ML20198K303
| ML20198K303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/29/1997 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-97-301, SECY-97-301-01, SECY-97-301-1, SECY-97-301-R, NUDOCS 9801140369 | |
| Download: ML20198K303 (34) | |
Text
l o00000000000000000000000
- "%o.,
RELEASEDTOTHE PDR t
f' 1
WAlW Abs
- J daig inienis s,.....,e POLICY ISSUE
'(Information)
December 29, 1997 SECY-97-301 EQB:
The Commissioners FROM L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
STATUS REPORT OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TASK FORCE ON OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, IN RESPONSE TO COMSECY-96-053 DSI 2 (Report No. 2)
PURPOSE-The purpose of this paper is to inform the Commission of the status of the work of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force formed to identify, ir, conjunction with the Department of Energy (DOE), the policy and regulatory issues needing analysis and resolution, before seeking NRC oversight responsibility for DOE nuclear facilities. This report covers the period September 13,1997, to December 12,1997.
SUMMARY
This paper provides a status report on the work of the Task Force on Oversight of the Department of Energy (DOE) from September 13,1997, to December 12,1997. During this period, the major focus of Task Force activities was on. (a) finalizing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NRC and DOE; (b) developing the work plan, for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) pilot project and a matrix of issues that relates MOU objectives to generic and site-specific areas of analysis; and (c) conducting an initial information-gathering visit to LBNL and completing Phase 1 of the Work Plan. In addition, the I
Task Force held a public meeting on December 11,1997, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., at the Federal Building in Oakland, Califomia. During the Phase i visit, the NRC staff conducted an inspection of each major facility at LBNL. No safety issues requiring immediate corrective actions were identifed.
9001140349 971229 Tt3N PDR SECY
'\\
97-301 R PDR CONTACTS: John H. Austin, NMSS/ERDF
/ IM (301)415-7275 lll1l.,. Il!
Jll B ll' ^ ""
Patricia A. Rathbun, NMSS/ERDF
- **c 4 g 9,g (301) 415 7178 To be made publicly available in 5 working days from the date of this paper.
The Commissioners 2
BACKGROUND:
In SECY 97 206, dated September 12,1997, the staff provided a status report to the Commission, regarding the work of the Task Force on oversight of CiOE, up to that date.
QlSCUSSION:
INTERAGERQMQREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 191I An Interagency Agreement for reimbursement of NRC's fiscal year (FY) 1997 costs associated with preparing the MOU and creating a pilot program plan was signed on September 25,1997.
Under the Interagency Agreement, NRC recovered approximately $227,000 from DOE.
Re!mbursement under the Interagency Agreement is not applicable for FY 1998, since Congress appropriated funds directly to NRC, for NRC's activities associated with the pilot program.
SIATUS OF PILOT PROGRAM The MOU was signed by Chairman Jackson and transmitted to Secretary Pena on November 21, 1997 (Attachment 1) and focuses on a pilot program of simulated regulation. This document is available at http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/NMS5/MOU.html.
The overall objectives of the pilot program, as stated in the MOU, are to determine the desirability of NRC regulatory oversight of DOE nuclear facilities and to support a decision on whether to seek legislation to authorize NRC regulation of certain DOE nuclear facilities. Further, the pilot program is designed to test regulatory concepts at certain DOE nuclear facilities, through simulated regulation, by evaluating a facility and its standards, requirements, procedures, practices, und activities against the standards that NRC believes would be appropriate to ensure safety at that pilot facility, in addition, there are eight specific objectives given in the MOU:
l Determine the value added by NRC regulatory oversight of activities at a pilot set of DOE nuclear facilities.
Test regulatory approaches that could be used by NRC in overseeing activities at a pilot set of DOE nuclear facilities.
Determine the status of a set of DOE pilot facilities, with respect to meeting existing NRC requirements, or acceptable attematives, and ideniifying any significant safety issues.
Determine the costs (to DOE and NRC) related to NRC regulation of the pilot facilities and other DOE facilities that might be in a similar class and condition.
Evaluate attemative regulatory relationships between NRC, DOE, and DOE contractors at the pilot facilities. Identify DOE contract changes that would be needed to provide for NRC oversight of contractor operations.
Identify issues and potential solutions associated with a transition to NRC oversight of DOE nuclear facilities.
Identify legislative and regulatory changes necessary or appropriate to provide for NRC regulatory oversight of DOE nuclear facilities.
The Commissioners 3
Evaluate how stakeholders should be involved if the NRC assumes broad external regulatory authonty over DOE nuclear facilities, implementation details for each pilot facility are being negotiated by DOE, NRC, and DOE Y
contractors in individual work plans (see LBNL Phase i Work Plan in Attachment 2). Each plan will contain a consistent set of core questions and issues that needs to be addressed for all facilities, to make the broader decision on whether to seek regulatory jurisdiction over DOE nuclear activities. To accomplish this, and to ensure that the issues that the Commission requested the staff to examine are covered, the staff has developed the ' Matrix of issues To Be Considered,'
which is included as Appendix B in Attachment 2. This document was developed collaboratively by NRC, DOE, LBNL, and the State of California. It is designed to dispicy the relationship between the objectives of the MOU and the issues identified by the Commission and others; to operationalize these issues and objectives; and to provide indicators that can be examined either on a generic or site specific basis. The matrix is considered a *living document," in that additional concepts and/or indicators may be added as the LBNL pilot progresses, and as additional pilot sites are visited.
LBNLPJLQI The LBNL Pilot is currently underway and the staff has completed two site visits to LBNL. A familiarization visit took place on November 18 20,1997, and was designed to finalize the Phase i Work Plan and prepare for the Phase I on site visit, as well as arrange for the Stakeholder meeting held on December 11 During the familiarization visit, the staff received backgrouno briefings, became familiar with the facilities and regulatory bases for radiation safety, and made tours of the following facilities:
Advanced Light Source; BiomedicalImaging; 88-inch Cyclotron; e
Hazardous Waste Handling Facility; National Tritium Labeling Facility; and PIT Room Bldg. 70.
During the week of December 8 15,1997, a team consisting of staff from NRC Headquarters as well as Regions I and IV began Phase 1 of the pilot of simulated regulation of the LBNL. The staff followed the LBNL Phase I Work Plan (Attachment 2) that had been agreed to by the NRC and DOE, and was prepared to implement the MOU, between the NRC and DOE dated November 21, 1997.
During this Phase i visit, NRC staff interacted with DOE, the State of Califomia, the LBNL contractors, and the liniversity of California (UC). This included inspections of each major facility identified at LBNL previously, as well as preliminary work on a mock NRC license application, to identify issues related to i;nplementation of external regulation of DOE. The team's review included a review of the LBNL site organization, the management of the radiation safety program -
. including the role of the radiation safety committee and radiation safety officer - and the implementation of the radiation safety program. The team examined the training of facility users and radiation protection staff; the receipt, transfer, and inventory of radioactive materials;
The Commissioners 4
personnel radiation protection - including personnel monitoring, radiation surveys, laboratory and survey instrumentation, and the as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) program, radioactive waste management, effluents and legacy issues; the implementation of radiation safety procedures and requirements; the transportation of radioactive materials; environmental monitoring; and emergency preparedness. No safety issues requiring immediate corrective actions were identified.
The team also tnet with DOE and LBNL staffs and ciiscussed issues that might be affected by external regulation, such as the terms of the DOE /UC contract, the existing applicable Work Smart Standards, LBNL Integrated Safety Management Systems, DOE's oversight role and practices, and the baseline operational costs of radiation protection at LBNL NRC and the State of California Department of Health Services provided LBNL with relevant documents and guidance for the preparation of radioactive materia!a licenses. The State of California also provided documents and guidar'ce pertaining to the registration of radiation
' generating machines.
At the conclusion of the week, the team mot with DOE, LBNL, and the UC management and described its preliminary findings.
