuum pumps. As you 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 74

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

an enrichment

- type end use. So, again, we try to limi t 2
our scope of controls and make it specific, I think, as 3
Rich tried to do with his as well, until some people 4
know really what we are concerned about. 5

We also have our broad controls as well. 6
These are the nuclear end use controls. Sometimes you 7

hear people talk about catch

- up. These apply to 8
everything which is subject to the AR. I mean, it 9
applies to that vacuum pump as well as your pencil, 10
your pen, your coffee cup. This will impose a license 11
requirement, anything subject to the AR for certain 12

ac tivities, nuclear explosive activities, unsafeguarded 13
nuclear activities, and the following activities, 14
whether safeguarded or not: enrichment facilities or 15
heavy water production facilities. These apply to 16
everywhere except for very few countries. A fe w 17
countries are exempt, like Great Britain, France, some 18
of the NATO countries, Japan. It also applies to 19
everyone. Like DOE exempts themselves from their own 20
regulations. We don't exempt DOE from ours. So we do 21
impose a license requirement upon DOE if they are 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 75

working in the nuclear

- related area of certain 1

countries. 2
Next slide. But, again, what is not subject 3

to the 744.2 controls? At first it sounds like 4
everything nuclear. But mining and milling are 5
excluded, just as they are in Rich's; fusion reactors 6

Tokomak and Iter. Commerce does license certain things 7
to the Iter program, but it is predominantly dealing 8
with who are the partners in the Iter program? And in 9
general, fusion is exempt. 10
Also, most of you are familiar with IAEA 11
safeguard fac ilities. In a previous slide, it talked 12
about unsafeguarded activities. Those are 13
traditionally your unsafeguarded power plants. But if 14
you're dealing with the safeguarded power plants in the 15
world, in the vast majority of the world, generally 16

there is no licensing requirement unless that item 17
itself would require a license to that particular 18

country. For instance, when we get in t o, say, we 19
recently received the export inquiry f or stainless 20
steel pipe for use in a nuclear power plant in the PRC. 21

In 74 4.2, in general, nuclear power plants, 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 76

commercial power plants in the PRC do not trigger a 1
licensing requirement under Part 744.2. So if you had 2
to export stainless steel pipe or a turbine or 3
switching gear to like Qinshan or Daya Bay or something 4

like th at, there is no additional licensing requirement 5
put upon it. 6

Next slide. Because I am a distributor of 7
college textbooks, I am going to get requests for 8
foreign customers for textbooks on nuclear engineering. 9
And, just like under the 810 regulations, textbooks are 10
what we consider in the public domain. They are 11

excluded from controls. And we tried to work so we 12
have a common understanding between both regimes, both 13
licensing regimes, as to what constitutes in the public 14

domain. That could also be th ings like, you know, 15
certain public events, like the American Nuclear 16
Society has a meeting. You present papers and things 17
like that. We generally consider those to be excluded 18

from control. 19

Commerce also maintains what is called an 20
entity list. These are lists of entities for which a 21
license is required for all items generally. And, 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 77

again, sometimes it can be for nuclear reasons. It can 1
be on there for a lot of other reasons, some for 2
missile proliferation reasons, some for doing some 3
exports relate d to IEDs that showed up in Iraq. This 4
is, for example, one of the Russian entities. And, 5
yet, the fact that someone is on the entity list means 6
that there is a licensing requirement. It does not 7
mean in itself that no licenses will be required. 8

As Di ck mentioned, BARC is on our entity list, 9

Bhab ha Atomic Research Centre in India. We realize 10
they do a lot of work, a lot of some nuclear weapons, 11
some basic scientific. Yes, they have a license 12
requirement for all items subject to the ER, but that 13

doesn 't mean that every license will be denied. It 14
means that you need to get a license that will be 15
reviewed at the end use, the commodity suitability, and 16
decide whether or not to approve it. 17
We, too, have a deemed export rule. We need 18
to get a license be fore leasing control of technology 19
or source code to a foreign person, as formerly 20
referred to as deemed export rule. 21

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

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 78

about deemed export, sometimes people get confused. If 1
you want to export technology to a Fre nch company and 2
the French employee comes to your office and you talk, 3
that is not a deemed export. You are exporting it to 4
the French country. It is more akin to we are having a 5
foreign national coming to work at your facility. And 6
he is not working fo r a host company. So you are not 7
transferring technology back to his host, person who 8
hires him, person

