11/18/2013 1

Proposed Changes to DOE Part 810

Assistance to Foreign Nuclear Activities
Outline

• Part 810 Process Improvement 

– Mr. Richard Goorevich, Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA)

– Mr. Richard J. K. Stratford, Department of State

– Mr. Jeff Wilkins, (DOE/NNSA) 

– Q & A 

• Part 810 Proposed Rulemaking Overview

– Mr. Richard Goorevich, (DOE/NNSA)

– Mr. Tom Wood, Mr. Chris Toomey, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL)

– Q & A

2
Introduction

Background on Part 810

11/18/2013 3
Scope of Part 810

• Part 810 implements Sec. 57 b. of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) 

• Sec. 57 b. Prohibits all assistance to foreign atomic energy 

activities, direct or indirect, in production or development of 

special nuclear material (SNM)...

• Unless authorized by the Secretary of Energy

• After a determination that such activity will not be inimical to the 

interest of the United States

• Covers SNM activities whether for weapons or commercial 

purpose

11/18/2013 4

Inimicality determination is key
Scope of Part 810

• Part 810 classifies assistance as:

• Exempt(§810.2) – in scope of §57 b. but regulation unnecessary

• “Generally Authorized” (§810.6) – broad categories of assistance that 

are not inimical and do not require specific approval

• Requiring a Specific Authorization (§810.7) and inimicality 

determination by the Secretary 

• Most assistance is exempt or generally authorized

11/18/2013 5

Part 810 establishes pathways to authorization
Rulemaking Schedule

• September 2011 -- NOPR issued

• December 2011 -- comments received

• 12/11 – 7/13 -- revise and review supplemental NOPR 

(SNOPR)

• August 2 &5 -- SNOPR published and public meeting 

• November 15 -- second SNOPR public meeting

• November 29 -- SNOPR public comments due

11/18/2013 6
Process Improvement

Part 810 Process Improvement

11/18/2013 7
Current Specific Authorization Process

11/18/2013 8

Stage I Initial Review

NA-24: Analysis and 

recommendation

Reviews

* NNSA Staff

* DOE Nuclear Energy

* Legal

Send approval recommendation 

to interagency for review

Stage II Agency Review

• Interagency review

• State, Commerce, NRC and 

DoD

• State requests formal 

assurances from host 

government

• Assurances received

Stage III Approval

• NA-24 draft license 

approval 

recommendation

• Review: NNSA staff, DOE 

NE and legal

• Secretary approval

• Issue license
What we learned from commenters

• Specific authorization process is considered slow, opaque and 

unpredictable

• Commenters sought to exempt or generally authorize 

countries, technologies, or transactions to avoid the time 

consuming specific authorization process 

• Commenters offered many process improvement ideas

• Process improvement is key to better regulation

11/18/2013 9

Fix the process to improve overall 

implementation 
Qualities of a good 810 Process

1. Effective threat reduction in a changing world. 

2. Open, transparent, predictable, and understandable 

regulation. 

3. Efficient regulation that performs the mission without 

wasting time or money. 

4. Effective nuclear trade support for companies competing in 

global civil nuclear markets.

11/18/2013 10

Striking a balance to promote trade 

without increasing proliferation risk
Process improvement objectives

• Make process more transparent, predictable, and 

understandable

• Reduce specific authorization time in process

BUT

• Continue to meet obligations under AEA 57 b.

• Recognize poor performance may put U.S. suppliers 

at a competitive disadvantage

11/18/2013 11

Strike a balance to promote trade without 

increasing proliferation risk
Part 810 Process improvement Ideas 

• Publish Part 810 guide including advisory opinions. 

• Reduce the response times for foreign government 

assurances. 

• Reduce time for internal DOE and inter-agency reviews.

• Create fast track procedures for authorization of 

activities that present the lowest proliferation risk.

• Develop and implement an e-licensing system. 

11/18/2013 12

Six Sigma analysis will help select 

best ideas
Part 810 Process Improvement Project

• DOE

– Acknowledges process can and should be improved

– Committed to process improvement program

– Goal is to make process ISO 9001 compliant

• Project plan and methods are set

• Solid team is assembled

• Project is underway and is separate from rulemaking

11/18/2013 13
The Process Improvement Team

– NIS: Lead Six Sigma project

• Interview applicants, internal administrators and get input from applicant 

groups to determine necessary and desirable features and functions

• Determine necessary and desirable e-licensing functions and features

• Identify performance issues and recommend improvements

– CIO: Lead e-licensing project

• Design architecture -- to convert desired functions into web-based system

• Software development

– NA-QA: Assure ISO 9001 compliance

11/18/2013 14
Part 810 Process Improvement Plan

• Use Six Sigma quality improvement tools. A rigorous factdriven approach

• Determine Critical to Quality (CTQ) characteristics by 

– Interview applicant “customers” (DONE)

– Interviewing internal DOE and interagency “customers” (ONGOING) 

