ML20217E622
| ML20217E622 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/14/1998 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-98-080, SECY-98-080-01, SECY-98-080-R, SECY-98-80, SECY-98-80-1, SECY-98-80-R, NUDOCS 9804270361 | |
| Download: ML20217E622 (26) | |
Text
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
RELEASED TOTHE PDR o
\\
5 4h&$
STid
.j date '
!nmels s
s,,, e
- POLICY ISSUE (Information)
Acril 14.1998 SECY-98-080 EQf3:
The Commissioners FROM L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
STATUS REPORT OF THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TASK FORCE ON OVERSIGHT OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, IN RESPONSE TO COMSECY-96-053-DSI 2 (REPORT NO. 3)
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this paper is to inform the Commission of the status of the work of the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Task Force (hereafter Task Force) formed to identify, in conjunction with the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), the policy, legal, and regulatory issues needing analysis and resolution before seeking NRC oversight responsibility for DOE nuclear facilities. This report covers the period December 13,1997, to March 13,1998.
SUMMARY
This paper provides a status report on the Task Force's work from December 13,1997, to March 13,1998. During this period, the Task Force focused primarily on: (a) completing the field work for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) pilot project; (b) writing the LBNL report, which includes an analysis of the major policy, legal, and regulatory issues and is due to the Commission on April 18,1998; (c) developing the work plan for the Radiochemical Engineering Development Center (REDC) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL);
(d) conducting an information-gathering visit to REDC: and (e) holding a REDC stakeholder meeting in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on March 24,1998.
CONTACTS; John H. Austin, NMSS/ERDF (301) 415-7275 0
I Patricia A athbun, NMSS/ERDF
{*"*d*
from the date of this paper
, ;jf(c1XLFJL \\,
980di! 03$f 980414
,;/U~bl PDR SECY
<\\/>\\,#
98-080 R PDR
l
)
The Commissioners 2
BACKGROUND:
In SECY-97-301, " Status Report on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force on Oversight of the Department of Energy, in Response to COMSECY-96-053-DSI 2 (Report 2)"
dated December 29,1997, the staff provided the second quarterly status report to the Commission, about the Task Force's work.
DISCUSSION:
STATUS OF LBNL PILOT PROJECT j
The work plans for pilot projects are *living documents" until a decision is made that no more field work is required. NRC and DOE approved the final LBNL Work Plan in March 1998 (see ). Phase I of the Work Plan took place from December 8 through December 12, 1997, and is discussed in SECY-97-301.
NRC and DOE carried out Phase 11 of the Work Plan, at the LBNL, from January 12 through January 15,1998. LBNL, the University of California (UC), and the State of California Department i
of Health Services (DHS) also participated during this time. About half a day was devoted to addressing each of the eight objectives in the NRC/ DOE November 21,1997, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Based on the experience gained during Phase I, NRC inspectors examined additional LBNL and DOE documents and visited the major LBNL facilities, where they interviewed LBNL technical and managerial staff.
Since the Phase ll visit, NRC and DOE (and occasionally LBNL and UC) have held approximately weekly telephone conference calls or meetings, during which preparation of the LBNL Report has been discussed, writing assignments have been given, and major issues that had to be addressed in the report have been identified, developed, and analyzed. That process will continue, as appropriate, until the LBNL Report is completed.
The current outline of the LBNL Report is given in Attachment 2. The major issues include:
(1) who the regulator should be [the State, NRC, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)]; (2) who the licensee should be (UC or DOE, or both); (3) what the DOE oversight role would be under NRC (or Califomia) regulation of LBNL; (4) whether the LBNL project can be extrapolated to other DOE facilities; (5) what the timing of the first legislative proposal should be; (6) how stakeholders should be involved; (7) how NRC funding for oversight should be obtained; (8) what regulatory and legislative changes would be needed; (9) whether NRC should seek jurisdiction over some or all DOE electronic sources of ionizing radiation; (10) how timeliness in decommissioning should be approached; (11) whether there should be NRC or DOE Price-Anderson coverage; (12) to whom should violations be issued; and (13) to what extent would conflict-of-interest issues arise with the current technical support being given to NRC by DOE 7 DOE and NRC Task Forces are developirg viable options for resolving these issues, and the advantages and disadvantages of each option. The DOE and NRC staffs currently believe that consensus can be achieved on these aspects of the analyses.
However, regarding recommendations to the Commission and the Secretary of Energy on resolution of the issues, consensus may be more difficult and time-consuming. To the extent
O-e The Commissioners 3
possible, and as appropriate, the report will contain the views of UC, DHS, LBNL, DOE, and NRC staffs, as well as other stakeholders. NRC intends to send the LBNL report to the Commission, with the NRC staff views on the issues, by April 18,1998, even if DOE has not completed its intemal coordination process. There are ongoing discussions with DOE on how to facilitate the decision-making process.
STATUS OF REDC PlLOT PROJECT in SECY 97-301, the staff indicated its plans to make the first site visit to the REDC facility on January 23,1998, and to conduct the Phase I assessment during the week of February 13, 1998. However, because of ORNUREDC scheduling conflicts, including the holding of an emergency response exercise involving REDC and the High-Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR), the familiarization site visit did not occur until February 25,1998. There were over 60 attendees at the February 25-26 meeting, including 5 from OSHA,6 from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and from the DNFSB. On the first day, ORNUREDC personnel discussed ORNL operations, including ORNL criticality and facility safety programs, followed by tours of REDC Buildings 7920 and 7930 and the HFIR. On the second day, plans were developed 1
for the public meeting with stakeholders; issues arising from the first day were discussed further I
(e.g., safeguards and security, allegation program), and the REDC Work Plan was refined.
i At this two-day meeting, ORNL proposed to have the Phase i visit in early May and to complete the l
REDC pilot report in September 1998. After extensive discussions, ORNUREDC agreed to the following schedule: stakeholder meeting in the evening of March 24; Phase I during the week of April 6; Phase ll during the week of May 4; Phase ll continuation (if necessary) during the week of June 1; and report completion by July 24. The selection of the March 24 stakeholder meeting was based on lessons learned from the LBNL stakeholder process, where some stakeholders commented that they had been brought into the process too late. Therefore, the date was selected to allow time wellin advance of the meeting and well in advance of the Phase i visit, to publish a j
Federal Register notice announcing the stakeholder meeting, and to send letters of invitation to the stakeholders.
During the first day of the familiarization meeting at ORNUREDC, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Laborindicated that OSHA planned to conduct a pilot project on the entire ORNL site. OSHA did not believe that its plans could be developed in time to overlap with the NRC pilot project. The Deputy Assistant Secretary indicated that if OSHA were to have regulatory jurisdiction over DOE facilities, it would need to develop an extensive training program in radiation safety. The NRC Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs has asked for a meeting with DOE and OSHA, to better understand the scope of OSHA's interest in oversight of DOE facilities. Subsequently, the NRC staff worked with OSHA to schedule a joint visit to ORNL to permit both agencies to take a look at the larger regulatory issues involved in extemal regulation of the entire site.
STATUS OF THIRD PILOT PROJECT in SECY 97-301, the staff identified the Savannah River Site (SRS) planned independent spent fuel storage installation as the third FY 1998 pilot project. Since then, DOE has determined that the uncertainty about the schedule of, and funding for, that planned facility was sufficiently large that it should no longer be considered as a pilot project in FY 1998. In its place, DOE proposed the "SRS
e-The Commissioners 4
Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel (RBOF)" as the third pilot. This project has been approved by the site and the DOE program office. A draft letter to the Chairman formalizing this pilot project has been sent to the Deputy Secretary of Energy for signature.