-- you're bringing it to a foreign 9
person working in your facility, not to an entity back 10
in his home country. 11

Next slide. In the Commerce Departmen t , we 12
look more at a person's most recent country citizenship 13

or permanent residence. So if someone was born in 14
China, went to Great Britain, became a Great Britain 15
citizen, we treat them as they're from Great Britain. 16
We also have certain exemptions und er the deemed export 17
rule, just like Rich does. You persons, if a person is 18
granted U.S. citizenship, they might have been born in 19
China, they came here, and become a U.S. citizen. So 20
they are the same under our rules, also has a green 21

card for those who are granted protected individual, 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 79

such as refugee status. 1
We have had some interest regarding the Part 6 2

of form I

- 129. That is an export certification. It 3
talks about if you are having a foreign national 4
country thing and you are getting a visa. The y have a 5
license as it is required from the Department of 6

Commerce, Department of State to release technology or 7
technical data or if they do, do you have to get a 8

license. 9
Next slide. So, really, with respect to the 10
Commerce Department, how does that r eally impact? If 11
you are a nuclear power plant operator, for the most 12
part, as I showed you in that first slide, most things 13
that are Commerce's jurisdiction at a nuclear power 14
plant don't require a license to most destinations. So 15
if you had a Chinese n ational coming to work in your 16
nuclear power plant, you don't have to worry about him 17
looking at your turbines or your generators. There 18
still may be a license requirement, which will be 19
addressed under the NRC site access requirements, but 20

as far as our rules so you don't have to go to Commerce 21
and say, "Do I need to get a license for this dual

- use 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 80

part?" because he may see it, you know, what if I am a 1
valve manufacturer. Again, it depends what type of 2
valves you make, but for the most part, even if a 3

li cense is required, it will generally be approved. 4
Chinese or Indian nationals possible, again, 5
you know, for the most part, many of these technologies 6
don't require license to China or India with respect to 7
a nuclear power plant. If they are Chinese or Indian 8
nationals and they are still affiliated with a host 9
entity that triggers a licensing requirement, license 10
will be required, but that is almost more

-- if you had 11

an individual who was associated with BARC and Indira 12

Gandhi coming to work in your pow er plant, we almost 13
view that more as an export to BARC and Indira Gandhi. 14
If you are someone who worked at Indira Gandhi five 15
years ago went to work for Tata and is now coming here, 16
we look at that more as just an Indian national. And, 17
you know, we just talked about trying to put in time 18

deadlines. 19
In the Department of Commerce, we review Part 20
810 authorizations. I guess we give our

-- do we only 21

review like

-- no. I guess we give our concurrence. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 81

We don't have a real say like the State Department 1

d oes. But, again, our review typically takes a week or 2
two max. DOE does a very thorough job writing up these 3
studies. And we just generally concur in most 4

instances. 5
We have a timeline as well. In our system, 6
the Department of State, Department of En ergy, 7
Department of Defense are actually voting agencies. 8

And we have an escalation process as well, which in 9
theory, it's up in the present, day 90, though. I have 10
been doing this for 23 years. It has never gotten 11
quite that high. But, again, so we ha ve a timeline, 12
just as DOE has instituted a timeline. And we also 13
have an electronic system I think DOE is working on as 14
well. I mean, our system, I would say it will be far 15
more complex than DOE's will need to be. So hopefully 16
they won't take some of t he bad things, which we have 17

done in ours. 18
That is basically just a very quick overview. 19
And I hope you can see from that that

-- you know, I 20
think in this new regulation from DOE that there has 21
been a real attempt to make, you know, a parallelism 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 82

where it's possible and also to try to avoid a lot of 1
those questions that we get, you know, "Should I go to 2
DOE and get an 810? Should we come to Commerce?" But 3
I can truthfully say in all the years I have done this, 4
when someone does come to us, we are very good about 5
adjudicating who has jurisdiction. We don't have the 6
many things that we and the State Department have, 7
whether it is a munitions item. For the most part, 8
most of these inquiries are subtle with a phone call to 9
Rich or phone call to Brooke or an email. So for the 10
most part, we hope you can figure it out by yourselves, 11
but if you can't, it's not a huge burden to contact one 12
of the three of us. And we will work it out relatively 13
quickly as to what agency you should go to. 14