A public meeting was held on December 11,1997, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., at the Federal Building in Oakland, California. Extensive efforts were made to notify rnembers of the public about the meeting Over 600 letters were sent to potential stakeholders, a Federal Reaister Notice and a Press Release were issued, and notices were placed in Laboratory publications.
Approximately 50 people attended; including members of local public interest groups; employees from LBNL, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory; DOE and NRC employees at Walnut Creek, and members of the Pilot Team. No members of the media were present. Extensive background materials were made svailable, including the MOU and the Berkeley Pilot Project Work Plan. The meeting lasted two hours and included background material on the Piiot Project, from the DOE and Berkeley Lab perspective, from Dick Nolan, DOE Site Office - and on the NRC perspective and Pilot Team activities, from John Austin, NRC Task Force. The meeting was conducted by a facilitator and a transcript was prepared by a court reporter. A summary of the meeting will be prepared for inclusion in the appendix to the final LBNL report.
The question and answer period took over an hour. Questions covered a broad range of subjects, including: NRC's mission and activities; the scope of the pilot p*ogram; the nature of materials to be covered by external regulation; the relationship between NRC, the State, and other Federal apncies -including a waiver of sovereign immunity; the cost of NRC assuming regulatory authority instead of DOE self regulation; the impact on DOE and NRC staffing: potential conflicts of interests; involvement of the public in the regulatory process; and the means of determining the value added by external regulation. Commenters were encouraged to review the Phase I Work Plan, particularly the list of issues in Appendix B, and to submit their questions and issues in writing on forrns provided for that purpose. A deadline of January 5,1998, was set for written comments on the Work Plan, so as to have an impact on Phase il activities. Written comments on other aspects of external regulation of DOE facilities were requested by February 11,1998.
1 The Commissioners 5
The Phase ll on site visit is scheduled to begin on January 12,1998, with an additional visit planned !n February, if necessar/. The final report for the LBNL pilot is expected in April 1998.
QAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY RADIOCHEMICAL ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT j
CENTER PILOT The Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC) Pilot Project is scheduled to begin in January 1998. The staff currently plans to make the first site visit to the REDC facility on January 23,1998, to familiarize team members with the activities of the site, and to begin tu determine the regulatory bases for radiation safety. At this time, the team will begin discussions of the work plan, and will prepare for the Phase I on-site visit, it is currently anticipated that the Phase I on site visit will take place during the week of February 13,1998, and the Phase il on-site visit will take place during the week of March 20,1998. However, REDC is currently in the process of implementing the Work Smart Standards as part of the Integrated Management System and it would prefer that Phase i not take place until around May. The staff will continue to negotiate with REDC to have Phase 1 occur as soon as meaningfully possible.
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION EILQI DOE has recently proposed this site. The advantages of including the Savannah River Site / Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation include:
It is a new construction project that will have to be designed in accordance with NRC standards, consistent with the FY 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act Conference Report.
It will permit us to test the flexibility of the NRC program in new situations (e.g., aluminum clad fuels).
The facility will eventually be privatized.
It is representative of a class of facilities.
It is an environmental management facility.
In addition, it meets the criteria established for selection of pilot projects:
It falls within the planned limit of three pilot facilities for FY 1998.
It represents a facility that is similar to current NRC licensees.
There is a strong possibility that the existing NRC regulatory program can be applied.
It is anticipated to operate for a long period (e.g.,10 years or more).
The facility is willing to participate.
STAKEHOLDERS There are two areas pertaining to stakeholder involvement in the ptocess of determining possible NRC regulation of DOE facilities. The first is stated in the MOU as Objective 8:
- Evaluate how stakeholders should be involved if NRC assumes regulation of certain DOE facilities." A recommendation on this issue will depend on the regulatory approach chosen to implement external regulation and will be formulated in the context of the overall pilot program.
e The Commissioners 6
The second ib to keep the stakeholders at each pilot facility informed of the pilot program and ensure that any relevant issues raised by the'stakeholders are considered within the context of the pilot program. For example, a stakeholder plan for the LBNL was developed that included scheduling a public meeting in Oakland, California; making a significant effort to contact all interestec members of the public through letters to known stakeholders, a notice in the Eederal Regisig and elsewhere, and Press Releases; inviting relevant concerns in writing from the public; and responding to those concerns in writing as an appendix to the final LBNL Repoit.
Members of the public were also asked to comment on how stakeholders should be involved if NRC assumes regulation of DOE facilities. Those comments will be considered as part of the final report, at the end of the two year pilot program.
A similar stakeholder plan will be developed for cach of the other pilot facilities, but the content may vary, depending on tht
. 3 of current stakeholder involvement at the DOE facility.
CONFIRMATORY RESEARCB in the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 28,1997, regarding the Direction Setting issue 22 (Research), the Commission directed the staff to *ldentify the impact on research needs of NRC Oversight of Department of Enorgy (DOE) nuclear facilities, and advise the Commission on the resource implications of those impacts.' The subject has been incorporated into the
- Matrix of issues To Be Considered"in the Pilot Program. (See issue Description for Objective 7 in the LBNL Work Pian, Attachment 2.) As the Task Force completes a pilot project, it Lill provide lessons learned to the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES). Assuming NRC is authorized to regulate non-defense program DOE facilities in FY 2001, RES, in coordination with NMSS, will conduct a scoping study to determine appropriate research based on the numbers, types, conditions and safety significance of facilities NRC could anticipate regulating and lessons learned from the pilot projects. The programs snd resources identified in this study can provide a basis for requesting resources in the FY 2001 budget.
COORDINAllQ&
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
The Commissioners 7
The Office of the Chief Information Officer reviewed this Commission Paper for information technology and information management implications and has no objections.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission Paper for resource implications and has no objections.
/f//
p
(
f L
seph Callan /
E cutive Director for Operations Attachtnents: 1. MOU signed by Chairman Jackson to Secretary Pena did 11/21/97
- 2. LBNL Phase l Work Plan DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA CIO CFO EDO SECY
UNITED STATES
'l' ))
k NUCLEAR RECUL.ATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, o.C. 200E4001 November 21, 1997 CMsMAN The Honemble Federico F. Pena Secretary of Energy Washington, D.C. 20585
Dear Mr. Secretary:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is pier,ed to transmil the enclosed signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the NRC that establishes s Pilot Program on Extemal Regulation of DOE Nuclear Facilities by the NRC. This MOU represents the joint efforts of members of the DOE and NRC staff, and provide
- M early indication of success in the upcoming cooperative effort between our two
- agencia, As you know, a team of individuals drawn from NRC Headquarters and Region IV, DOE Headquarters and the Berkeley Site Office, as well as representatives from the State of Califomia will visit Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) next week to begin the pilot project.
The Commission has requested that, the NRC staff, in consultation with DOE prepare a revised MOU, that will be available for your signature and rnine at the time of conclusion of the LBNL pilot. The revised MOU would incorporate lessons teamed during the process, and allow DOE and NRC to promptly seek legislation, if agreed, for NRC regulatory authority for a specific pilot facility or class of facilities, on the basis of information gained dunng this first i
pilot and each of the successive pilots in the pilot program.
I am looking forward to continuing our work on this very imponent effort.
Sincerely, M
Shiriey Ann Jackson
Enclosure:
As stated A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PILOT PROGRAM ON EXTERNAL REGULATION OF DOE FACILITIES BY THE NRC
/u/e JQO/20/97 b
- /- J 11/21/97 s
Federico F. Pena Date Shiriei A. JacMbn Date Secretary of Energy Chaiman U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,,-.--,....,,-.-m..
..n,.-
I MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING l
BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY i
AND THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PILOT PROGRAM ON EXTERNAL REGULATION OF DOE FACILITIES BY THE NRC l.