RBOF provides for the receipt and interim storage of irradiated spent fuel elements from SRS reactors and test and research reactors, domestic and foreign. Located in the H Area near the center of the site, RBOF has been operating and receiving offsite fuels since 1964. The facility is about 15,000 square feet, somewhat larger than a baseballinfield. It consists of an unloading basin, two storage basins, a repackaging basin, a disassembly basin, and an inspection basin, all under water. The basins and their interconnecting transfer canals hold about 500,000 gallons of water. A typical SRS-irradiated spent fuel element is about 14 feet long, and 3 to 4 inches in diameter. In comparison, offsite research-reactor elements are typically about 2 feet long, and 3 inches square, and are packaged in 14-foot aluminum containers for underwater storage. The packaged fuel is placed in two storage bas!ns lined with phenolic-coated resin-based paint. Spent fuel elements arrive at RBOF's receiving and storage area in lead-lined casks weighing from 24 to 70 tons. The casks are lifted by crane from a railroad car or truck trailer and placed in the unloading basin, which is 13 feet wide, 27 feet long, and 29 feet deep. All work is performed under water, starting with removal of the elements from their cask. An overhead monorail hoist transfer system moves individual fuel elements through canals to work basins, as required, and finally to one of the storage basins. One storage basin is 40 feet wide,27 feet long, and 22 feet deep; the other is 13 feet wide,27 feet long, and 29 feet deep. About 10 feet of water cover the tops of the fuel packages, providing shielding from radiation.
RBOF was originally built to hold off-site spent fuel elements for reprocessing in the site's chemical separation facilities (F and H canyons). RBOF currently stores a variety of fuels that can be processed in the existing SRS facilities. The options for disposition of aluminum-clad fuels in RBOF are now being evaluated. These options include reprocessing, treatment, and dry storage. About 30 percent of the fuels in RBOF are uranium clad in stainless steel or zirconium, which cannot be processed in existing SRS facilities without process modifications. These elements await development of either chemical treatment or dry-storage technology, which may be several years away. With its current fuel configuration, RBOF's storage capacity for aluminum-clad fuel elements is 85 percent full, with room for about 700 more assemblies. SRS is investigating reconfiguration of the fuel storage arrangements to increase the short-term storage capacity. RBOF as a pilot project would give the Task Force the opportunity to address: (1) backfitting 10 CFR Part 72 to an existing facility; (2) examining the significance of the Charleston earthquake; and (3) recreating the design basis of a facility constructed in the early 1960s.
STATUS OF PILOT PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 in a meeting between Secretary PeSa and Chairman Jackson on December 22,1997, Chairman Jackson expressed NRC's interest in having DOE identify, soon, additional pilot projects, to support FY 1999 program development and plans. In a letter dated January 13,1998, the NRC Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs sent the DOE Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health a partial list of additional pilot projects, to serve as a starting point for discussions on the FY 1999 pilot program. The goalis to develop a set of pilot facilities from which will be garnered a more complete understanding of the issues involved with possible NRC regulation of non-Defense Program DOE facilities. The Deputy Assistant Secretary responded on February 25,1998, indicating that DOE is in the process of identifying additional pilot projects for discussion with NRC and that DOE program officials had been requested to give the matter piiority consideration.
l
\\
The Commissioners 5
THE DOE STEERING COMMITTEE On January 15,1998, the Deputy Secretary of DOE established a high-level Steering Committee, consisting of members from each program office and the Office of the General Counsel, as a means for resolving important policy issues from DOE's perspective. The Deputy Secretary also established a task force, reporting to the Steering Committee, with three full-time and three part-time members. To date, the task force has briefed the Steering Committee four times. Formation of the Steering Committee is expected to facilitate both decision-making within DOE and the selection of FY 1999 pilot projects.
COORDINATION:
The OGC has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
L.Jo e n
Exe tive Director for Operations Attachments: 1. Final LBNL Work Plan
- 2. Current outline of the LBNL Report DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OIG OPA OCA CIO CFO EDO REGIONS SECY
Version: January 23,1998 PILOT PROGRAM ON EXTERNAL REGULATION OF DOE FACILITIES BY THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WORK PLAN FOR THE ERNEST O. LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY PILOT 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, Califomia 94720 Approved:
Date:
/6 Dr. Carl J: Papedello, Director Office of Nuclear Matenal Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/J
/
Date:
7[
Dr.' Martha A. Krebs / director
/
/
f Office of Energy Research U.S. Department of Energy Date:
d
[
JohnQ TseWg', Co-Chair External Regulation Tas
'ce U.S. De nergy Date: February 3, 1998
~ ames M. Tumer, Manager Oakland Operations Office U.S. Depart n f Energ 7
Date: February 4, 1998 Dr. Chk(c^/. Shank (Di&Mr' Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
WORK PLAN FOR THE ERNEST O. LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY PILOT PROJECT PART 1 - 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 Califomia (UC); the State of California Department of Health Services (DHS); and LBNL. The work plan contributes to the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), between NRC and 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 LBNL. The LBNL facility is located in Berkeley, California, and is managed and operated by the UC under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098, 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 Federal Agency for emergency response to an event at the facility, in accordance with existing requirements and procedures. NRC will evaluate DOE and contractor rusponse to any event that occurs during this pilot.
The term " simulated regulation" is defined in Section 111. of the MOU, between NRC and DOE, which states:
NRC will test regulatory concepts and evaluate a facility and its standards, requirements, procedures, practices, and activities against standards that NRC believes would be appropriate to ensure safety in view of the nature of the work and hazards at that pilot facility. Simulated regulation will involve interactions with DOE, DOE's contractors, and the NRC. Simulated regulation will include NRC inspections of each pilot facility to identify issues related to implementation. NRC's inspections will not result in enforcement actions to compel 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 Work Plan development are identified in Appendix A.
A team of NRC and DOE staff, led by two team co-leaders from NRC and DOE, is charged to ~
l-
perform this pilot program, as described in the MOU, and to prepare a final report. The NRC will review the LBNL facility and program, applying the concept of simulated regulation. The DOE has the lead for the assessment of the benefits and cost impacts of external regulation.
The DHS, UC, and LBNL took part in site visits, provided information for the pilot assessments of LBNL, and were free to provide their respective, independent views on the issues discussed in this report.
OBJECTIVES The purpose of the " Pilot Program on External Regulation of DOE Nuclear Facilities by the NRC" is to obtain sufficient information 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 DOE. Top-level objectives identified in the MOU are as follows:
1)
Determine the value added by NRC regulatory 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 altematives, and identifying any significant safety issues; 4)
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; 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 chan0es necessary or appropriate to provide for NRC regulatory oversight of DOE nuclear facilities; and 8)
Evaluate how stakeholders should be involved if NRC assumes broad external 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 external 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 Califomia regulation of radioactive materials, accelerators, and other radiation-2
generating machines; 3)
Review the current LBNL radiation protection program and compare with NRC/ State requirements, to identify gaps or inconsistencies; I
4)
Estimate the cost and level of effort necessary to transition LBNL to external regulation; 5)
Evaluate possible division of regulatory responsibilities between the NRC and State of California, the effect on DOE oversight activities, and provide recommendations; j
6)
Review by NRC and State regulation coverage of all aspects of LBNL radiological operations, including accelerators, waste management, environmental monitoring, and l
decontamination and decommissioning; 1
7)
Identify legislative and regulatory issues and potential solutions associated with a i
transition to NRC or State of California regulation of LBNL; and 8)
Develop a stakeholder plan to involve the public in the pilot team process to ensure that relevant issues of public concem at LBNL are addressed.
in Appendix B, the
- Matrix of issues To Be Considered" provides elaboratie i of the top-level and site-specific objectives for the conduct of the pilot. The matrix will be modified to address I
additionalissues as they arise.
l SCOPE OF THE LBNL PILOT j
The format for the pilot will be modeled after the pre-licensing visits employed by NRC in situations where the applicant and the NRC could benefit from a discussion of the proposed licensed activity and a better understanding of the NRC regulatory process. The team will use a 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 California regulations and guidelines. In addition, the pilot will include a review of safety considerations that are not expressly addressed by regulations.
This review will include all uses of radiation-producing machines and radioactive materials, inc,luding all representative forms of radioactive waste streams, 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; l
l Interviews with LBNL/ DOE staff; Scope of procedures and training; and 3
l l
1 Assessment of radiation conditions at the facility, focusing on areas of major risk and effluent patb ~ays.
DHS participation q the LBNL pilot permits an evaluation of the full range of options for externa!
regulation of LBNL rou. ion protection. The State of Califomia, an NRC Agreement State, currently regulates nearly all non-Federal activities conducted in California that use 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 (Title 17, California Code of Reaulations. section 30100 et seq.,
Public' Health.