MS. STRANGIS: O kay

. T hank you to all of our 15
speakers. And now on to the part that you have all 16
been waiting for. We are going to take questions. And 17
the way it is going to work is we are going to take two 18
questions from in the room and then two from the phone 19

and then b ack and forth. As a reminder, please, for 20
people in the room, don't start speaking until you have 21
the microphone in hand, which someone will bring to 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 83

you. And for everyone, if you could state your name 1
and affiliation and spell your name, if possible, fo r 2
the transcript? That would be very helpful. 3
So let's start in the room. Does anyone have 4
a question? 5
MS. TEPLINSKY: Hi. Elina Teplinsky from 6
Pillsbury, E

- L

- I

- N

- A T

- E

- P

- L

- I

- N

- S

- KY. T his is a 7
question for I guess both Rich and Dick Stratford with 8
respect to the three countries China, Russia , and 9
India. Dick, you specifically were talking about the 10
distinction between civil and military activities in 11
those countries. And, Rich, you mentioned in the 12
discussion of process improvements a potential fa st 13
track. Would there be any consideration or a fast 14

track for activities in countries like Russia and 15
China, for example, for exports that have previously 16

been done before? For example, you know, if I have an 17
AP2000 reactor and I have already sold that to a number 18
of countries, I've gotten the specific authorizations, 19
I am applying for new specific authorizations for China 20
and Russia, since a lot of the review has been done 21
already, a lot of the analysis, would you consider 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 84

doing some sort of a fast trac k process when the 1
technology scope is the same and those exports have 2

been conducted before? 3

MS. STRANGIS: So, unfortunately , that is a 4
little outside the scope of what is in the supplemental 5
rule. So we would just ask that you would submit it in 6

writ ing for us to consider,

-- 7
MS. TEPLINSKY: Okay. 8

MS. STRANGIS:

-- rather than answer here 9
today. Sorry. 10
Anyone else in the room? Up front, I think. 11
MS. MANN: Thank you. I am Melissa Mann with 12
the uranium enrichment company Urenco , U

- R

- E

- N

- C

- O. I 13
had a question about the deemed export for Rich and 14
possibly for Mr. Resner. Mr. Resner went into some 15

detail on the access authorization for nuclear power 16
plants. Does the deemed export authorization extend to 17
employed foreign nationals approved for access to fuel 18
cycle facilities? And is there any additional overlay 19

for a need to know? 20

MR. GOOREVICH: From the 810 standpoint, t he 21
way we wrote it was any U.S. facility that is done in 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 85

accordance with NRC access rules and regulations. So 1
to us, it would be any place that the NRC has this 2
program, is implementing it. So whether or not your 3
facility is meeting all of the NRC requirements I leave 4

to Mr. Resner. 5

MR. RESNER: All right. The types of 6
facilities, it depends on the type of material at t he 7
facility. In the category 1's, it is usually a top 8

secret with a single scope background, five

- year 9
investigation period. In the category 3, it is usually 10
a secret with a national agency check and a ten

- year 11
reinvestigation period. 12
And, again, it de pends on the type of 13
material. Some of the category 1 facilities have dual 14
regulation, both DOE and the NRC. So they are subject 15
to the DOE HRP program as well as the NRC program. And 16
we have reciprocity with DOE in those cases, those 17

instances. 18

MS. S TRANGIS: Okay. Let's go to a phone call 19
question. 20
OPERATOR: If you wish to ask a question on 21
the phone, please press *, then 1 at this time. Okay. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 86

Our first question is from Ajay. Please go ahead. 1

MR. KUNTAMUKKA LA : Yep. This is Ajay 2

Kuntamukkal a calling from Hogan Lovells . And the last 3
name is spelled K

- U

- N

- T

- A

- M

- U

- K

- K

- A

- L

- A, and I hope I 4
haven't taken up my question time. 5
My question is on the definition of use in the 6
new proposed rulemaking. The definition of use seems 7
to differ slightly s omewhat from the definition of use 8
that is in the 2011 version of the proposed rule. In 9
the 2011 version of the rule, the word "and" is used. 10