PURPOSE The purpose of this Memorandum of Understand:ng (MOU) between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is to establish the framework for a pilot program to support a jo;nt recommendation by DOE and NRC to Congress on whether NRC be given statutory authority to regulate nuclear safety at DOE nuclear facilities. The intent of this pilot program is for NRC to ' simulate regulatiori" (as defined heimin) on a series of pilot facilities to help both agorr,ies gain experience related to NRC regulation of DOE facilities, it will also provida an opportunity to develop actual information on the costs and benefits of external regulation.
11.
BACKGROUND In 1994, legislation was introdJced In the Nouse of Representatives that would have subjected new DOE facilities to immediate extemal regulation and would have created a stalinholder group to study extemal regulation of existing facilities. As an altemative to that I
approach, Harel O' Leary, the Secretary of Energy at that time, in January 1995 created the i
Advisory Committee on Extemal Regulation of DOE Nuclear Safety (Advisory Committee).
1 i
__u
\\
The Advisory C 4:ttee was charged with providing advice and recomtne.id tions on whether and how new and existing DOE facihties and operations might be regulated to ensure nuclear safety.
In tts December 1995 report, Improving Regulation of Safety at DOE Nuclear Facilities, the Advloory Committee recommended that essentially all aspects of safety at DOE's nuclear facilities be extemally regulated. Secretary O' Leary accepted and endorsed the Advisory Committee's report and creatad the DOE Working Group on Extemal Regulation,(Working Group) to provide recommendations on implementstion of the Advisory Committee's report.
The recommendations made by the Working Group in its December 1996 report were: (1)
NRC should be the extemal nuclear hafety reguletor and (2) the transition to extemal regulation should be phased in.
Benefits of extemal regulation are expected to include improved safety while also facilitating DOE's ongoing transition to performance based contracting and a more efficient corperate style of safety and health management. In the view of the Advisory Committee, an extemal regulator, free of the responsibility for DOE's missions, and not answering to DOE, can ensure that safety receives consistent and adaquate attention. Extemal regulation would also ensure more effective enforcement by placing such authority in independent hands, engaged only in achievement of safety. Taken together, the move to extemal regulation is seen as the best way to ensure the safety of DOE nuclear facilities, protect the safety and health of workers across the DOE complex, and build public trust.
Both the Advisory Committee and the Working Group concluded that the transition to NRC regulation would involve significant legal, financial, technical and procedural adjustments for 2
.._.. _.._ _. _ _ _._. _ - _ ___ _ _ y both agencies.
I in September igg 6, the NRC published for comment a series of Direction Setting issue (DSI) i Papers under its Strologic Assesamord and Rebaselw#g inNietive. One of the issue papers, DSI 2, addressed options iar NRC's position on the regulation of DOE facilities. In March 1997, after considering public comments, along with the December igg 6 DOE decision to seek transfer of oversight to NRC, the Commission endorsed seeking the transfer to NRC of responsibility for the regulatory oversight of certain DOE nucisar facilities contingent on adequate funding, staffing resources, and a clear delineation of the authority NRC will omercise over the facilities, in addition, the Commission directed the NRC staff to convene a higMovel NRC Task Force to identify, in conjunction with DOR, the policy and regulatory issues needing assalysis and resolution.
Therefore, both Secretary Pena of the Department of Enemy and Chairman Jackson representing the Nudoar Regulatory Commission have agreed to pursue NRC regulation of DOE nuclear facilities on a pilot program basis, 111.
DEFINITION OF SIMULATED REGULATION Regulation, in contrast to simulated regulation used in this pilot program, generally means that the regulator has the statutory authority to: (1) establish standards and requirements; (2) apply the standards and requirements to particular operations, sometimes through licensing or permitting actions; (3) conduct inspections against applicable standards and requirements and licensing conditions; and (4) bring enforcement actions against the reguisted entity for violations of the standards and requirements. Simulated regulation, as t
3 s
,..--,,,,--,.,,i,-w,,---
,,y-,.-,,
,,y y
-my
,, +,
-,-.-r,c -y r i.- v y e-,
w r,v
,y,,-,.-we,ww-,
.-e--.,,
-w.
.--n,----
e defined for the purpows of this pilot program, means that NRC will test regulatoiy concepts ond */aluate a facil#ty and #ts standards, requirements, procedures, practices, and activities agair.st standards that NRC believes would be appr4priate to ensure safety in view of the nature of the work and hazards at that pilot facility. Simulated regulation will involve intersc6ons witn DOE, DOE's contractors, and NRC. Simulated regulation willinclude NRC inspections of each pilot faci'ity to identify issues related to implementation. NRC's inspections will not result in enforcement actions to compel compliance with particular standards or requirements. Howaver, significant inspec'.lon findings that impact health and ssfey will bo transmined promptly to the appropriate DOE organization for the pilot facility for rev;e and (E ective actions, as appropriate.
IV.
SCOPE This MOU establishes the overall framework for DOE and NRC cooperation in a pilot program for simulated regulation by NRC at selected DOE facilities, li.plementation details for each pilot facility will be negotiated by DOE, NRC and DOE contractors in individual work plans.
The pilot program is expected to last two years. During these two years, between six and ten facilities will be evaluated. At the end of the two years, DOE and NRC will determine whether to seek legislation to give NRC authority to regulate individual or classes of DOE nuclest facilities.
This MOU provides for moperation in seeking to obtain the necessary budgetary and staffing resourcet for NRC participation in the pilot program.
4
in addelon, this MOU provides for cooperation in involving the public and other stakeholders in the pilot program and in the DOE and NRC doosion on whether to seek extemal regulation at the end of the pilot program.
This MOU covers a pilot prograria for simulated regulation of nuclear safety and radiation protection of workers at the pilot facilities, it r$oes not cover the industrial (rmnuclear) safety of workers at the pilot facilities. A parallel effort related to industrial safety of workers at some, if not all, of the pilot facilities is expected between DOE and the occupational Safety and Hocith Administration (OSHA).
V.
C3JECTIVES The overall objective of the activities undertaken pursuant to this MOU is to provide DOE and NRC with sufficient information to determine the desirability of NRC regulatory oversight of DOE nuclear facilities and to support a decision whether to seek legislation to authorize NRC regulation of DOE nuclear facilities.
Specifically, DOE and NRC seek to obtain sufficient information about a set of DOE nuclear facilities to:
A.
Determine the value added by NRC regulatory oversight of activities at a pilot set of DOE nuclear facilities.
B.
Test regulatory approaches that could be used by NRC in overseeing activities at a pilot set of DOE nuclear facilities.
C.
Determine the status of a set of DOE pilot facilities with respect to meeting existing 5
0 l
e NRC requirements, or acceptable attematives, and to identify any significant safety issues.
D.
Determine the costs (to DOE and NRC) related to NRC teg ;!ation of the pilot facilities and other DOE facilities that might be in a similar clans and condition.
E.-
Evaluate sitemative regulatory relationships between NRC, DOE, and COE contractors at thJ pilot facilities. Identify DOE contract changes that would be needed to provide for NRC oversight of contractor operations.
F.
Identify issues and potential solutions associated with a transitiori to NRC oversight of DOE nuclear facilities.
G.
Identify legislative and regulatory changes necessary or appropriate to provide for NRC regulatory oversight of DOE nuclear facilitias.
H.
Evaluate how stakeholders should be involved if the NRC assumes broad extemal regulatory authority over DOE nuclear facilities.
VI.
AUTHORITY A.
Department of Energy DOfi is entering into this MOU pursuant.o the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, including but not limited to Sections 31,33,91 and 161(i); the Energy 6
. - - - - ~.. -.. -. _ -. _ _. _
?
t
.9::W=
-, Act of 1974, including Se#m 104; Sections 301(a) and 641 of the Department of Energy Organisaton Act of 1917; and, the Economy Act as amended.
l i
r B.