PARTll-SCHEDULE AND MAJOR ACTIVITIES LBNL PILOT SCHEDULE Nov 18-20 Pre-project Planning Meeting Nov 21-Dec 7 Preparation for Phase I Review Effort Dec 8-12 Phase i On-Site Review and stakeholder meeting Dec 13-Jan 11 Documentation of Phase l Review, Review of Phase I, Preparation for Phase 11 Jan 12-16 Phase 11 On-Site Review Jan 17-Feb 1 Documentation of Phase 11 Review Feb 2-6 Phase 11 On-Site Review (continued if necessary)
Feb 7-April Preparation of Final Report l
PREPARATION Before arriving at the LBNL site for the entirre briefing, the team will obtain and review facility l
background / history from appropriate sources, including DOE, LBNL, and the Internet.
This will include the contractual and regulatory bases for site activities, such as the U. S. Code i
of Federal Regulations (CFR) references, contract number DE-AC03-76SF00098, DOE Orders, l
relevant standards, and other information, as determined by the team. The site safety history j
l 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 i
Phase 1 on-site review.
Following the entrance meeting, the review team will spend approximately one week at the site, 4
carrying out a preliminary assessment of the areas listed below. The administrative aspects of the preliminary assessment will be coordinated through the Radiological Control 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 Radiat!on Safety Officer, and implementation of audit programs; C.
Review of the radiation safety program and its programmatic elements. This l
review willinclude:
Training of facility users and radiation protection staff; Receipt, transfer, and inventory of radioactive materials; Personnel radiation protection, including personnel monitoring, radiation surveys, laboratory and survey instrumentation, and as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA)
Radioactive waste management, effluents, and legacy issues; Implementation of radiation safety procedures and requirements; Transportation of radioactive materials; Environmental monitoring; Emergency preparedness; Worker Protection from Pronipt Radiation Hazards at Particle Accelerators; and Other radiation 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 preliminary 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 Standards);
3.
LBNL Integrated Safety Management System; 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 and 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 review team will meet with DOE, LBNL, and UC management and describe its preliminary findings.
Subsequent to the on-site effort, NRC and DOE management will review the preliminary 5
findings from Phase I and provide direction on the areas to be assessed during the next phase.
Phase I Completion Milestones Completion of the following actions will be assessed in determining the success of Phase I:
NRC and DHS delivering of license applications and guidance to LBNL staff (supporting LBNL objective #2);
Carrying out briefiny and tours of the LBNL facilities 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 licensees (supporting LBNL objective #5);
Identifying LBNL personnel and organizations which are responsible for the various aspects of LBNL radiological 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
- 8); and Agreeing on the scope and schedule of the Phase ll on-site review.
PHASE ll ON-SITE REVIEW EFFORT A focus of the Phase ll On-Site Review Effort will be to prepare the mock license applications and mock registration applications for NRC and/or DHS regulation of radioactive materials, accelerators, and other radiation-generating machines. The focus also includes performing detailed reviews, beginning transition planning, identifying significant safety issues, and analyzing benefits and cost effects.
At the conclusion of the review, the review 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 tne success of Phase 11:
Estimating the value-added of NRC regulatory oversight of DOE nuclear facilities, including the use of the criteria described under Objective 1 in Appendix B (supporting LBNL objective # 1);
Preparing mock applications for NRC and DHS licenses (supporting LBNL objective #2);
NRC and DHS representatives comparing the LBNL radiation protection program with NRC/DHS expectations for a broad-scope license (supporting LBNL objective #3);
6
Verifying that LBNL requirements are effectively implemented (supporting LBNL objective
- 3)-
Estimating cost and level of effort to bring LBNL into compliance 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 extemal 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 and DOE protocols (supporting LBNL objective #8).
In addition to these snecific 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 REPORT OF THE LBNL 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 i
of the pilot facility, as well as other DOE facilities in a similar class of facility, as determined by the NRC Commissioners and the Secretary of Energy.
7
APPENDIX A - PARTICIPANTS IN LBNL WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT John Austin, NRC, HQ Ed Bailey, State of California Department of Health Services Ray Berube, DOE / Office of Environment, Safety and Health Frank Costello, NRC, Region 1 Chester Chang, DOE / Oakland Operations Office Steven Crockett, NRC, HQ Bill Eisele, LANL, UCOP Ken Groves, University of California Office of the President
{
i Robin Henderson, DOE / Office of General Counsel l
Steve Hsu, State of California Department of Health Services l
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 l
Patricia Rathbun, NRC, HQ Mike Schoonover, LBNL l
Kathy Shingleton, LLNL, UCOP i
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 California Department of Health Services Gary Zeman, LBNL i
8
o Et t E
E E
o mO S
Or i O E
dip De Eh aD n O e
ol t
r io n pE l h Of g y gt ioD r
M nO l f t
r o Do o n n at e a
a c a O
r o f
r a isi r t yn uPf f t s C
oiD on mnio o
nis a t
/
o aC eia at t
igm et e
T mluR mt gf lo n r
r i o ic e e c
le %Pi l
c r a U
ogeN o 4, r op o
t hhhh O
s s
nm o o 1 E is gggg r
f e
f oP i ct Oa uuuu L
oCh o
n wt t
nRt n
loi oDr oooo A
f r r r r o
o ri s nl t
iNo it t a
i/
hhhh eP n oPCk I
t t t t p
t T
ist o on if e
r s aEt uERe nnnn N
n n sOk sons.
ioooo si ma s
e t e t it it it a
t E
e t iee iDe eiDl oi r
r t / e t
a l laa a
l at T
i lpr t /
kl gkliCsiCc ni luuuu t
t i l
l O
eimoeicRocRandi gggg6 c
c e e e e e a or e a a
n a P
Sf cPSfNNfNCaf RRRR1 g
n n
o is it la t
u S
d y
lu n
n a
R h
e h
/
t b
s of g
O it o i t
n n e
io e
w m
T w k.
t p
e oio r
c e
o d
uct C
id c
A d
vr e
d d p R
s a
p
,t o
r e
f C
a a
eni t
D i
mo ds c ac N i f
r I
u n
c vb nt i f
j e
t o
.y ua s ra o
s r
d s r c sd mp N
sf n s
o t
iot f etcs e f
I aE ict giev e
r s
c f
i o T cd s
s gOie ad n
f ni al f
r a o
nDf si l t b le t
it s
e S
ivd na uope et v a s uvs e nd r
h on pm N
a ee e s e
/q c d l d c a s
t o
O s nn i
mted e el te t
et o Ey pi yl ime a ea s a a
f o n I
f d
a uOisl a mr ms imeluh e
T it r
n e
e eh r
C n a e iui t
laDn uvc r ak et c va v nd s e e e
e et qt e
r e s ic s A
Id n
t sDreEl iDm t
EiE s EoI s
disn 1
2 3
I 1
2 2
2 1
l 1
A 5
1 2
3 oC e
B d;
f E
s e
o o
sbO i
c t
)
ror rD ta n
y
?
f e
s h
e io r
s ng ms t
to u
t to e
a a
v e a tn k' e
?
n o
E e
?
e al d a r s
s if r
l i
b s
c y
t u
a r o O
it r
o g
i ma s
nw gw yD I
it e
i
- k. l c,
la t
r o
f r
t r
i
. e tai i t
o e
o aioo e
n v
g te n
pi od p
ta 9
r t r
r l t o
u r
t n
x e
E s
a e
x 5
g e
e d
r O
n n
r i
O md n?