So the use definition lists a number of use

- related 11

activities and then uses "and." And in the new 12
proposed, re vised proposed, rule, DOE is using "or" and 13

wanted to understand whether there is any significance 14
to that change. And was that meant to be different 15
from the approach the Commerce Department takes with 16
regard to the use, which is that you must have all 17

e lements of use covered in order to be eligible for the 18

use definition? 19
Thank you. 20

MR. GOOREVICH: Yes. S o the question about 21
the term of the definition use and why we changed it 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 87

from using the word "and" in there to "or," well, the 1
issue simply was th at our intent always was to cover 2

each of the listed activities separately , that very 3
rarely would we find somebody whose use would be 4
operating, installing, maintaining, repairing, 5
overhauling, and refurbishing all at the same time. 6
And so, although we u nderstand Commerce has a different 7
view of use as it applies to their regulations for us, 8
use does with the "or" means that that is the way that 9
our intention was to read it going forward in the reg. 10

We had borrowed a definition from Commerce 11

without ful ly understanding how Commerce was 12
implementing it. After discussions related to 13
something else, we came to understand it. Commerce was 14
implementing it differently than we intended to. So 15
that's why we made the change. In our sense, if you 16

have to do al l of those things at the same time, then 17
very rarely would the definition of use ever come into 18
play with regards to these rules. 19

MS. STRANGIS: N ext question on the phone. 20
OPERATOR: There are no more questions in 21

queue. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 88

MS. STRANGIS: In the room? Yes? Right here. 1
MS. MEYER: Thank you. Lindsay Meyer from 2

Venable. It's L

- I

- N

- D

- S

- A

- Y M

- E

- Y

- E

- R . Thank you for 3
looking to harmonize some of the rules with regard to 4
the deemed export. My question is whether or not there 5
has been consideration give n as to dual nationals under 6

the 810.6 ( b ) provision. 7

MS. STRANGIS: I think that is probably also 8
something that we'd want in a comment form so we can 9

consider it. 10
MS. MEYER: Okay. Thank you. 11

MS. STRANGIS: Yes? In the room? Over there. 12

MR. GAR RISH: Yes. I'm Ted Garrish from 13

Chem2Hill . And the last name is spelled G

- A

- R

- R

- I

- S

- H

. 14
Rich, I would like to follow up on Ajay's question on 15

use. H ow do you h andle consulting on the subjects, 16
even though you don't do them? 17

MS. STRANGIS: Again, that is something that 18
we would want in question, written form. 19

In the back? Madeleine? 20
MR. COHN: Hi. My name is Jeremy Cohn

-- it's 21

C

- O

- H

- N

-- from Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 89

With the original notice in 2011

-- and I appreciate 1

that Mr. Goorev ich sort of addressed this point that 2
there was almost a doubling of the number of countries 3
that would require specific authorization under the 4
proposed rule change. The justification now still in 5

the supplemental notice was that it was saying it was 6

"in recognition of the facts" that global markets for 7
peaceful nuclear energy and nuclear fuel cycle trading 8
relationships have become more dynamic in recent years. 9
And I know, Mr. Goorevich, you addressed this briefly. 10
I was hoping you could elaborate on w hat exactly that 11
meant that markets were more dynamic than in recent 12
years and sort of why it justified the change in the 13
proposed rule. 14

MR. GOOREVICH: Well, I think what we are 15

see i n g is when we say, "dynamic," it is really a sense 16
of globalization, me aning that applications that we 17
were starting to see weren't one entity to one entity. 18
It was groups of companies coming together to be able 19
to provide a broader spectrum of technology and bits 20
and pieces of technology. And they were being 21

transferred to potentially second and third parties to 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 90

support an activity in the final end user. 1
So what we were seeing, was globalization 2
really taking place? And when we looked at how we were 3
implementing the current rule, it was really point to 4
point a model, not one that was very flexible in the 5
way that it needed to be flexible as we were seeing 6
more and more specialization of activities within a 7
broader project taking place. And we were seeing the 8
market change, the marketplace change, with regard to 9

what kind s of technologies, what kind of support, what 10
kind of assistance U.S. companies, applicants were 11
considering. 12

And I think the third point, as I mentioned, 13
was we were seeing the market evolve. So places where 14
we now today view as being potentially vibra nt markets 15
for not just reactor sales and other facility sales but 16
also in terms of providing support, operational 17
support, for different nuclear installations around the 18
world, what was changing. And so we felt that all of 19
that was creating what we calle d in the preamble to the 20

SNOPR a dynamic marketplace for us. 21

MS. STRANGIS: A re there any additional 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 91

questions on the phone? 1

OPERATOR : No questions in queue. 2

MS. STRANGIS: Over here? 3
MR. PIERCY: Craig Piercy, American Nuclear 4
Society, P