Nuoleer Regulatory commission i
t NRC is entering into this MOU pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Eneqiy Reorgenlaation Act of 1974; and, the Economy Act of 1932, es emended.
y Vll.
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PARTIES A.
Responalbilities Department of Energy I
1 The Assistant Secretary for Erwironmord, Safety and Hesith wm be responsible for the overall implementation of the terms of this a9feement.
A technical point of contact will be appoirded for each indMdual pilot *acility.
4 Nuoleer Reguistory commisalon Implementation of the terms of this agreement. An NRC technical point of contact wm be appointed for each indMdual pilot recaey.
i 7
i n,..,.-~...,__.--,_
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _., _, _., _, _ _ _,, _ l
i i
8.
Coordination Activities 1.
DOE and NRC agree to enter into an Interagency Agreement to toimburse NRC, where legally permitted and not otherwise covered by appropriations, for if s agericy
%st associated with NRC activities'to achieve the objectives of this MOU.
2.
DOE and NRC agrei to each establish a Task Force to act for them in this cooperative project. These Task Forces may also evolve into or establish a joint review g oup to evaluat-
,vidual pilots and/or the pilot program.
t 3.
DOE agrees to support an NRC request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMS) to authorue an increase in NRC's personnel ceiling by the amount necessary to carry out the activities provided for by this MOU.
4.
If an issue arises in the implementation of this MOU which cannot be rescived at the staff level, within 30 days of reaching such a conclusion, the NRC and DOE agreo in refer the matter to the Assistant Secretary of Environment, Safety and Health (DOE) and the Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs (NRC).
C.
Pilot Program Deecription The ptot program will begin with three DOE pilot facilities selected by DOE and NRC. The l
objective is to complete between six and ten pilot facilities by the end of the two-year term.
Pilots will be staggered throughout the two year period as mutually agreed to by DOE and NRC. However, aN pilots must be completed no later than two years from the effective date 8
of this MOU.
i DOE and NRC agree to develop a dotaded work plan for endi pilot facility. These work plans will t's prepared with extensive participation by the pilot site. The work plans will'be developed to allow DOE and NRC to implement the intent and objectives of this MOU.
As soon as sufhcient information has been obtained and analyzed for each of the pilot facilities, DOE and NRC personnel will prepare and provide to the Secretary and the Commission a report, and as appropriate briefings, on each facility that addresses the objectives in Section V of this MOU. Each report will examine the advantages and disadvantages of NRC regulating the pilot facility, as well as other DOE facilities in a similar class of facility.
Within three months after the two year pilot prcgram ends, DOE and NRC personnel will prepare and provide to the Secretary and the Commission a report on the advantages and disadvantages of NRC regulating DOE nuclear facilities based on the pilot program 2
experiences. The report will include a recommendation on which DOE nuclear facilities or which classes of DOE nuclear facilities should be extemally regulated by NRC. If the Seastery and the Commission determins that some or all DOE nuclear facilities should be regulated by NRC, DOE and NRC will prepare draft legislation giving NRC such authority.
I l
l 9
?
l
]
D.
senhoheWor and FuWie Participation f
i i
1, ide Willc6%n and assessment of the issues associated with extemal reguistion are ex *Wed to equire extensive coor+ nation betwoon DOE and NRC, other affected Fe seral agernles (e.g., Environmental Protection A0ency, OSHA), the Defense Nuclear Faciiks safety Board, State govemmerds, and other interested parties.
t DOE and NRC wlR c;;::p a strategy to involve stakeholders, including the general PubNc, throughout the pNot program.
2.
Requests received by NRC under the Froodom of Information Act for information provided to NRC by DOE under th;s MOU will be refened to DOE for appropriate i
response.
1 Vill.
OTHER PROVISIONS A.
NRC s participation in the activities described in this MOL' is contingent upon receMng ef==P - =+M:-9s or rpm'em.anents from DOE of NRC's full agency i
cost and an appropriate personnel cel ling for those activities. Special activities beyond the scope of this MOU may be negotiated for cost toimtmesemord as needed.
l s
R.
For this pilot prog.wn, DOE will facittate NRC interactions with DOE contractors to achieve the purposes of this MOU.
l
- C.
Nothing in this MOU wil limit the authority of either agency to exercise independently, I
l 10 e
~
r-w'e*'
- m vrvr me wr-'ir-s-w we-'uw'Ne'v v my-v e v-wqw ww'n we -9wg+-% g y yi-wm twN-'*pw-rwt:Er=9-vt-'$-Wem+mve--tapr-wg--'yP*---'==w-'
v4
- T'ww w
Its authonty with regard to matters that are the subject of this MOU.
D.
Nothing in this MOU alters DOCS authonty to ensure the safety of any DOE nuclear fedlity that is part of the pilot program. Nothing in this MOU grants NRC any regulatory authonty over DOE nuclear safety and radiation protection activities.
i E.
Nothing in this MOU establishes a,1y right nor provides a bads for any action, either legal or equiteNo, by any person or cleas of persons challenging a govemr(9iit action or a iwlure to act.
F.
This MOU is effective upon the date of signature by the last party. This MOU rnay be terminated by rruttal agrooment or by wntten notice of either party. Amendments or modifications to ',his MOU may be made upon written agreement of the parties.
11 l
l
WORK PLAN FOR THE ERNEST O. LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY PILOT PROJECT PART I BACKGROUND INFORMATION INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND RESPONSIBILITIES This document sets forth the work plan for the simulated regulatory review activities of the Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Pilot, to be carried out by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Department of Energy (DOE); the University of Californla (UC); the State of Califomia Department of Health Services (DHS); and LBNL. The work plan contributes to the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), between NRC anJ DOE, dated November 21,1997. The duration of the Pilot Program is five months from the date of signing of this work plan of simulated NRC oversight / regulation of radiation related programs at the LONL. Th3 LBNL facility is located in Berkeley, California, and is managed and operated by the UC under contract DE AC03 7BSF00098, with DOE. Nothing in this work plan confers health and safety regulatory authority at the LBNL facility, where such authority is not already provided by law.
The DOE will remain the lead l'ederal Agency for emergency response to an event at the facility, in accordance with existing requirements and procedures. NRC will evaluate DOE and contractor response to any event that occurs during t'ils pilot.
The term " simulated regulation" is defined in section,11. of the MOU, between NRC and DOE, which states:
NRC will test regulatory concepts and evaluate a facility and its standards, requirements, procedures. oractices, and activities against standards that NRC believes would be appropriate to e sre safety in view of the nature of the work and hazards at that pilot facility. Simulated regulation willinvolve interactions with DOE, DOE's contractors, and the NRC. Simulated regulation willinclude NRC inspections of each pilot facility to identify issues related to implementation. NRC's inspections will not result ii1 enforcement actions to cornpel compliance with particular standards or requirements.
However, significant inspection findings that impact health and safety will be transmitted promptly to the DOE organization for the pilot facility, for review and corrective actions, as appropriate.
The work plan for the LBNL Pilot was developed by NRC, DOE Headquarters, DOE Oakland Operations Office, LBNL, UC, and the State of California. Participants in the LBNL Workplan development are identified in Appendix A.
1
A team of NRC and DOE staff, led by two co-team leaders from NRC and DOE, is charged to perform this pilot prog *am, as described in the MOU, arid to prep.'re a final report. NRC will review tha LBNL facility and program, applying the concept of simLlated regulation. DOE will assess the benefits and cost impacts of external regulation. The DHS, UC, and LBNL are all participants in the pilot assessment of LBNL, but are not requireu to concur in the Federal reports.