- e l
a, l
a s
o u
y e
i r
h
?
p D
Ft gn A. l c
J gs r
t I
o is a
T e
i n
em o
rf i n a d
et a
c e
d t
r g
f owic s s
a
.m l r a a
e?
s a p
n yygom ow oS s
e f t g
r M
P r
ics a r s
e a
e e
b g p
io toinf r
c n
a r t i ne f
ne e
i I
e p
- l. it er r
n g
ic et n w oh n
m R
l rc o
gi c p e
n ab n t
eo is C
n ;
f
_ v t
a e
e n
h lu i a nc l
i C, h
v o
ei at t
t o
B S
iey
- s?
s a mi o
t e a nI t
s lo gl la e t e?
d
( c r
a v
t o
c e - bb n i R e
E dil
- t g
r r
i yety d E o
o f
CewE o vy N
v s
r p e
s x
D ivb o
f e
(
f i
t o
si ne hO ai e
a n
ooc hi d
E a si ef eh e
a R ul r
r l
o l
tah i
e h
o r
t eb v a eD n
p in nais md n
n o
t p
s n
Na aDt Aa c ir t sl C
t e
U a
n t
n u nt c
,i e?
it ee osi P f pa R
l f
T ie d
icd h mt p
S o
ueic eo laf ed l
e lu iwtoio o i u
a s
Et N
a e
?
g p
S i
c t
op c p g
l yt lo r
moee pdf e i i mil k a l
r i o
si p
s s e
t h t e
r y
p t
A la I
r n
tnn ud d pd a ee f p oe e
l w
m o
e ot e
r r
ep ai e
r o
gn n nr s
t di t b d a t
a?
t r
r bf
. n
>d n a aiI ad a u s
a r, i mp s s s e a x
r t h os t
r n
s l
etya ys e
i e C
t : e s ui te to mi e
S o
nt e
nl a ni c a eh kb a e r
R ae p t, n et x
el te e e
eit qt i
x c t
nil yn h
s b
t a
c h
t icdbiiee t t d)
N i*
it r
mr rl l
c a r
r epbi g
lut l
a i n er n e l hi e a r
e t b i i t
e n n
o-l owme e t b is at a
e c
w =-
i t
t l
r taf e ati a
t s
e r
w h
o ea m a a x
c s e l d cs f g
t lu wr w n w
w s,d i lsl wlic i n h a ei r
a r
h o
e t
o t
e a
t qa m op s
og h
u a
wlu a
p e u np p
h p h g o
iW.....
We I
a f
I Bf s r t i Ta Wr l
p o--_
l i h er e
o yn l i Te W
r r
sr s
o S
i t
t a
f r
E e
l e
e ne e
t e
U er ir n )c r
S B6 ym/S ei cS ci i
r s r
o i c )c me A/
S l
I iaic )c ic )c ni e n
/
t e nc la a e fi ri r
Mef n e yr c e ri t
uh nc oG R nc r
i t e e gc ee f (
e P(S RM(Gp n
Aee oGp e
S E
N(GpS S
e a
E h
eCg r
t d sbRinta a
V e e y.
f e y e d N e (s ol e
I nd r t rhl c )s T
idCoh toc uys et u e ma t
g ri e ni Rai a a ob ei s i
C t
t r e l
s oc e uNur lu r d vvt El E
t oioOi ge s
ptae tel y v
eg c
t l a
J a
o Treph s ncipDf B
Dvb e at uia r
O 2
1
s a
n s
e e
e t
o t
d t
t e nt is d
is lduhi e
c c s S
s v
e 2
e a e
r e
i h E
oCE E
E lo i
r v
feed p M
wluOe Oel Oe s
d t
o O
ae ta/
aS r aS e ia aOa n gD a Dta s Dt e t
a r
S t
t t r
idio t
t e v
vim v
dh C
nt m
/
t e
/b r
r r ri T
ast d C dCb dCt E o
ooos r e
e e
sO a eR t
t t
nt T
siet c
cRn cR uD lu la r a
a a ol g
t iet S rN Na Nm ut ut r
r r
t inCf o f
/
O ic c
n t
o o
c o
d g
ga gr o sf i
L l
aRnt nmt is nmd n e
er r f eol u a eona r
r t u
er e mb n
e a qNsl sf b sf sC h nh ohesh a
r a e s e A
f nt E eot i st s
t t
ct nmt nt t e nt t R I
n e nnie n n f iotf ef ior T
Oit i
d t t
o ee s eeN ot oh otaf c
emr mr mn gi g gi s uj
. s N
Dc a
l e
ym eT myef t
e e
nbLr E
f r
r e r iudf eb iud iu er i ie i e e n pn yn pe r
f r
r diodi bi ofe T
o ouu v iuq c.
d ut q npnd n pd r
r t is q O
isd e e qe e qis e e qi i
a e r
r r e e upuaupn P
LrbRa era e ara rb F aF pF a a r
r dn t
f in a
a o
h
'S C
se n
it d
o r n R
R fd u
i d
s n
N o n s
t w
oa
)
f a
a O
f s n
s is l
t n o mi t
s o e
s et u
T o
t.
it e
e e
icitoc inn ty ot n
y a
t g
a t
A i
si C
l a.
t s
uS f
o/m oad r
l as r
sl e a a sCe I
i c r
s o
s uF h r bk t
t D
i u eRiu nie f
a gi c
r q
at s
s e eg N
taq r N. r icl s
s n
rC mi i
t t
pe o.e inf d
I f ic o
oCD f
mr r
s u mo r
s r
a c
cR
- a. d o o n
c o i.t g
Cs ENn i Cm o
ct
. c ir e
S e a ipkta s a Ri Oo a raRr t
t N
h tr t
le Ni Dt r
r t
o vNte n
o n
n c l
nt O
e s
t o
et o e u e i e
c e
t a
t oc g g I
a c r c c mn af ai a ta n n T
u/
al i/
t E
pf E uE mir lui o vO enO oO imE i
t s
dl C
l c
t )
n n a
a r o sX s a o v ne t
Ef r c uh t 1
2 3
1 2
3 3
3 3
4 4
4
'e ty r
?
t
?
t la c
s n
nf i
t e
s e
d r a l
j e
t b
s x
te e ah te i
?
n m
c t
u s
a h
e x
s o
a h
c e e r
f g
t s
e p
e id r ea r t t
is r
hE lo b
y t
d e
oi it f i e og ip v
r t
d l
eO io m
l e
s o o
s f
e n
n D, ?
v?
m ic yi r lu i
c dl e
s c
i a
ad e
0 s
t mt o
a r
n ie e e?
h la 1
t e n c.
d e i
loaf nt te s n e
f f
w t
h e n n
a P
d m
s N
t o
tem e n
Eis er e n
e a, c a
e e
laAa O
h lip e
v s
c ol a
t T
ie h
ld.i q
r f p x
R si t
r e
e ef ud m I
r u dl a
P e
aC d o lc o
s e
t r
h no a
g e u d
e r
s t
I it t
d qr dR n
F e o e a c S
n o e n
sf r s s i
s v
e mr le aN a
e u l
ei e
d R
i o
d e s n h
n C
c d
nCb tst i
t t
y h ee na t
u a
t a
orc n
l gt n nhi C,
h t o
f d
e Nl me i n i m S
s it d
c p
ou i
i n e opt f
i r r b
s r
a t
r pl R
o E
n i
ra mp c
d ns e eu u s
D a
lc e o a if N,
d s
nf e
et p - g e
u t
r r u o c
me lp?
pe o
r c
E it n
jmt n
E h
S l
io inf e d
r ml O
e s
U i
d n r o int i
t ebi sh n
i get h
c a a a l
r n D
m put e laer g
a c
a is n
msij ict t t
u S
a a
J t y i e i
i u
t t
sb niu h e o
s n
I f
r r
?
r an a
s n
E n f
a x
a a
yi mw ah e ts io Oio o
p mv m
lch h t
o, Cf C?
i u o n s
L e r o
t s
r m
inol o
a a
lu c
s Dt ie I d a
f b t
l et s Ro Re f
f c
afd u er e
e h g it r nt eu pa n Nn Nf on h h f t T
oo h
h tn c
o e
a t
t t
t e a
ei m
l i
l e
it ai a gi a
a e r l
t l
c h n g
t ol n eh n e
e s
t u
hf a
r r
o r
r aC q
t i c iwd iwvi is n
g gL a
ci v it R
r t
si t
t t
tan t
e a
ni u wr wi wt telo a r s a
a o
e I
e o o o oa v h e n h
h s
g s
h P
isf q o
va Wt W
Uor l d f p I
pmi Wot W W r
l l
n r
n s
io u
t c
ta n
o d
s S
ic a
f e
is o
c y
d f
i t
e y
t E
i e ins t
f
)c e
e e
lae w
i f
e U
nt i gey a
Nyi ni l
/c )c t
t t
o eS is su c s eS AS S
s S
d
/c )c ef 6 yS in )c e n
/c )c f
o d )c S
I e
s i
gi g
yi p a i c
I yi uMry i ey i n iri ri f
r r
n r n
it e
e fr t
e l
n ic
- ter ia e sFee nee nt e e i
n n o/n c d n c d ianc i ee ef i M(
RF(S F(S FO(Gp r
caGp d aS G
eI Gp uGp ub F(S I s(
S S
Eh C s,e f
h y
t a n.
eE E
Oi R t..b s
f d
a s o t
l
,i s
O o
n nsi t
t e
V eDw a e n t
u eD) n aE h i I
n o N t
lat
- a. i vpidi ci im (t R it e
n t
i oCo ot sos ecd s
n T
i f st a s gg C
moet nn c oeDieb n
i.
i y r
- ht yne et i
r d
ait t t a o it c uo i t l
ii2 sNeClupl rihl c f
r si et t
i l
i t
e ulipes u E
t sd aRgechieigmd d
gf e
t ta c s ei q e
ci J
x e ri nni a onl r t f of min a emer oaaas s B
Dtsf DcareNeh at a s a r
O 4.