- I

- E

- R

- C

- Y . Rich, I just want to say ANS is 5
pleased that you are moving forward with a revised rule 6
and hope that this will sort of be the beginning of an 7
adap tive phase where we see almost regularized order in 8
terms of updates. 9
Question. In the SNOPR, there wa s some 10

discussion of

-- there was an economic analysis done 11
about how things will work under the current reg versus 12
the revised reg. Can you talk a little bit more about 13

the conclusions of that report, what you found? 14

MR. GOOREVICH: Okay. Yes. W hen w e were 15
putting together the supplemental rule, obviously there 16
were some questions about the country list and the 17
potential impact of the number of countries moving from 18
one potential classification to another potential 19

classification. 20
And in talking int ernally within the 21
government, we made the determination that the rule was 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 92

to be what was considered to be economically 1
significant, which meant that we had to put together 2
essentially a market impact study. And we have 3

included that both on the DOE and D epartment of 4
Commerce websites, the ITA website, Department of 5

Commerce. And it also was made available I think as 6
part of the Federal Register announcement or maybe it 7
is just on the website. I can't remember exactly. I 8
know it is definitely on the web sites. 9
And essentially what we did is

-- and if I get 10
this a little wrong, I am going to ask Tom Wood , who is 11

from PNNL and one of the economists we used, to jump in 12
here to help me get this right. I am not an economist, 13
and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last 14
night. So I might get this a little bit backwards. 15
Essentially what we did is the approach we took was to 16
take a look at the potential marketplace for reactor 17
sales as that was really a good way to quantify the 18
impact of the rule and th en looked at the countries and 19
how they sort of moved from one list to another with 20
regards to the potential value of reactor sales within 21
those particular countries. And the way we did it was 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 93

to look at a number of different well

- known and 1
published econ omic or market surveys of moving forward. 2
And essentially what we found was that because 3
of what we would take as the agreed potential of the 4
reactor sales in countries that had 123s, we had 123 5
agreements with, that were on the current specific 6

authoriz ation list that would slide to the general 7
authorization, we came up with a number of what the 8
value was based upon these four forecasts. And then we 9
looked at the number of countries that are currently on 10
the general authorization list that would go to 11

s pecific and what the forecast said of what the value 12
was and then compared them. 13
Our numbers depending upon the surveys that 14
you look at, I think three of the four surveys showed 15
that the economic impact was a net positive with the 16

switch. The fourth on e was a very, very high estimate 17
where I don't think that anyone, any of the people that 18
we talked to, reasonably felt that that fourth estimate 19
was something that was going to really come to 20

fruition. I can't remember the exact number of 21

reactors to be b uilt by 2030, but it was somewhere in 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 94

the neighborhood of like I think 300 reactors to be 1
built between now and 2030, which I don't think any of 2
us really think is going to happen. 3
But I think what might be useful is to ask 4
Tom, if he is on the line stil l, to chime in and see if 5
I explained that correctly. Tom? 6
Okay. Well, I don't hear Tom. So I am going 7
to take it that I did explain that correctly. But 8
essentially that is the sense that we came up with, was 9
when you look at the market, the market f orecasts, and 10
then as you apply the countries and what is the 11
forecast for each of those countries come back, it 12
really comes up to be in our view a net positive of the 13
change. And I think that it is clear that from another 14
sense angle that Dick and I tal ked about, for those 15

countries for which the government believes there will 16
be significant nuclear trade, there is every attempt to 17
put a 123 in place, which would then allow us to add 18
those countries to the general authorization list. 19

MS. STRANGIS: Any one else in the room? Front 20
row, right here. 21
MR. BLEE: Yes. Hi. David Blee, US Nuclear 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 95

Infrastructure Council. That's B

- L

- E

- E . Let me add 1

that my remarks here reflect the consensus of the 2
council, although not necessarily the views of 3

individual me mber c ompanies and o rganizations. 4
You know, this is obviously an extremely 5
important area for those of us involved in nuclear 6
commerce, particularly given the enlightenment in the 7
markets going on overseas. So, to this end, we 8
appreciate the hard work a nd dedication of the many who 9

have looked at the NOPR 2011, heard the comments, and 10
responded accordingly. We think while we reserve 11
judgment on this, we will take full avail of the 12
meeting to follow in the 90