OBJECTIVES The purpose of the " Pilot Program on Extemal Regulation of DOE Nuclear Facilities by the NRC" is to obtain sufficient information to determine the desirability of NRC regulatory overQht of DOE nuclear facilities, and to support a de;;ision on whether to seek legislation to authorize NRC regulation of DOE Top-level objectivos identified in the MOU are as follows:
1)
Determine the value added by NRC replatory oversight of activities at a pilot set of DOE nuclear facilities; 2)
Test regulatory approaches that could be used by NRC in overseeing activities at a pilot set of DOE nuclear facilities; 3)
Determine the status of a set of DOE pilot facilities, with respect to meeting existing NRC requirements, or acceptable alternatives, and identifying any significant safety issues; 4)
Determine the costs (to DOE and NRC) related to NRC regulation uI the pilot facilities and other DOE facilities that might be in a similar class and condition; 5)
Evaluate alternative regulatory relationships among NRC, DOE, and DOE contractors at the pilot facilities. Identify DOE contract changes that would be needed to provide for NRC oversight of contractor operations; 6)
Identify issues and potential solutions associated with a transition to NRC oversight of DOE nuclear facilities; 7)
Identify legislative and regulatory changes necessary or appropriate to provide for NRC regulatory oversight of DOE nuclear tacilities; and 8)
Evaluate how stakeholders should be involved if NRC assumes broad extemal regulatory authority over DOE nuclear facilities.
The Lawrence Berkeley Pilot Program will be conducted in support of the joint NRC/ DOE Pilot Program. Major objectives specific to the Lawrence Berkeley Pilot Program are as follows:
1)
Evaluate the effect of extemal regulation on the effectiveness and efficiency of the LBNL radiation protection program:
2)
Prepare mock license applications and mock registration applications for NRC and/or State of California regulation of radioactive materials, accelerators, and other radiation-2 i
l
.=
b generating machines:
- 3) -
Review the current LBNL radiation protection program and compare with NRC/ State requirements, to identify gaps or inconsistencies; 4)
- Estimate the cost and level of effort necessary to transition LBNL to extemal regulation; 5)
Evaluate possible division of regulatory responsibilities between the NRC and State of Califomia, the effect on DOE oversight activities, and provide recommendations; -
6)
Review by NRC and State regulation coverage of all aspe:ts of LBNL radiological operations, including accelerators, waste management, environmental monitoring, and decontamination and decommissioning; 7)
Identify legislative and regulatory issues and potential solutions associated with a transition to NRC or State of California regulation of LBNL; and 6)
Develop a stakeholder plan to involve the public in the pilot team process to ensure that relevant issues of public concern at LBNL are addressed, In Appendix B, the ' Matrix of lasues To Be Considered' provides elaboration of the top-level a.,d site specific objectives for the conduct of the pilot. The matrix will be modified to address additionalissues as they arise.
SCOF2 OF THE 1.BNL PILOT The format for the pilot will be modsler* Mter the pre-licensing visits employed by NRC in certain licensing situations. The team will use 4 risk informed, performance based approach to help focus the effort on those areas most important to safety. A major focus will be to identify those program elements that could be covered by existing NRC and State of Califomia regulations and guidelines. In addition, the pilot willinclude a review of safety considerations that are not expressly addressed by regulations.
This review willinclude all uses of radiation-producing machines and radi;ictive materials, including waste management and environmental protection activities. In addition to review of records, the assessment methodology will be composed of five main elements:
Examination of documents, Profile of site characteristics and facility inventories; Interviews with LBNL/ DOE staff; Scope of procedures and training; and Assessment of radiation conditions at the facility, focusing on areas of major risk and
. effluent pathways.
3
r DHS participation in the LBNL pilot permits an evrsluation of the full range of options for external regulation of LBNL radiation protection. The State of California, an NRC Agreement State, currently regulates nearly all non-Federal activities, conducted in California, using radioactive material or radiation generating machines.
The assessment will be performed using criteria appropriate for an NRC license of broad scope.
In addition, accelerators and other facilities with radiation-producing machines will be assessed with regard to the performance standards in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 36, as well as the radiation control regulations of the DHS.
PART ll-SCHEDULE AND MAJOR ACTIVITIES LBNL PILOT SCHEDULE Nov 18-20 Pre-project Planning Meeting Nov 21-Dec 7 Preparation for Phase i Review Effort Dec8 12 Phase l On-Site Review and stakeholder meeting Dec 13-Jan 11 Documentation of Phase i Review, Review of Phase I, Preparation for Phase ll -
Jan 12-16 Phase ll On Site Review Jan 17-Feb 1 Documentation of Phase 11 Review Feb 2-6 Phase 11 On-Site Review (if necessary)
Feb 7-April Preparation of Final Report /NUREG PREPARATION Before arriving at the LBNL site for the entrance briefing, the team will obtain and review facility backoround/ history from appropriate sources, including DOE, LBNL, and the Internet.
This aill include the contractual and regulatory basis for site activities, such as the U. S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) references, contract number DE-AC03-76SF00098, DOE Orders, relevant standards, and other information, as determined by the team. The site safety history will be examined, as well as other types of information that would shed light on the current safety culture and operating environment of the facility.
PHASE I PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW The purpose of the Phase i Programmatic Review is to familiarize team members with the LBNL site and activities and provide an opportunity to conduct a programmatic evaluation.
NRC, DOE, DHS, and LBNL will hold an entrance meeting at LBNL at the beginning of the Phase I on-site review.
4
Following the entrance meeting, the review team will spend approximately one week at the site, carrying out a preliminary asnessment of the areas listed below. All aspects of the preliminary assessment will be coordinated through the Radiological Controf Manager at LBNL.
A.
Site and Facility Organization, including scope of activities at each facility; B.
Management of radiation safety program, including the role of the Radiation Safety Committee, the role of the Radiation Safety Officer, and implementation of audit programs; C.
Review of the radiation safety program and its programmatic elements. This review willinclude:
Training of facility users and radiation protection staff; Receipt, transfer, and inventory of radioactive materials; e
Personnel radiation protection, including personne; monitoring, radiation surveys, laboratory and survey instrumentation, and as low as is reasonably achievable (Al>MA)
Radioactive waste management, effluents, and legacy issues; Implementation of radiation safety procedures and requirements; Transportation of radioactive materials; Environmental monitoring; Emergency preparedness; and Other radiaticn program areas as may be appropriate on the basis of on-site findings.
These programmatic elements are defined in more detailin Appendix C.
In addition to these prcliminary assessments, the review team will tour major facilities and be briefed on the following topics:
1.
Terms of the DOE /UC contract; 2.
Existing applicable standards (Work-Smart Standardy; 3.
LBNL Integrated Safety Management Systems; 4.
DOE's oversight role and practices, (e.g., performance assessment); and 5.
Baseline operational costs of radiation protection at LBNL.
During the Phase I review, NRC snd DHS will provide LBNL with relevant documents and guidance for the preparation of radioactive materials licenses. The DHS will also provide documents and guidance pertaining to the registration of radiation-generating machines At the conclusion of the week, the team will meet with DOE, LBNL, and UC management and describe its pre;;minary findings.
Subsequent to the on-site effort, NRC and DOE management will review the preliminary findings from Phase I and provide direction on the areas to be assessed during the next phase 5
hm
_.m
.~
Phase I Completion Milestones Completion of the following ' actions will be assessed in determining the success of Phase I:
1' NRC and DHS delivering of license applications and guidance to LBNL staff (supporting LBNL objective #2);
Carrying out criefings and tours of the LBNL facitties and programs, to familiarize the review team with the organization and operations (supporting LBNL objective #3);
Defining similarities and differences between LBNL and other NRC and DHS licenseos
+'
(supporting LBNL objective #5);
Identifying LBNL personnel and organizatione which are re.ponsible for the various aspects of LBNL radiologica! operations, such as accelerator operations, waste management, personnel dosimetry, etc. (supporting LBNL objective #6);
Soliciting input from local stakeholders early in the process (supporting LBNL objective
PHASE 11 ON-SITE REVIEW EFFORT A focus of the Phase ll On-Site Review Effort will be to prepare the mock license appications
- and mock registration applications for NRC and/or DHS regulation of radioactive materials, accelerators, and other radiation-generating machines. The focus also includes performing o
L detailed reviews, beginning transition planning, identifying significant safety issues, and analyzing benefits and cost effects.