3
SE M
ty no O
i dt it r
vo t
p la n
p mu C
e u
yt d g
T er s s r e U
in :a to t
or eCt O
et at af ul aRl o d
gut u
e gS N g m L
e t
a r ehht r o e r A
r t I
l s
ii e f
uaewwl T
g
,l e
o o v e
ahal les t
s ivsdd si N
r aa E
s e a
a n T
E nCCeer t t e O
OoRRa at t
t l P
DCNNSSA s
)
e s
s r
r s y
g s
p e
t.
s a
p a
gd r
r i
a-s te a
s a
g r
t S
tnd l
od a
s v
f n ln O, n-ixt e n a e e
R t
eS c o vt a
ei O
d a a
s s ei s s u
e u nat al o
e u
t s
nl T
is c o s lu g
y ap a uq e nis r
s A
d e o
nl r e e g a
rRr ea c ge t
r C
d t
er r(
r vn nr s
a y
e e
al pe os n a l
mo o
r h a r
ff I
u v
f e a
N et e
o s ivt if oe cn D
r g
s o f
a d sf r
r c y mtcl s ni la e gc r
u t
I s e s od u x t
r l
oo aa g
nt i
t t inie oi e e
a r
t a
r c
t t
sl aDr glah a o a n n
nu h
e r t t
S v o e
a g cEt is u tnn e
N d c to e e eOta gt ar e n oo o
p mr mD/
e.
O e
s l
yt C S
n u
ci t
aE yp a
m c. l i n laDit t g isi i
t a
yi I
T f
s v
f uOy
- a t
T n
inR r c pe t
e e --
e t
ra C
n nr N n
ed t
d u o teid et vf t d n no e r A
Eoe I
a P p I
ct Db a I t n
e n d o 1
2 3
4 5
6 5
5 5
5 5
5 s
rt la f
en E
n h e i
Ote r
d e
tom r
t 7
n a
e Dt o,
x h g B
a f S e
it n S
e r
wa F
ic oyr o
n t
N t
nni t
r c
e c
oae a
m e ra D
a mh a r r
it v
r t
t t
lp a
e h eh e p
lu r o c
i 1
eg n
gh o
n o
1 h
ga m
i r t t
s t
N oord i
r r t
n e e m e
a r e n h
o O
l ov t
e e a u
o a, u
h h t,
t gs I
s y
r s p
t t e
E r
T eUe ta b
n f
e e
O a
P la M o S, inI c Oht t e? e D
s r
s I
t r
e R
n p
v s e?
- y ec r t d e
a r f d C
e anA c
h ef t h a di e t
n S
x P
n s rdd i
e E
eWrs E, o
e ot i tn b
b n o c
ta e
e o
D h? t t r a v t s aL y
Si c a d
ld A
e u
E el c
ei e t
o t
f U
ldi uI n
nthib lu a
t gS n
w e
e s
uli eO g
ngt S
oi S
h c a
miin g
s r
s eh s
r l
e e
e ah a d
I sf t
r g
ei l
e n
c gwim s
a pEuh le As i
h a
we s c iO r
t h
h u "s
l ie wu e
h c
sDt s oq b
t f iwn
'E i
n s
l it l h e c
o o wi,y e as ld a
r o O i sdi c
r?
t u
t a
et n n le od a D?
lo oo r
f r r o
r t
h oio r t e iz d w r at l s
ct a e n lu h, tal uu oh a l a a a
o t lu n a el
?
t a
u o
h c h geg gg h to h g e r r h o Wnr u
Wr Wb We ee ao S s r
r tp c.
. y
)
- t. cn s
t n
e y
e SE e,
O
.ts t
n t
U l
Are y
wie i
g a
n a e
. s i E
hi r
e Pi c
r t
S n
gnS S
d CS E,/c )c A o l )c d )c l
e)
S e es gc Cc e
t c c i )c i
i I
FiAri Ar ot f
i t i r pi a r a
r c
ef e
s e pe e
e r
r l
ic d n e e nc lu n t
e nin nc h eS e e a e a e e ge n ee t
t gO G p rG lot Gp eG oGp OA(
RS(S R(
C(S S
t (
(
l S
C t
t E
s a
pR a
f V
eyhi N. d s
r o
I v r o
h r
o r s t t n
. a c loeyt t e of t on T
eio s
n t s t
h t o
t sb e
gci t f c e d
a at m,Et C
lunl i a o ai i it r
i a gd d
is t r
at eiCr
- E r
r a pl nt nlud E
a ut r
v a
B Eale gl iOOn e ic e n a o e oRene J
v t oh sDDct ad oh er vop e e c w n pN o c o fI c r r:
O 5
f i
d t 3 g
l t
la s c d
n a
2 c
e n
n r g
r r s s
t a
o S
e nt r) d s i
n e
oi n
t r
r t
3 o
o e
o t
te i t
E i d ent f
t r
e 1
p n
t r
- f a
t o
t
- s n
n e
d e
n x
r t s
ilni n G,i s nd me g
c p a
1 t s o
M iu n oi a
l t
s a.
4 o x
s e
oiy ie f-ic o
m c F.i o
li d ?i t
e e r
r ta e
f mi s
nd a i
e E
h e
y r
i oa pr e
f P Eel
- h e
r O
e ;
t C
io t
- f sd v
u b
si o l
t B os d
ug) ird n
qaS pr Oh t
n o
s?
eOiu t
y tc s
t a
l F iwi n
tpa iws mmro s
nl s
e t
nP pa Du lyb l
i ly oeh ic ic s g c
nn h
r a er a
d ai a f
y c
ioo l Dt e m a,
e T
ls pa e
e mu S
h aRAps a y m O. S; r eor a oinr i
te it f
t e
i t
t h qt d ef y
c r a r
d s
ynt ec n c
U ignn d
es e t
t oal r t
t l
t a
d la D
nN pa g r
f r
leoa a
t S
r l
ct c
u e
o l
a o lu O
lp e );
ambdt ei eo u
n;v cD si r
g
,s t
r q
L l it s
d f
s e
a5 g s eyr e
e nia e
eb u
la e e eote p c
i is w a
fS38 (e W ecib e ouuLd e
mn o D ff n
r r
i d
r c a s
s r e cc x t
a mr p f
oo nil in ol s c t
cqq e
S a
nn
(
u nl m
A ua e t
o:
e e en qi ao e e r N
gi ine el eCeelaf uagt rS l
d oup o i l f i e--
mre s s t t el pa nat a
I r ns sRt s s r et e s is r n n =
nd af e as s
e o tat e
c s a t
t t t
st gnd ns nF nnl r yll t t
e i
e -
b t
l e
t d t i r) s n e et ot T
e n s
s s
r e
is f
e c
nd e enr ad nl a a i m m e?livS a
t P x
o/
n a e
a c
mimpm mm ob nntct orHv txd C c C 's o
n es aoipl a al pt pp d
h ? aA E
at ueme lei
.iil e
a oe0 e e i
oiw poiooe e i e e ae ok itys pR e
l r
r 1 r r v winoa a r
aRMt r
u t
T h a r
a c cal
/
h r c
l sl t
c r r
rf nm r
l gi e neDet e lei n/i it c rEiua iu v u uuoiteaCct ntnNCuel S lu v ai u
u a e nNl oiE sil O
opOquqe q g qqv vbRoo o n O gf v ovv p&eDieDDPDDhDieReWul ictpoO f
ge n v&eli e e e e i qeqhd a i
v a
neONNCc aP P
WODrDreDre e e e p
e nl s e
a r
r S aS r f r t
c r r
( Af oND
( r rI b
in le e
s e
n d
r g
m d
b e
n a
n l
c e
o l
o f
e S
no i
ls a
h a
i ts a
n l
a a it t
h o
s s
n c
er o
o u
t C
i d
y go pE it oi w
i lp s
R h
is s
t a
R it i t
i e sl S
t c
s a
a c iO l
s a n f
N w
AC O
i n r
f T
na le h io ob na e
e a s
dD u
PR vt e
r iom S
n is t
e f
e te is nN on g
t t
a r u
s t
/
t f d
la s to t d e
t A
tat r
t e
e e
c o s
r n
nu c
n ic x c
me f ts o
r t
c a
C f o n
e h
ed r wn o At w
l m
a uD o
r e g i
a no ot a
h f e y
i c&
l t
at Pi C
ma I
f ei if l
eD P
k.