- day process, we are neither 13
here to praise or bury you at this point. 14
But we are encouraged by what we have seen so 15
far. I think some of the process reforms, the tighter 16
definitions, and clearly the transparency of this 17
process is a stark difference in terms of the last, of 18
the 2011, exercise. We had some serious specific 19
policy concerns with the 2011 NOPR, but we also had 20
some serious process concerns with respect to the way 21
that was laid out, longer comment period this time and 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 96

so on and so forth. 1
I am still looking for a question here, by the 2
way. You did mention process reforms of the 810 3
procedures. And, again, we are very supportive of e

4
licensing. The Commerce Department has successfully 5

done e

- business. We think we are happy to see the 6
destovepiping up here. Rarely do you see this ar ray of 7
agencies working together, sitting so closely together 8
either. So the coordination there we think is very 9
encouraging. 10
But I would say what we hope is that going 11
forward, that you take the lessons learned from 2011 12
and apply them to these other t hings you are talking 13
about, such as six

- sigma; e

- licensing; as well as, we 14
think, extending into some other areas where perhaps 15
improvements and refinements are needed, such as the 16

123s. 17
So I guess the only question I have is, when 18
is the September meet ing? 19

MS. STRANGIS: I d on't think we have a date 20
yet. We are looking at late September probably, but we 21
will put a notice out well ahead of time. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 97

MR. BLEE: Okay. Thank you. 1
MR. CATES: Hi. Dwight Cates with Fluor. 2

Last name is C

- A

- T

- E

- S. I had just a quick question, 3
following up on the 77 countries that went from 4
eligible to ineligible for a general authorization 5
under the SNOPR. For those 77 countries, has

-- and I 6

guess this is a question for Rich. Do you have an 7

estimate or some type of an understanding of with that 8
change, how many more specific authorizations or other 9
interactions you are going to have based on that change 10

from licensees , people seeking authorization ? Will 11
there be a dozen? Will there be two dozen, just based 12

on current work overseas by companies that are in those 13
countries right now? 14
And then, secondly, would there be in your 15
estimation some commercial impact and delay of 16
activities in those countries that may be ongoing or 17
about to occur based on this change? 18

MR. GO OREVICH: Okay. Yes. A ctually , we do 19

have some estimates on that. When we first looked at 20
this, we took a look at obviously every country that is 21
currently in the general authorizatio n list or needs to 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 98

be reporting of those countries to be in compliance 1
with the 810. When we took a look at those back then, 2
what we saw was in a given year

-- or no. It was 3
actually over a three

- year period. Over a 3

- year 4
period, we saw something like only 30

-- 30 what? 5
Thirty

- seven? Thirty

- nine. Sorry. Thirty

- nine 6
reports of general authorizations over a 3

- year period 7

to those 77 countries. 8
Of that, most of those, I think something like 9
21 of those, reports dealt with what would be foreign 10
nationals working at U.S. utilities. So under the 11
supplemental, those woul d be generally authorized. So 12
from the 39 minus the 21, we get down to 18. So we see 13
that we are potentially somewhere along the lines of 14

about 18. 15
But, having said that, when I move UAE, 16
Ukraine, the Mexico, Chile PSAs, and Kazakhstan out of 17
that, I t hink move those 810s, for which we are 18
probably seeing close to about a dozen when you add 19
those up, maybe a little bit more. And so the 20
difference might be a handful, three, four, or five, 21
per year. That is based upon our existing data. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 99

Now, if countr ies weren't reporting under the 1
general authorization, then this results in something 2
different. I mean, obviously we don't know that. But 3
under our numbers, we are not expecting a huge increase 4
at all. And, in fact, you know, probably in terms of 5

time

- wise and resource

- wise, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, UAE 6
because they are associated with larger potential deals 7
and we don't see any of those larger potential deals 8
right now in any of those 77 countries, the time for us 9

to be able to do those sort of 4 or 5 in t hose 77 10
should be relatively easy and should be relatively 11
short once we get the assurances from those countries. 12

MS. STRANGIS: Any other questions in the 13

room? 14
MS. BERRIGAN: Hi, Rich. This is Carol 15
Berrigan with the Nuclear Energy Institute. That' s C