At the conclusion.of the review, the team will meet with DOE, LBNL, and UC Management and describe its preliminary findings.
Phase il Completion Milestones Completion of the following actions will be assessed in determining the success of Phase 11:
Estimating the value-added of NRC regulatory oversight of DOE nuclear facilities (supporting LBNL objective # 1);
Preparing mock applications for NRC and DHS licenses (supporting LBNL objective #2);
Comparing LBNL radiation protection program with NRC/DHS expectations for broad-scope license (supporting LBNL objective #3);
Verifying that LBNL requirements are effectively implemented (supporting LBNL objective 6
i
I
- 3);
Estimating cost and level of effort to bring LBNL into complicnce with NRC/DHS requirements for broad-scope license. Estimating the funding needs for NRC and the cost impact on the DOE oversight program (supporting LBNL objective #4);
Developing a draft conceptual model of appropriate roles, responsibilities, and authorities for external regulation of LBNL and identifying needed actions for transition planning (supporting LBNL objectives #5 and #6);
Identifying necessary legislative and regulatory changes needed to implement the proposed regulatory framework for external regulation of this facility or class of facilities (supporting LBNL objective #7); and Developing a site specific stakeholder involvement plan that satisfies NRC, DOE, and
=
DHS protocols (supportirig LBNL objective #8).
In addition to these specific tasks, the review team will evaluate the Appendix B " Matrix of Issues to be Considered
- for any further issues that may be appropriate to address during the review.
PREPARATION OF FINAL REPORTINUREG OF THE LONL PILOT DOE and NRC personnel will prepare and provide, to the Secretary and the Commission, a report, and, as appropriate, briefings on the LBNL Pilot, that address the objectives in Part I of this work plan. The report will examine the advantages and disadvantages of NRC regulation of the pilot facility, as well as other DOE facilities in a similar class of fa:ility.
7
APPENDIX A - PARTICIPANTS IN LBNL WORKPLAN DEVELOPMENT John Austin, NRC, HQ Ed Bailey, State of Califomia Department of Health Services Ray Berube, DOE / Office of Environment, Safety and Health Frank Costello, NRC, Region i Sarah Eary, DOE / Oakland Operations Office Bill Eisele, LANL, UCOP Ken Groves, University of California Office of the President Robin Henderson, DOE / Office of Gene al Counsel Steve Hsu, State of California Department of Health Services Jay Larson, DOE / Office of Energy Research David McGraw, LBNL Kris Morris, DOE / Office of Environmental Management Dick Nolan, DOE / Oakland Operations Office Dan Osburn, DOE / Oakland Operations Office Patricia Rathbun, NRC, HQ Mike Schoonover, LBNL-Kathy Shingleton, LLNL, UCOP Beverly Stephens, DOE / Office of Environment, Safety and Health Roxanne Summers, NRC, HQ Anne Troy, DOE / Office of General Counsel John Tseng, DOE / Office of Environmental Management Dave Wesley, State of Califomia Department of Hesith Services Gary Zeman, LBNL 8
...s Appendit B - Matris ofIssues to Be Considered OBJECTIVES
- ISSUES ISSUE DESCRIPDON ACHONS & INDICATORS FOTENTIAL OUTCOMES
- 1. Determine the Posemial Benefits Will extemet regulation prmide increased 1.1 Identify savings assocused with Seek transition of some er all DOE
- ealue added (Genersc/Sise discipline and accountability; streamlined DOE framework facilities to NRC segulation prict to -
by NRC Specsfac)
- credibility and opennew I.2 Deternene efficiency ofprqued
_, _; ofthe NRCJDOE Pild regula*ory stability and predictaNisty; requwement ses '
Program oversight..'
cfficiency and eM.._ ofopersoons.
1.3 Estwisse sseings assocassed with using.
' Seek transden of some of all DOE :
- greaser assurance of safety?
licemesqualirsed subs,
facilities aner ccenpletion of the I A Estimate cmt swoedsice due to NRC/DfE Pilot Program increased public trust and pridence :
Not seek transitionofany DOE I 5 Esaluaic level of participation by
< facilities upon completion c4she stakeholders NRC/ DOE Pilot Program
- : Cancel NRC/ DOE Pilot Program,._
' and not seek transition of any DOC facilith -
s I
9
OBJECTIVES ISSUES ISSUE DESCRII' TION ACTIONS & INDICATORS POTENTIAL OUTCOMES
- 2. Test Regulatory What are the "potenttal methods (e g licensing, ceruGcation) of 2.1 Evaluate the effect of NRC regulation Regulmkm through licensing regulatory Mechanism regulating the klentified IXE actreities?
on IXE contracts Regulation through certification approaches (Generic /Lsc 21 Identify and addressjurisdetional Regula!km throrgh registratne that could be SpresficJ Ikm can risk-inkwmed. r,k,m a based reguleory issues Regulatim through a Mastet DOE used by NRC appreadies be applied in the pikt program?
23 Develop options Ev enforcement liceme in overseeing snechanisms activities (se a ikiw owld a mock hcense (or other appropriate regu!atory pikt set of document) be peer ared' TX)E nuclear facilitics)
Ilow will NRC regulation afTect in-going IX)E inrtiatives?
By wh*
-ans mill the NRC regulatory framework be enforced, fines, c%nsatory measures -liabilty of Federal mmagers, shutdown, flesibility to allow bstancing =ith national security Enforcement requirements. Ilow has IXE been enforcing? Ikm does IXE (Generse) translate requirements into contract terms and into iritplemere.ation?
To what extent does I PA hase an enforcement program that is applicable to this pilot facil'ty? Ilow well does it wori?
r What is the most appropriau ditision of regulatory responsibilities betucen the NRC, the States, and IX)E' To what estent does NRC have the necessary egettise to regulate accelerators?
N ARM /A ccelerators (Genersc/Sise What are the State regulatiom goveming accelerators?
l Specific) 10
OIUECTIVES ISSUES ISSUE DESCRIPTION ACTIONS & INDICATORS POTENTIAL OUTCOMES
- 3. Determine Facility identification What me the IXK facilities and actnities that would be subject 3I Evminse the compatibility of NRC and List of DOE facihtses and status ofIXC (Genersc6ac to NP.C regulatum' IXE/ contractor x4
..~e radionuclide quantities that would faciteties with Sper:fr) be subject to NRC$tsee reguimion respect to What quantities of radionuclides does the pilot facility possess?
32 Prepare optkms kw resolution of Rey _,. e enforced at IXE sites meet:ng conflicts between NRC/5 tate and are very similar to NRC/ State esisting NRC Using it.e pre-licensing interaction model. determine the estent DOE / contractor aq-m e
awk-e reouirements, of significant departures frorn NRC requiremems, DOE Requirements enforced er IXK sites or acceptable Identify significant requiremems, or any other appiscable requwements?
33 Document sigmficant safety issues at are different from NRC/ State alternatives, safety issues IXE nuclear facihties a,-a...ue but can be resolved on and to identify (Sue Sipers/sc) flow will NRC maintain uniform standards, and avoid a site by site basis any degradation of oversight of current NRC licensees?
R.6.u e enforced at IX)E sites significant are different from NRC6 tate safety issues.
Maintain safety focus ilum will NRC maintain credebility and have an immediase a _u e and must be resolved y
(Generic) positisc effect?
between NRC and DOE Ilow is the facility implememing the Federal Policy for the protection of human subjects in the use of AEA facilities and materials and hew is it implemented for classirmi research involving human subjects?
- 4. Determine the Resources Needed
% hat are the renancial and perwnnel resource needs for esteinal 4.1 Estimate NRC costs for regulation of Funding of the regulator sia dwect costs (to ICE fTE/ Money oversight for both the ramp-up phases and for the long term after DOE facilities appropriations and NRC)
(Generic 6,sc transition to full estemal regulation is complete?