t s lp s
e l o
t i
t t
d D
c o c
f r
eE a n o eR e
mla o
ib t
ot r
v g
o r
r r
e N
ac n
n ia le b
t r
r iNy x o e u mn a r a
wt sot i p pmh it io o
u tc t
qm r
a bi g i
a e
i t
o n
s -
ri e r I
s s
a ic po s
S eDo er a e f
r p
u e t
e e is s u mf ien n
n t
t i
r t nqr ct lp o
x s
iet c
c c
c o iod o p
t n l
ts r o e e n et d nh om r
n r nf S
h o a
a Ee o rel a
t p
c s icd nC e n e n s a at a
r e
it a
a t
t a
t r d o r o a uu c
Oy sll n n e a y p
r r
e N
teu r
t d s r
t t
O n
r a
Db e a te om e
f ut en y mP n
ei n c a
oR i e a ff p
f c
r c e o ni a
l o
f&
c i d e
d r x N
d nor A
I imlu s
s f e f f e i ml c
yD y
gp d n iimtpt isR e
e y
yo ylpi imf wp i e itnt f
o r
f t
a a
f T
t e e a m e
r d o
o c
r a
e e p
p i a inE e tniu tel eO ed e r e
a t
t r
e t
r nl et iE h
n r e p e) d o
v n
i vd int r ol eE C
s ei i
e u
f teh o
m f
t t
g sO e r g i
d n d o on r
e s
c r
d e dXn d oe DP RD I
u I f Dc a Dp Die AD e o e
A Ds P
P I
r I [
u I f r s r 0
1 2
3 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1
1 I.
1 1
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
n
?
e d
e e
y e
o
's n
ic o
w ie e
t id d
l
'E lal lc??
t r
s h
s r
e eW eo t
a b
d c
v C
a, tap i
e t
i d
f r
i ol s
n n
a O
i ys R
t a
e a
inr a
e S e n
E c
r lp 't D
nb und e
b Nt a
o?
p d ts id Om e
r c
ri n
n e s noe n
y el u
l t
a v c s
ps aA
" i v e
e it n
a r
e pn aW o
t o
d t
o
?
s a
c Dt e
x e
u h n e
f ui lal x
r r
a u o
d s h
t, e Tf e
sE la n
f s t l
t E e e
ep luus n
i c
u n a
a v
v d s s
t wt ic e
or o e Oi a
e ogi 1
N f
a d
s te ic G
Et e h m Dt h
lur h ed O
o?
r a
n c
oe S l i O
nt o
le r
t D a
s s
e Os p sd a
E s
o r r ge O
Wn te n
? a T
ioh n
in Dieo en oio v
S I
r o
mB f
g e s, n
o t
o f
t f oa a m nd D
? p is F
R a v ma e
it e g C
e al eA i R f
lys teS t is h e o
y P
is r t
s a
c ot e r
o c
I ne u
t x n
e oeN mi R
p nr c v
t o
l r
lpmf r
C t
o ol h?
r i N?
n it b n Cs lal s
oou on a
r r
o e n e
n y
i D
o u v io mc r c d
eo g
i a
t g
r l f
n u n gs en a l E n e gx e n e oi S
oa t
r s
hi o
luEO od l
w lu eg t d e f n e c a
e t
t e
hf nr /
E r
d a a o Ai I
a t
n w
x r
t g
s r
y D
le te at f?
yl eOD n
r e m t
o t
r a
g d e a eh w
h m e
E d e o
i ts r
ei f
ux mn s
rDr eA o
e e m s
t o
mL d w s
o nn o
t e
ec ee tah r o mi Ct o d -
r t
u ne Ai?
te ae it c ie U
h o b y oc m
n Ral el s c
e C
l i xt S
s s nb id m lur e
s io
- r s et R
lua l
el t
a xh i
c em Nesi e
go Cd it o ic i e irh is d
d **
f, Rd li c
d l
t c
eP n gr ic i
iod or e
e S
N e e f r d i r c
o di t i r
t ei oe r d a ec u
o t
e I
iit i
t s q iaf ld a
i Na icd s
n e
s oim n s uv Pt t
e e f b a v
s tni n
ee trd uo Ef la onf n
t ime wt e
et a e c r i
n f r u
wc m sf v c n?
lu n b F e*
n s
f t
r t
a ac o o c
s y e e
o a o
'y om p
c m
mC t
Os c
j s A i
at ut s t
r ca t
e e t e
n oi wd c f
')
s p pd el pR E a h
t t
af P l far r
a e
i s a
a e
e n h p?
oa ie l
e d
l f i t s n t
e mn el n c ic eN Os i
Dn u
l u o s
l n
goe hi e pi is aR us e h a l imk h
t af d sd lem?
i m n
) oo Ac m t J Dd r
t b t
h nE t
o t i e e s i m o
e e s
i w
ia lug t
ol wu w
1 i g h
f h pm hl o u lol s e lw m,e r
m aE a
i we c
ya hb c i sd imr s
s r a
iR t
r v a
A d
h s te e
ii r tnt 0
u ei t
n d t F,.
t it n
c a
e ir t
a 7i l a o a
e a f-lul al wte c
oq o
l u
ict r t
o t
t t
c os a hO of h ci hi u
g ep g h a h
s e
h g Wf yr WD S s e a l
e l
)b e Wdf I
r l
( ar a
l Wwen WrA W "s r
e e e x e l
sf Aer S r (
n io d
se s
n t
m d
a ts su is e
a n n l
e te i
r g
s a
S n
ts u
oi r
r s
a n
e e
n a
d E
r y
g it t
n n
o a o n
I r
leS i
s )c te We oe e
S e e U
T i
r ai nie t
f t s i e
s t
it itaS yef le )c s
a t
sS Gn f-e S
d S
e S S i
m i /c )c r i )c o )c o
i n e /c )c d )c
/c )c d )c cnc r
n v /c )
t
/c )
nd e i
S al
/
a mi r
ci r
ot t
yi t u ie fr Ori t
ric oic ee p e r I
e ci ic i r
r r
r Ai t
i n m r fr t
ef r
r p r fr a enc E n unc oone ed e l
e
- e e fr s e cd e
i s e gras nn r
ph e e Oe ce e c c e e pi e f
n en I
r s n w ne n ne epe e e n e oG ic e rG oGp rGp mei fG e e a e e r
e s r mcGp G
eGp eGp n u G(
e iS( S D(
S(S DD( S S
r I J C(
P(
L (
S T(S EP(
D(
S sel r
E ua o
f a V
si t
oe tn d
lc T
is s e n
t I
yt nt io h u e e
s ignit a
f ooiai C
it pi c tsCsEl r
i t
E n
uoh n
e i
edl si aR vOc t
J d nos a
I as a wtrNoDf B
O 6
m s
r n
d e o
o rf t t l
d a
Et S
r os a.
v t
e i
0 M
id f
ea
,t u
n l
nd 1 b n
a s
u r tr s a n
y o
le O
E o
cn e
o o
v c.
le D, v
t ioe oi O
g m ".
ao ioot n i
- y. o r
is k
v d n n r e m m
v t
s ri a n
at oC!