16

A

- R

- O

- L B

- E

- R

- R

- I

- G

- A

- N . And the Nuclear Energy 17
Institute was in the slide. You can just put us down 18

as NEI . Rich, I had a s pecific question for you 19
regard ing general authorization with Mexico. I noticed 20
that in the SNOPR, you have includ ed activit ies related 21

to INFCIRC / 203, parts 1 and 2 and INFCIRC / 825. This 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 100

largely covers the activities at Laguna Verde . Would 1
it also include additional units at Laguna Verde if 2

Mexico decided to move forward with them? 3
MS. STRANGIS: I think that is probably b est 4

received in a written comment. 5
MS. BERRIGAN: Okay. 6
MS. STRANGIS: Sorry. Anyone else? Over 7

here. 8

MR. B LEE : Yes. S ince so many of the 9
questions here have been submitted for written comment, 10
could you reilluminate the process for that in terms of 11
when? What is going to happen in terms of submitted 12
written comment? And how are you going to deal with 13

that? 14

MS. STRANGIS: So t his time I believe there is 15

a 90

- day comment period. And as we start receiving 16
comments, the program is evaluating the m, looking at 17
them. We looked at every single one we received. And 18
that is why you see a lot of the changes that you see 19
from the original NOPR to the supplemental. 20
MR. BLEE: In other words, you will take them 21
for comment for 90 days. You are not goi ng to be doing 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 101

them

-- sometimes in the process, some of these 1
processes, they will provide clarification to 2
procedural questions, things like that, and guidance in 3
terms of interpretation. So essentially there is a 4
blanket comment period for 90 days? No responses will 5
be provided? 6
MS. STRANGIS: That is my understanding. Let 7

me confirm. Yes. That is. 8
MR. BLEE: That is your understanding? 9

MS. STRANGIS: Yes. 10
MR. BLEE: Okay. 11

MS. STRANGIS: Down in the front. 12

OPERATOR: And, again, if you h ave a question, 13

p lease press *1 at this time. 14

MS. STRANGIS: Is there a question on the 15
phone? 16
OPERATOR: There are no questions on the phone 17

line. 18
MS. STRANGIS: Thank you. 19

MS. TEPLINSKY: Hi. Elina Teplinsky with 20
Pillsbury . Hopefully this is ju st a clarification 21
question that you can answer. W ith r espect to the 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 102

operational safety general authorizations at 1
810.6(c)(2) and (c)(3), (c)(2) provides operational 2
safety to existing nuclear reactors. And (c)(3) talks 3
about existing proposed and new

- bu ilt reactors. If you 4
could clarify the difference between those two general 5

authorizations? 6
And also with respect to the 45

- day notice 7
period, it states, "DOE approves activity in writing 8
within 45 days, 45 calendar days, of the notice." If 9

DOE does no t provide a response in writing, does that 10
mean the activity is generally authorized and the 11
person can go ahead in conducting it? 12

MR. GOOREVICH: Okay. So the intent behind 13
the operational safety Elina talked about in 14
810.6(c)(2) and (c)(3), the differ ence between (c)(2) 15
and (c)(3) isn't the new versus existing. The 16
difference is in (c)(2), what we are really talking 17
about here is a U.S. person providing furnishing 18
operational safety to existing safeguarded civilian 19

nuclear reactors outside the United States. And the 20
idea being here is if you meet the definition of 21
operational safety, it would be generally authorized. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 103

And the way that we have this set up is that if we 1
believe that it is going to be generally authorized 2
under the operational safety, wr ite us and tell us that 3
that is what you plan to do. Within 45 days, we will 4
notify you that we either agree or disagree that you 5
meet the, that the activity meets the, definition of 6
it. And then if it's that we agree that it does meet 7
the definition, th en you will just get a note back from 8
us saying, "Yes. We agree it is generally authorized" 9
and provide the reporting in accordance with 810.11 in 10

the reporting requirement section. 11
In subsection (c)(3), what that is about is 12
about having U.S. persons f urnishing technical 13

information to a foreign person who is helping U.S. 14
nuclear reactors increase their operational safety. 15

And there the difference is overseas with the overseas 16
version, we couldn't envision a situation where for a 17
new build, we needed t o, someone needed to, provide 18
operational safety support because the reactor really 19
hasn't been built yet. That would be part of, as we 20
would see it, just the 810 authorization with regards 21
to building the reactor itself. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 104