Funding of the regulator via fees related to Specrfec) 4 2 Estimate DOE costs associated with paid by the contractor or IX3E NRC What are the costs to DOE, NRC, the State and the pilot facili:)?
transition to NRC regulation Fundrng of the regulatew sia dvect regulation of (contractor and DOE Fed costs) apprornations fiw transstion phase the pilot Fundmg Analysis What are the various methods of fun & rig estemal oversight?
and fees for the long term facifities and (Genersc6ste 43 Esatuate vaneus rnechanisms for other DOE Speerfsc) funding NRC durmg transstion and in fac.fities that the long term might be in a funding flow to similar class Obtain and condition.
(Generic 6dr Spectfx) 11
OBJECTIVES ISSUES ISSUE DESCRIFTION ACTIONSO, INDICATORS -
FOTENTIAL 00TCOMES 5, Evaleme Odwr Federal
% has relationships slumid the esternal regulasor have with ether 5I Essinate ad,antages and disadvantages DOE as reguimed emity ahernmise Agencies regulators of DOE facilities? E hat MOUs or other -.r.m.e of DOE er czmtracsor as regulmed Centracont as reguimed entity regu*atory (OSilA. EPA. etc.)
are needed with such regulators arul other overseght entity NRC as sole Water setscionships (Genrrbsse organizations such as OSilA. EPA. States, arut the DNiSB?
NRClead with Same support betacen NRC.
Specrfics 51 Idemify poecreal regelmory o,crfaps Some lead with NRC support DOE. and ShoutJ 000 s W agency" concept be put into practice and if and gaps State as sole regulatcr DOE so, lum.
Ahernatree kvm of regulatice u,e.caus at -
lead Agency Concept 53 Propose encans toi-. s for the pilot '
(Genersc)
%bt role mill Agree nent States have in the regulatum ofIXE poternial regulatory overfars and aps -
F facilstics.
poclear facilitics within their lurders? If there are many Same identify Role of Agreement regulators, how mill sigmficant differences arnong thew 54 Identify hians for translating contract 5:ates/ Consistency regulatory a6ca..as be avoided' current DOE Duectrves (Rules. Orders) changesthm (t~ e dSue to NRC/Stase regulatory ana-.e would be Spec.fic)
Wlus should be the regulated entity: DOE. tSe coraractr,s.w neededto both?
5.5 Deternane is gross difh. exist
. p~; side for between regatations of various States.
NRC What contract c.%anges would be necessary 30 implernent esternal and es atuate the ditTerences oversight of Regulated Ectity regulation?
contractor
. fGenere) 5 6 Identify (v.
.ioal changes necessary operations.
so traruition to cuemal regulation Contract Changes (Generk/ Site Specsfic) l f
t l
l l
1 i
12
OBJECTIVES ISSUES ISSUE DESCRIPTION ACTIONS O INDICATORS POTENTIAL OUTCOMES
- 6. Identify issues impact and Transition What is the poternial schedule for transition of the idernified -
6.1 Iktermme the impact of transitem No changes urnit legislation is rmal.
and potential Schedule facilities and actis isies to esternal oversight?
schedtJe upon the cost of transitkm Oprate in transiten perumi ander solutkms fGenersc/$ne IX)E using new standards and associated Sprcefic) 62 Proptee a transsten plan
' requirements with a -
llow mill the transitkm 5e made from the current DOE order Duatwiised standards and transition to DOE Order system system. 6.yka ad by contracs clauses, to an estemal 6.3 Propose a *ransition schedule av~a.e r
NRC (Generr) framework?
Develop list of replaced oversight of 64 Idemify DOE.4
- ..- that will requirements
- Safety avaa-.e IX'E nuclear What is the pmcess to identify and reconcile differences bets een be replaced by estemal regulation (e g 10 CI R 833. -- -e..a facihties.
DOE and NRC regtnreme,ts?
requirements (eg ORPSLcontract 6.5 Identify responsible offices officials requirements (Wss. Arp F.G) i Security / Safeguards should IXW retain regulatory authonty over secunty and in DOE for all a,.a.mee to be Imolte att necessary parties ise (Grneric/Inc safeguards and if so, for how long?
placed under esternal regulation retiew of requirements Sperrfac)
Obtam bry-in by luth DOE and What role should NRC or the Agreement States have in 66 Idertify contract modifications NRC on all altered sw. ~.~ e Decentarnination and decontamination and decommissioning of DOE nuclear suitable for k+k..a.
ion of No dange to contract Decommissioning facilities?
etternal regulation Contract to require ordy that (Generac/ Sac contractor be qualifted by holdmg Spervic) flow mill DOE facilnics meet the NRC imancial assurance 67 Detennene applicability of S&% at the an NRC/ State Licerne requirements for decornmisskming?
Pilot facility 1%XVs altered to reflect esternal Inspector General segulation Jurisdiction llow can dual jurisdiction of two inspectors General be avoidec 68 Resiew and compare current NRC 3afeguards & Security issues not
=
(Genrric) and EXE processes for D&D applicabic (il70A)- Ilow would NRC regc:ation of prK affect NRC's S&S cotered adequately by external Confhet+f-interest ability to fund activities at DOE latwwatories to surport 6.9 Identify facilities at Pilot site which regulation (Generic) regulation of commercial or DOE nuclear operations?
are under D&D status Desclop recommendathms for-fmancial assurance; time innits; Price-Anderson Which Agency's Price-Anderson Coverage should apply. and 6 10 identity contract work the site is resiew and apprmal auttu-ity for (Generic) what becomes of the Price-Anderson Amendrnents Act's doing for the NRC or State.
D&D plans enforcement provisions?
Deveky list es D&D facilstics at 611 Define difTerences between PA Pilot site Low-level Waste What is the impact of estemal regulatinn on DOE and State coverage under the and NRC Develop a Inst of conflicts +f-irecrest
=
(Generic / Sere ecsponsibilities under the I.sw-level Radioactise Waste Policy systems and impact on contractor Devek, a list of DNf5B f,acildies at Sperrfe)
Amendments Act?
the site 612 Define diffevnus in PA emerage of De%e drFerences tvith respect to
=
Tramportatkm What impact would NRC regulation cf DOE have on EXE's profre and not-for-profit -him crvd/crir imal liabdsty, and (Genersc/ Sue "self<crtificaaions~'
reporting requeements Speerfic) 6.13 Determine radeactive maste disposal Rn.v..%4 insurance coverage site options under NRC and DOE requiremects I:mergency Should this area be regulated estemally? Would estemal regulakwy authority What are disposal options for H-3 Preparedness regulation affect Federal emergenn response responsibilities under extemal regulation?
(Sac Specific)
(e g., f RERP)?
6 14 Assess impact ofestemal regulation (Hanford?)
on IXE RAP team program As NRC licensee,wdl the Pdot facehty have access to DOE Defeme-related issues Are there dual use facirrties at the pikt site? Should " nuclear desposaloptions? Statecompad (Generic) esplosives safetf be escluded from external regulation? Who sfies?
regulates defense facJitis whers'if DNF SB is dissolve &
No impad of extemal regulabort on DOE RAP team program 13
OBJECTIVES ISSUES ISSUE DESCEIPTION ACTIONS O INDICATORS POTATIAL OUTCOMES NFPA Issues UnJer NI PA. =hich agency -DOE or the NRC -.=ould ;wepare 6 I5 ldennf' authamsm foT Some irrgact of exsemal y
(Gmrrsc)
EISs and l'Ast gneparmg/filme NEPA<egered regulabon on DOE RAP team informamn repits a the Pilot sites prog am How comps:Me are the NRC's and Dors mformation DOE takes lead for NEPA g
techrudogies and systems for records e-+..aa includmg 6 16 Identify enfermannwt sechnology document preparabon g
N estabikhed records retentim periods for recordicepmg and systems used for recavds Estemat regulator takes lead for
+.aea unposed on the amtractors whm impac =cuid a-w ~4 and document NEPA document preparaten NRC regulation of DOE hase on DOEs inkvmmion cohectum transfer.
Develop a p4an to ink actnines under the Paperwork Reductum Act'~
DOE!NRC/ State infonnsbon 6 17 Identify arn infiwmation tectmology systems used for collections and document records management and whether or not they have OMB document transfer approvat Develop pian with mdestones, schedus. and resource e
est mates to otstam OMB reves and approval for any ider.tMed anformatson couectons weout OMB approval
- 7. Ident#y A w y ete How shouM the NRC be organized to futfig 23 new 7,1 Determee need for onsde NRC/ State onsite presence e legstative Organizational responsbshtes? ShouM there be a sepa ste NRC of5ce for presence necessary and St-<fure for NRC regutabon of DOE, or for regulaten of DOE defense NRC/ State onsde presera is not regulatory (Cenene) fa:Mes?
7.2 De6ne role cf Agreement State necessary chan9es Agreement States close*y necessary or Legstatsve Develop legstative language laymg out sccre and extent of 7.3 Identrfy. w csNe sechons of 10 onwohred in external regulaten w w e^e Language NRC au'honty, relationship wth other reguistory agences CFR by analymg 10 CFR 1 - 100 Agreement States somewhat to prowde for (Genenc) and consder the effect of exstng statutes on NRC into 10 0 R 800 series involved in extemal regulatern NRC oversght of DOE fachtes Ag eement States not involved in regulatory 7.4 Perform scopog study to estrnate extemal regulaten oversight of What parts of 10 CFR wouw be apphcable? To what extent prog ams and resources as Mapping 10 CFR 1 - 100 mto to DOE nuclear Regulatens shouM 10 CFR be amended?
needed CFR 800 senes ishs not feastie facddes.
(Genenc/ Site Ident#y gaps in coverage Speedic)
What con *irmator* research is needed?
7.5 To what extent wdt heavy elements and n,e-.. requae Regulatory Program How wdl the NRC tramog prtxyam need to be changed?
tramog needs?
(Generk/St%
Srecisc)
- 8. Evaluate Reg Relatonships/
How win the pubhc local govemment, and trbal 8.1 Idenbfy local stakehober issues Preparaton of a plan to reeve how StakeroMer gh,4s be involved other than through 2.206 pettens dscrepanoes between NRC.
stakehok*ars involvement or cdizen's suds?
82 Develop jomt DOE /NRC process DOE and State stakeholder shouH be (Genene) for deatmg w$th localissues evolvement protocols involved if the NRC 2 206/ Citizen Suds shoud legstaten allow "ctzen' suits" agamst the extemal 83 Develop jomt DOE /NRC process sssumes (Genene) regulator or DOE on facdety safety questens. as the for pubhc affars and press broad envronmental statutes do on environmental questons?
coverage dunng and after Pdots authorny over DOE Are beanngs needed? If so, what wouw be ther nature and nuclear Pubhc tnvolvement tmng?
fachtes (Other than 2 206 pettons)
(Genenc) 14
Appendix C LBNL Pilot Assessment Focus Areas -
A.
Site and Facility Organization, including Scope of Activities at Each Facility.
The assessment phase will focus on (1) organizational structure, reporting chains and lines of succession, (2) responsibilities, authorities and limits of key personnel, (3) availability of key personnel and (4) assignment and qualificat;ons of personnel. The effectiveness of the organizations with respect to safety will be determined from a performance-based assessment in the other topic areas, particularly with regard to problem resolution effectiveness B.
Management of Radiation Safety Program, including Role of Radiation Safety Committee, the Role of the Radiation Safety Officer, and implementation of Audit Programs.
The review willinclude an assessment of overall program awareness, management Involvement argl oversight, and the communications among Management, Radiation Safety Committee, Radiation Safety Officer, and Users. The independence and qualifications of review and audit organization personnel will be assessed to ensure acceptably diverse and experienced personnel in the technical and administrative topics.
The controls (p;'ans, procedures, checklists and supervisory or peer review) and frequency of reviews and audits of safety related topics will be reviewed. The review and audit findings will be reviewed, and the management prioritization and resolution of review and audit findings will also be evaluated for timeliness and technical acceptability.
C.
Training of Facility Users and Radiation Protection Staff The revlew willinclude an assessment of the initial qualifications and training of facility and radiation protection staff, periodic re-training, and the training of ancillary staff.
D, Receipt, Transfer and Inventory of Radioactive Materials The review willinclude an assessment of the procedures, including implementation, for ordering radioactive materials, receipt and surveys of incoming packages of radioactive materials, the distribution and transfer of radioactive materials at the site, and the hvontory of radioactive materials.
15
b E.
Personnel Radiation Protection, including Personnel Monitoring, Radiation Surveys, Laboratory and Survey Instrumentation, ALARA, the Implementation of Radiation Safety Procedures and Requirements, the Security of Radioactive Materials, and Use of Safety Interlocks The posting, control, and security of radiological control areas will be examined. This will include personnel training, personnel and facility radiological surveys and use of protective equipment, materials and clothing. An assessment of airborne, contamination, radiation fields and associated protective structures, interlocks, systems and components, and monitoring devices will also be made. Personnel exposure records will be examined to ensure accurate, timely monitoring.' The principles of as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) will also be assessed in the application of the various radiation protection feature for the facility.
F.
Radioactive Waste Management, including Effluents, Environmental Monitoring, and any Past Burials and Legacy issues This assessment will examine if gaseous, liquid and solid radiological releases are controlled in accordance with principles of ALARA and properly monitored and recorded.
It willinclude evaluation of the as built condition of the facility to ensure all release paths are taken into consideration. Monitoring instruments will be assessed as to operability, calibration, and maintenance. Environmental monitoring will be examined in this assessment. Radioactive waste disposal practices will be examined, including a review of any potential past burials of radioactive materials.
G.
Transportation of Raaloactive Materials The review willinclude an assessment of the procedures, including implementation, for the preparation for shipment, packaging, labeling, placarding, surveys, and transportation of packages containing radioactive materials, both onsite and shipments away from the site.
H.
Emergency Preparedness The assessment will determine if the emergency preparedness program is maintained in a state of operational readiness. It will determine if personnel are trained to deal with emergency situations, it will also assess if the emergency implementing procedures are consistent with facility safety analyses and design. It will assess the extent to which key emergency response facilities, equipment, instrumentation and supplies are readily available and maintained. If o" site support is needed, the assessment will evaluate the extent to which off site agencies are prepared to provide the needed assistance.
16
. m
I w
l.
Environmental Monitoring The review will determine the adequacy of environmental monitoring programs as discussed in site procedures and measure the effectiveness of implementation. The review will also seek to identify any incompatibilities between the site monitoring plans versus programs outlined by the NRC and State of California. The environmental monitoring assessment willinclude accuracy of dose modeling in addition to a review of source sampling and receptor surveillance for both' normal and accident conditions.
J.
Worker Protection from Prompt Radiation Hazards at Particle Accelerators Practices associated with worker protection from % prompt radiation hazards of particle.
accelerators will be addressed. Practices will be evaluated with respect to LBNL procedures, however State of Califomia regulations pertaining to these hazards and relevant NRC regulations will also be noted.
K.
Naturally-Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive Mt 1als (NARM)
A review of procedures addressing control of NARM will be conducted. The program elements used to control NARM at LBNL will be evaluated for compatibility with State of California regulations and NRC general radiation protection regulations in addition to assessing implementation of LBNL requirements.
L.
Safeguards and Security The effect of safeguard and security issues on effective extemal regulation of radiation protection will be evaluated.
J e
17
.