W ad s
n i
ly luv ina e rA ei f n ot t
e h al s
mi a
o e
eRo r
t et s a
c C
la gP s
me me ed mB l
0 f e
- gn 0 t g Nv r
l enr M e
c e
T mroE e i.
oa o
n uic o
s k
yk r s on
. ei 1
nr s
el wi e pN omr afO e
a c n o uc U
txmo gl t
- m. r t
r o
e n
fn uwi n r
o r
t i
e s
!an nI / o lp 6l is v a c O
t p
p ci oimd d
h oe u
t s
r eaf o:
ms t e edi sid o i
is tel e e veh te e
s a t
o s
eiRic o
L f ed -
t t
nwr ei t s
a t
ut et t Fs n a
~h ntas a A
P e la --
at y nd if i n
n t
ot a r
gtat a a ei f
e Cis xt t
u
. lp/
a l nBn w o
o S
a rS eS l osk c
g S st t
e u
I aAl n e e
e t
r g0 ep e a T
pR e or
~aCy ap a, M e s ta a
s al a. in t.
e1 s a nit
~
ml g0 io c s g
d n yt y a
. r A
mE ki g
n es pR o peOio t
at a a&oNl
. edi m
- 4. m l
t r
r
.d. n E
ieOt a a nAl o i. lou yi t
at lo l
t S
e a n0 y S
apt r
a n/m
.e f
eE n n n c
/
T v
i8 it
/
mt r
c mDEapeP v h
n v ea ae C
m.e a. l r
p aeS o t
l C
. x r
r t rl R
uR O
onOe xEeOcaeh o
e pR n prc n
n x
d r isd to sv st aF e e
P S o D pE N D D temDscb oo m N n. A i A i A e M C I of c N
nr Pd ap gs e
ine
?
i it t
v R
s n
a l
s d e sh F
d r
r e
n n
C0 s
o o
S l
t go am oy 1
ed nn
/
t e f
f 0
t e
e g s
s s g R
nl y g t h i
e ie s
s e o
a 1
t iP ga ct
+
"c n r
t s0 imd mn e
e ea O
e r
t f n e
on e
a e lo a
oi e
ei u
c c r t
T ph ' nm e
o n
s o
oe a
S ts n lei s
r r v et A
r n0 e
a i
p po pt h s no te t
o1 oa vt e
Cs Cc r
s yr r
C a
n r
cd.
ior is e
it t
oe s
a e d
Re Rs I
e r r n
m cI ye ei lo Ns Nret r
s D
f oe e
u t
e s
nc f tah o
e d c h u
- v. i r N
n r
e sR ts o iwr a
r plo u u l
q h
J s
/
mte o
r s
oe n r
eF l
e e
Fi E
i is I
t a
rh f
g l
k Ol OdP bC s
r o
n a r a
ot f w ge s
S ci rd n int l.
d A
a s
nr t r s
n ad mf Dc D a, tr t
o ic0 i ipd et l
h e t
a e
f 1
r a
a o
e e
no r
nv e
o lpge ot txr c
t l t
n nsf N
eu f e e ye o n
ih ir a r
e nmp el o
oi ioad mq n s c up n
l pns c a.
t e
e O
e i u a
yc a i
o ai s
t e l
jw jf n r
p0 yr ys m i dB f
ac y
p pa a y p0 m
I f
f m
f o m
e inmR f
s wa i - lei lei i t
r n
t h c f
og o
f T
i A a8 r.
e&
C nP i
n cg t
tnt n
e if e
t t
vf n
eE e sd edM n
l r
s vb d
e e
r s o n d
e e uu e
e yF e
A d
d yn d nO D D d
N I
s a I
bC P g Ta Dd D pd a
I I
I 5
6 7
1 1
1 1
2 3
4 5
1 2
3 6
6 6
7 7
7 7
7 8
8 8
e C
E r
?
a n
?
R O
s d o s
N D s t p
g l i e
t inu e
n ut it f
n es l
d f
t r
i oc r i o
p d
wl f i t
e ol d o e
ms a
n t
?
n 'n m
a ld u
nl lo e c nnt x
d e a,h u
o c gt a
r pn f e xsi t
g viz te nna icf c c t
g e
e e e
?
e o
it f
x s
r i, ip u
s a
n ot e
n t
w a
mt emio wo s e ie r eo a
e h
a i
ehi m ?"
sRe ae o c
lgc n
d c a
nCf nn v w
h h t t n
3 e
e nei t r
r s
C o ek t a o s e ie t
r 1
o md a N
R i
f g
b t
t aC T
e i s s a, q n e o l Nd u
rh r c i eE t
%o b
r n i s t
O N
gcWfoA l
h n
R t
o o
yN
?
t dit ai n I
s a e n n f
a nl tao a
e e
i e
T h
E' nr. isb lua r
lb d
ni got b
ar s rD tao a
e n
a, t P
Omf o 'E c t
t r
t e
s e o
t f pf ul t p "s e m ld r
t c
?
e I
o Ds cOu oeo ous ilp e
e6 t u u
d n
n R
s t s ge uqn o
i E
dd d a
d n
ge r
d m
m2 t
C O
n ot De d a o nr u p
0 o
w r
s yr a oin nR e
i iyr a a
t e
a S
D cr et b a et e
n g
r2
'n e vi t
e r
n t
s e eo ok iz a
E a
f r pc r
n e lu l
h s n
h e
e a e D
C' b
o vh iz s w,
e o a
q Ro ioh a w ge e g
n d?
is t
r g eog r
r n e v p
og ym E
Nst h r ot ahit l
d h
gu it f
rh r t
u e c
g
- ah i o s
o ci -
o t
t n
e r
ui s U
c.
eme oEp ed o gwix wn e
ia n
lof s I
od r
n r
l f
n a
in ct wcd bl f S
t t edOa u
n e
e s
o a
S h et P
r a
p eD*
Co Rm e
l, a e
?
if of e Rh o, l h o F a t
ch la nt d
h s r c
eys r
I s
r r
e u
hi asd poh N SE i nc Ce y
C lb r n
a d
s ot e
v t
i t t
oe 0b w
R e
ioEt e
w?
led r t
n omnr e?O t.
u s
aiT 1 R a
N pt Os e
As i a ci oe h ie3 ige e o
t t
h taDa n
b t
t t sr s id f
ls la e f
e t
n l
o C i h
hd ls t
s l
F m
e e o t
A a e t
a P E gid nl u ldi r
- n g
Nd
. oh mgs oio l
r, h e
s f
t t
e e oe i
E
.ogee u uin t
t 0 n
l iwol d to n
b t
ptyr s a1 o
l l
v fe r r
l m
n s
eie r
i r t
h si r a vloie i
wpu loie t
p c
i n
a?
e w
r s na rdi uCvi ol e oi i t ld t
w win lul r h n whnbl v
a o e g e
s d
vh sl a u a
a nS oct qRt os g et ni h o h
ui o gv ei c
o o
m I
l e s c
l e e Dauoa Wh W UE I t ereNa e
h e n r
l l
r e Ai f r r cf s
f I b S
t ega m
t
/
s C
u a
s t
n laN a
o ip i
e6 R
g r
S n
g u
h S
m0 E
r e s
e2 s
e nr L
e Pit n
t t
n lv2 U
e nyi te oo si t if e
nS yS ior n e
S u
o gS i t e )c r
d iz on e e t
v a S
s )c i o /
a
/
iv )c o /c )c oicc) tal m )c i )c n h )s )c a
si t c) r r aloic piz r i it i I
I t
Anemnefr ont e lai s e e ft la et le ri o ei Ci t
r ur r
lunc I t ni a r r
r u
h v
/
r unc Rel e 6 e ic r oe r a c n n
rh n e P eo ce e p gu e ige gee gee gk o n 0 n l h i e ei t n EGf a v e e
b nT(SeGp pr rG eUp eGp et nG
- 2. G t
AOS(
x G(
t t
N(I P(u O e G(
RfS R (S RSi(
2(
I p
8 d
2 n
o e
s r
a rt f v w
h e e r s
t v a y
oe r oe or f m oe.
ey t
o y
lc.
h e vr yaf t
d e iu l
a s
el bd s yc r
l yi os r; e
oh u e ta d
s gni o
es t
u a
t t e
rd f a a s
e r
i ls l gs t
ini lv a ai v
s i
uh r
t t
d it niune
.ivClurEli lak uoCahoEl l
e r
yoRgeOc egga c v a ovR mt Oic u
d leeh e pr e v a
h n aDf u
a t
I r cn
. pNr oDf Ets siNb U
7 8
)
Appendix C LBNL Pilct Actscem2nt Focus Araco 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 qualifications 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 will include an assessment of overall program awareness, management involvement and 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 (plans, 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 review will include 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 ofincoming packages of radioactive materials, the distribution and transfer of radioactive materials at the site, and the inventory of radioactive materials.