In the U.S., obviously there co uld be a 1

situation where somebody who is proposing to build a 2
reactor wants a peer review done on its potential 3
workings and potential operations of that existing 4
reactor as part of the NRC licensing requirements for 5
that reactor, part of the startup for t hat reactor. 6

And we wanted to make sure that that was clarified that 7
that would also be generally authorized if it met the 8
definition of operational safety. And, again, just let 9
us know that that is what is going on 45 days before it 10
happens. And we wil l send you back a note saying that 11
we agree that it is generally authorized. 12

MS. STRANGIS: D o we have any other questions 13

in the room? Right here. 14
MR. JONES: Hi. This is Ted Jones with NEI, 15

and it's T

- E

- D J

- O

- N

- E

- S. My question relates to 16
reportin g requirements. In the 2011 NOPR, the 17
reporting requirements for general authorizations had 18
been deleted. And given that the NOPR would have 19

drama tically tightened eligibility for general 20
authorization, the changes to the country list, it made 21

some sense that the reporting requirements would be 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 105

commensurably eased. The SNOPR proposes to reinstate 1
these requirements. What is the basis for this 2

decision and the increased regulatory burden that it 3
would bring about? 4

MR. GOOREVICH: Q uite frankly , it was a 5

mistake in the NOPR. It should have been reporting 6
requirements for general authorization as it was. It 7
got past us. We noticed it as soon as it went out, but 8
it was too late to change it. We have essentially just 9

restated into the SNOPR what is in t he current 10
regulation with regards to the reporting requirements, 11
but we have hopefully clarified it to make the 12
reporting requirements a little more uniform and a 13
little easier for everyone to move forward. 14

MS. STRANGIS: A nyone else? 15

MS. BERRIGAN: R ich, it is Carol Berrigan 16
again with NEI. I have a question regarding the 17
wording that you have in the SNOPR . Originally you had 18
added to the SNOPR new exclusions for publicly 19
available information and publicly available 20
technology, but there had formerl y been a general 21
authorization for open meetings with a definition for 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 106

it, which has since been deleted in this recent 1
publication. Is the intention that open meetings would 2
be enveloped under public information and publicly 3
available technology? Is that the intention and how 4

that should be read? 5

MR. GOOREVICH: Yes. F or those on the phone, 6
yes. I was shaking my head yes. There is no intention 7
to change that at all, but in the effort to make the 8
definition consistent with Commerce and with NRC, we 9

ch anged the words. But our senses would be that yes, 10
open meetings would fall within that scope of publicly 11

available information. 12
MS. BERRIGAN: Okay. Great. Another question 13
for you is regards to peer assessments. In the 14
preamble language, there was some discussion of 15
organizations like INPO and WANO conducting peer 16
assessments as important to assuring global nuclear 17
safety. And although the SNOPR preamble discusses 18
this, it only provides general authorization for State 19
Department or NRC

- approved pro grams on a general basis 20
under 10 CFR 810.2(c)(1) or 810.6(d). How do you 21
envision a process for this going forward in terms of 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 107

peer assessment ? Is this something that folks would 1
approach the NRC or State Department about or would 2

this be on a one

- off b asis each time one of these peer 3
assessments is going on? Forty

- five days in advance 4
they would

-- is that the intention? I am just trying 5
to understand from the preamble to what is in the rule 6

what the intention there is. 7

MS. STRANGIS: I apologize ag ain, but that 8
sort of explanation would be something that would look 9

for i n a written c omment. 10

A nyone else ? If there are no other questions, 11
keep in mind that if we decline to answer your question 12
today

-- actually, yes? 13

MS. CHAUDHARI: This is Preeti Chaudhari with 14
the Department of Energy. And I just wanted to clarify 15
that the comments that are received in writing will be 16
responded to not during the open comment period but in 17
the final rule. So there will be consideration, great 18

consideration , of y our comments. We welcome them, look 19
forward to them, and would love to receive them. And 20
they will be responded to, just not during the open 21
comment period. 22

### Capital Reporting Company

866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 108

MS. STRANGIS: Thank you. 1
If there is nothing else, thank you all so 2
much for coming. And th ank you for those on the phone 3

who took the time to call in. We all look forward to 4
working with you all in the future. I am sure your 5
escorts will be happy to stop at a restroom on the way 6
out. And have a great afternoon. 7
(Whereupon, at 3 : 37 p .m., th e Part 810 8
revisions rollout meeting was concluded.) 9