• Measure – Quantify performance v. CTQs

• Analyze – Use metrics to identify failures, their causes and 

effects

• Improve – Recommend improvements that can be most 

effective

• Control – Implement improvements and monitor/audit 

effectiveness

11/18/2013 15
The case for E-Licensing

NA 24 plans a web-based electronic interface with applicants

• Part 810 e-licensing system can:

o Make applications easier to complete

o Streamline the review process

o Increase transparency by enabling applicant tracking

o Provide a searchable archive of past Secretarial determinations

o Facilitate audits required for ISO compliance

• Features will be added to the system in phases

11/18/2013 16

Meet Jeff Wilkins 

the e-licensing project leader
Jeff Wilkins

Associate Chief Information Officer for IT Operations

NNSA Office of the Chief Information Officer

November 15, 2013

E810 LICENSING SYSTEM
 Background

 Process

 Phase 1 Objectives/Benefits

 How does this affect you?

Agenda
Background

 The Part 810 licensing process works well but faces some challenges:

 Lack of a visible feedback loop

 Inability to effectively collaborate

 Lack of consolidated repository of information

 We will build a centralized system to provide a cleaner solution for 

managing this process
Process

 NNSA OCIO has worked with NA-24 to develop a features list and 

objectives

 We have determined the logical structure of the final solution

 We will utilize a phased approach

 Phase 1: Public site, including inter-agency review

 Phase 2: Internal processing mechanism to streamline this process

 Phase 3: Additional administration and enhancements to existing sites

 Each Phase will be developed iteratively, in small increments

 Our testing will include incremental internal, Alpha, and Beta testing
Phase 1 Objectives/Benefits

Transparency:

 Public site will provide the current status and milestone history of each 

applicant’s submissions

 Public site will provide applicants with a single view into all submissions across 

their portfolio

 Public site will include a comprehensive information library, including FAQs, 

glossary, process descriptions, etc.

Accountability:

 All actions will be logged and associated with a user, with date and time stamp

 Milestone history will display the length of time that a given submission has 

been pending within each queue
Phase 1 Objectives / Benefits

Efficiency:

 All parties within the workflow will update a single instance of the submission 

within the centralized system. This will eliminate the need to maintain multiple 

copies of the information within separate emails and files.

 The system will send notifications when actions are required. There will be no 

need to proactively monitor the system.

Uniformity:

 The process will be structured for each submission type and the data collection 

will be organized in a consistent manner

 The web site will be developed to provide intuitive and consistent user input. 

This will eliminate the need for extensive training.
Phase 1 Objectives/Benefits

Security:

 The system will consist of two major components: public 

(internet-facing) and private (NNSA internal processing only)

 Both components will be secured and data will be 

encrypted, with limited and controlled role-based access to 

all information
How Will This Affect You?

 The new system will complement the current process, not 

replace it.

 Personal support will remain available – the system will not 

be a replacement for existing live customer service and 

support.

 You will undergo a phased transition from the current paperbased process to a future process that minimizes manual 

entry and use of hard-copy documents.
Rulemaking Overview

Part 810 Process 

Q&A

11/18/2013 25
Outline

• Part 810 Process Improvement 

– Mr. Richard Goorevich, Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA)

– Mr. Richard J. K. Stratford, Department of State

– Mr. Jeff Wilkins, (DOE/NNSA) 

– Q & A 

• Part 810 Proposed Rulemaking Overview

– Mr. Richard Goorevich, (DOE/NNSA)

– Mr. Tom Wood, Mr. Chris Toomi, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL)

– Receive Public Comments

26
Rulemaking Overview

Part 810 SNOPR 

Summary Overview

11/18/2013 27
Key proposed change: destination classification

• No change proposed for 117 destinations

– 44 major nuclear markets would remain generally authorized

– 73 destinations (including Russia, China, and India) presenting 

inimicality issues would continue to require specific authorization

– All IAEA Project and Supply Agreement activities, such as the Mexico 

Laguna Verde project would remain generally authorized 

• NOPR and SNOPR change proposed for 80 destinations

– 3 countries would become generally authorized (Kazakhstan, Ukraine, 

UAE)

– 77 countries would require specific authorization

• Little or no nuclear trade

• No 123 agreement

• No experience managing proliferation issues
Other Key proposed Changes

• Deemed exports would be generally authorized to foreign 

nationals employed at U.S. nuclear facilities if:

– Employee signs confidentiality agreement;

– Access is authorized in accordance with NRC standards; and

– Employer reports authorized access to DOE.

• Covered reactor technology: scope would be narrowed to 

reactor technology related to SNM production, consistent 

with NRC and Commerce coverage.

11/18/2013 29

Would reduce transactions 

requiring specific authorization
Key proposed change: Operational safety

• Existing rule provides “fast track” authorization for 

operational safety and nuclear emergency assistance

• NOPR eliminated operational safety fast track

• SNOPR would: 

– retain fast track; 

– tie definition of “operational safety” to established safety standards

– authorize safety exchange and benchmarking programs; and

– Extend DOE period to respond to request for fast track approval to 45 

days; fast track authorized if DOE does not respond. 

11/18/2013 30

SNOPR promotes US nuclear 

safety engagement
Other proposed changes

• Commerce, NRC and State approved exports would be exempt from Part 

810 in order to avoid duplicative regulation

• Transfer of Public Information would be generally authorized. SNOPR 

proposes standardized definition and would make transfers exempt

• Activities with remote connection to SNM would be authorized or not 

covered: mining, medical isotope production, fusion, and back-end

• Activities carried out by IAEA personnel would be generally authorized 

except for employees working on “Sensitive Nuclear Technology”

11/18/2013 31

Unnecessary regulatory burdens would be 

reduced
Changes not proposed in SNOPR

• Commenter proposals not proposed

– Deregulate activities of foreign affiliates of <50% U.S. owned 

– Authorize transfers to persons with dual citizenship based on most 

recent or current residence

– Generally authorize transfer of sales, marketing, and sourcing 

information

– Generally authorize transfer of <25% “Americanized” Technology. 

11/18/2013 32
Rulemaking Overview

Part 810 SNOPR

Economic Impact

PNNL

11/18/2013 33
Economic Impact of Part 810 

SNOPR

TOM WOOD & CHRIS TOOMEY

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514 34

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Introduction and Scope 

Study focused on predicting measurable impact on US nuclear 

technology exports to world markets

Conducted over several months in FY13

Close coordination and collaboration with DOC International Trade 

Administration (ITA) economists 

Presentation for today 

Conceptual foundations

Quantitative estimates of impact 

Summary 

35 November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
Context – scale of affected markets 

36

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
Conceptual Basis for Impact Analysis 

Longer review cycle for SA transactions - competitive disadvantage 

relative to automatic approval under GA regulation? 

Statistics in PED do not permit assessment of the extent of this effect 

directly, but it should be symmetric. 

Since proposed regulation would move countries in both directions, 

net effect on US trade would depend only on the affected trade 

volumes

37

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
Data Available for Analysis 

Published nuclear trade statistics include much more than the 

regulated nuclear technology trade

NNSA has maintained a database (Proprietary Export Database) on 

SA trade since early 2009. 

Nature of proposed export (parties, end use)

Proposed dollar volume of export 

Status and approval/denial dates

Total of 97 transactions analyzed, average annual volume of about $2B

38

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
How can trade volumes be predicted? 

Technology trade is of three basic types 

Information on types of nuclear systems, their requirements, and their 

operational characteristics – required to plan a nuclear program 

Information and licenses required to construct a nuclear power plant or 

fuel cycle facility 

Information and licenses required to operate a facility once constructed

39

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
Framework for analysis

What is a relevant time span for analysis? 

Very long-term evolution of trade patterns is unpredictable

Current market shares provide reasonable basis for extrapolation over a 

decade or so

Analysis conducted for 2013-2030

Assumptions

US remains as competitive in nuclear technology markets as it has been 

in the period of record for PED

Global trade volumes evolve consistent with a range of nuclear industry 

forecasts

40

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
US exports “base rates” - three types of trade

Demand for U.S. nuclear technology is driven by 

Existing foreign nuclear power capacity (MWe) 

Nuclear power capacity (MWe) under construction

Nuclear power capacity (MWe) planned for for future construction

Base rates for each derived from PED data: 

41

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
Historical Nuclear Power Growth

42

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
Some Forecasts of Nuclear Growth

43
Modeling the Forecasts

Three forecasts available at country-level

World Nuclear Association (WNA) – High and Low

UxC

Nuclear Assurance Corporation (NAC)

WNA Low, UxC, and NAC represent a distribution of likely nuclear 

futures

WNA High was also assessed, but found to be an unlikely sensitivity 

case

44

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
Trade Volume Forecasts

Calculation of expected trade volumes

Calculated at country level using base rates

Aggregated by country category

Results (average annual export trade) per category and forecast

45

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
Possible effects on US export trade 

Moving a country from the GA to SA category would presumably have 

a negative effect on exports, since specific authorization involves 

additional cost to applicants, more time for DOE to process, and 

some small fraction of SA applications may not be approved.

Four trade effect assumptions, (10% - 40%) give impact results: 

46

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
Overall Impact of Part 810 SNOPR

Highest growth nuclear markets (China, India) would be unaffected 

by 810 categorical changes

For affected markets, net impacts would be positive for all “mid-range” 

nuclear capacity forecasts

One extreme nuclear renaissance scenario would result in negative 

impact, but is deemed highly unlikely

47

November 18, 2013 PNNL-SA-99514
Conclusion

DOE Goals in Part 810 SNOPR

• Update and modernize regulations to be responsive to 

changes in nuclear market

• Make process more open, effective and efficient

• Facilitate nuclear trade 

• No increased proliferation risk

• Regulate to promote trade and enhance US 

proliferation policy influence

11/18/2013 48
Rulemaking Overview

Part 810 SNOPR 

RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS

11/18/2013 49