14
E.
Pars:nn:1 R!di:ti:n Pr tecti:n, including P:rann:l Monitoring, Rcdicti n i
Surv ys, Labar tory cnd Surv:;y In:trum:ntati:n, ALARA, th ;Impl;m:nt:tian cf R:diati:n S:fety Procedures and Requirements, the Security of Radioactive Materials, and Use of S fety 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 Radioactive Materials The review will include 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 progra iis 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 off-site support is needed, the assessment will evaluate the extent to which off-site agencies are prepared to provide the needed assistance.
1.
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 Wh normal and accident conditions.
15
J.
Werk:r Prst:cti:n frcm Prompt R:disti:n Hazards ct Perticia AccIIIrattra Practices associat:d with work r prot:ction from tha prompt radiation hazards of particia accelerators will be addressed. Practices will be evaluated with respect to LBNL procedures, however State of California regulations pertaining to these hazards and j
relevant NRC regulations will also be noted.
K.
Naturally-Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials (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 external regulation of radiation protection will be evaluated.
16
APPROVAL PAGE..............
ii EXECUTI VE S UM MA RY.............................................. viii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
....i G LO S S ARY....................................................... iv 1.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND...
.... I 1.1 The Pilot Program....
2 1.2 The LBNL Pilot Project.
.4 1.3 Report organization..........
........ 5 2.
OVERVIEW OF LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL L ABOR ATORY 7
2.1 Organizational Structure..
.7 2.2 Current Regulatory Oversight Environment.
........ 8 2.2.1 DOE Oversight...
... 8 2.2.2 Enforcement 11 2.2.3 0ther oversight..
13 3.
COMPARISON OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE LBNL AND NRC PROGRAMS
.... 15 3.1 Mock Licensing Effort
.15 3.2 Onsite Assessment of LBNL Program..........
16 3.2.1 Site and Facility Organization, Including Scope of Activities at Each Facility.
. 16 i
3.2.2 Management of the Radiation Safety Program
.... 17 l
3.2.3 Training of Facility Users and Radiation Protection Staff.
18 l
3.2.4 Receipt, Transfer, Transport, and Inventory of Radioactive Materials 19 3.2.5 Personnel Radiation Protection
... 19 3.2.6 Radioactive Waste Management Including Transportation.
... 21 3.2.7 Emergency Preparedness............................ 21 3.2.8 Environmental Monitoring Program.....
... 22 3.2.9 Personnel Monitoring........................
...... 23 l
3.2.10 Worker Protection From Radiation Hazards at Particle Accelerators, Radiation Hazards at Irradiators, and Use of Safety Interlocks
.. 24 3.2.11 Decommissioning.............
......... 25 3.2.12 Physical Protection of Special Nuclear Mater als........
..... 28 3.2.13 Impact of External Regulation on DOE Radiological Assistance Plan DRAFT April 3,1998 SAERDF\\LBNLMSTR\\LBNLRPT.402 iii arrwear a
Te am.................................................
2 8 3.2.14 Human Uses of Radionuclides.....................................
3.2.15 Radioactive Waste Disposal Site Options Under NRC and DOE Authority l
....................................................... 29 3.2.16 Comparison of NRC Inspection Program and Inspectors With DOE Internal Inspection Program and Inspectors...................... 30 4
CHOICE OF REG ULATOR............................................. 3 4.1 R egulatory Options............................................ 32 4.1.1 OS HA Regulation....................................... 3 2 4.1.2 S tate Regulation..........................................
NRC Regulation........................................
l 4.1.3 35 4.2 Viewpoints Regarding Preferred Regulator........................... 37 l
4.2.1 DOE-HQ Preferred Regulator............................... 37 4.2.2 DOE OAK Preferred Regulator................................ 3 8 4.2.3 LBNL Preferred Regulator....
................. 38 4.2.4 State Preferred Regulator.................................. 38 4.2.5 NRC Preferred Regulator.................................... 3 9 4.2.6 Stakeholder Preferred Regulator............................. 39 4.3 NRC Recommendation......................................... 3 9 5:
REGULATORY APPROACHES: MECHANISMS AND MODELS............. 41 5.1 Regulatory Mechanisms......................................... 41 5.2 FourThree Licensing Models..................................... 43 5.2.1 DOE Only License......................................... 4 8 5.2.2 UC Only License......................................... 52 5.2.3 Joint DOE /UC Broad-Scepc License........................... 55 5.3 Preferred Licensing Options...................................... 61 5.3.1 NRC Preferred Model..................................... 61 5.3.2 DOE HQ Preferred Model................................... 62 5.3.2.1 Effect of Options on ER Program Direction and Oversight
.. 64 5.3.2.2 Effect of Options on EH Program Direction and Oversight... 65 5.3.3 DOE OAK Preferred Model............................... 65 5.3.4 LBNL Preferred Model..................................... 66 5.4 Recommendation............................................. 67 6.
C OST AND FUNDING................................................ 70 t
6.1 Base Cost for Each Licensing Option................................ 70 6.2 DOE Overall Cost of External Regulation in Transition Period and Lon
' (Radiation Safety Only)......................................g-term
.... 70 6.2.1 DOE OAK Cost of External Regulation in Transition Period and Long Term (Radiation Safety Only)................................ 70 DRAFT April 3,1998 S:\\ERDF\\LBNLMSTR\\LBNLRPT.402 iv
6.2.2 ER Cost Information..................................
i EM Cost Information..........................
6.2.3 EH Cost Information...........................
6.2.4 r
.. 74 l
6.3 LBNL Cost of External Regulation in Transition Period and Lon l
Safety only)....................................... g-term (Radia
........... 74 6.4 NRC Cost of Regulating LBNL
.......................................................... 75 6.5 Methods of Funding NRC Regulation of DOE Facilities................. 77 6.5.1 Direct Appropriations to the NRC Excluded From Fees (Current Method).
.......................................................78 6.5.2 Direct Appropriations to the NRC Offset by Fees Paid by DOE or its Contrac tors............................................ 79 1
7.0 TRANSITION TO NRC OVERSIGHT................................... 82 7.1 Transition Plan From DOE Oversight to NRC Oversight................. 82 7.2 Transition Schedule and Impact of Schedule on Cost of Transition........ 83 7.3 How does DOE Translate Requirements into Contract Terms [ DOE text].... 83 7.4 Contract Changes Necessary to Implement External Regulation of LBNL [ DOE text]..........................................................84 7.5 Application of Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulation........... 89 7.6 Applicability of DOE requirements under NRC regulation [ DOE text]...... 90 8.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES..................... 92 8.1 The Roles of 0SHA, DOT, and FDA............................. 92 8.2 The Role of DNFS B............................................ 92 8.3 Role of Environmental Protection Agency.....................
92 8.4 NRC and DOE Responsibilities under NEPA
.... 93 9.
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY CHANGES, INCLUDING STAKEHOLDER INVO LVE M ENT................................................. 9 7 9.1 Legislative and Regulatory Changes..........
....... 97 10.
DETERMINE THE VALUE ADDED BY NRC REGULATORY OVERSIGHT OF ACTIVITIES AT THE P1 LOT PROGRAM SET OF DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 114 10.1 Value Added by NRC Oversight at LBNL.......................... 114 10.2 Effect of External Regulation on Ongoing DOE Initiatives.............. I14 10.2.1 Work Smart Standards and the Integrated Safety Management System
................................................... 114 10.2.2 Noncompliance Tracking System......................... 115 10.2.3 Occurrence Reporting and Processing System.................. 115 10.2.4 Discussion of the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) i l
DRAFT April 3,1998 S:\\ERDF\\LBNLMSTR\\LBNLRPT.402 y
i vs Department of Energy Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP)
...I15 s
l DRAFT April 3,1998 S:\\ERDF\\LBNLMSTR\\LBNLRPT.402 vi
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _