Alternative Approaches to DOE 435.1 - FEM TSDF Review of Acceptability

1. Alternative Approaches to DOE 435.1 - FEM TSDF Review of Acceptability Pete Yerace, EMCBC NEPA Compliance Officer & Sustainability Coordinator Dennis Knapp SRNS Waste Certification Lead

2. Objectives • DOE Order 435.1 Proposed Revision Update • Historical Perspective- DOECAP TSDF Audits • Discuss proposed 435.1 audit frequency language • Discuss general questionnaire approach and feedback ( Binned Key Areas of Concern) • Initiate discussion on alternative audit approaches feedback session • Discuss FEM perspectives

3. DOE Order 435.1 Revision Status Update • Recognize Christine Gelles and EM-30 • Mr. Knapp provide proposed 435.1 update • Key areas that are under modification • Focused discussion on frequency of acceptability reviews • Segue historical perspective of TSDF Audits

4. DOE Order 435.1 Revision New Format • DOE Order 251.1C provides format and content requirements for all new and revised Orders – will require a new format • Updated DOE Order reorganization will be: • Section 1 through 3 are administrative • Section 4 – Requirements • a. General Requirements • b. High-level Waste • c. Transuranic Waste • d. Low-level Waste • Section 5 – Responsibilities • Attachment 1 – Contractor Requirements Document • Attachment 2 – Definitions

5. DOE Order 435.1 Revision 435.1 vs. 435.1A 435.1 435.1A • Order • Requirements Manual • General Reqs Guide • HLW Guide • TRU Guide • LLW Guide • Technical Basis Doc • LFRG Documents (Rogue Guidance) • Order (including old Manual Requirements) • Mandatory Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authorization Statement Technical Standard • Guidance • Implementation Plan

6. DOE Order 435.1 Revision General Requirements Changes • Eliminates off-site disposal exemption requirement • Requires audits of commercial facilities be conducted every 2 years • Consolidates duplicate requirements from waste type chapters in current Order • Clarifies Site-wide and Complex-wide Planning to ensure Field understanding of their role and participation • Provides new guidance on generation scenarios – acceptance of non-DOE Waste • Radioactive Waste Management Basis – Core of General Requirements • Strengthens pre-generation planning • Addresses disposal, CERCLA cells, and 3 tier exit from DOE regulation • Protecting assumptions from PA/CA • Monitoring plans emphasis on performance • Waste consolidation (blending) • Includes Unreviewed Waste Management Question Evaluation (UWMQE) for all requirements (RWMB) – change control system

7. DOE Order 435.1 Revision High Level Waste Changes • Includes National Defense Authorization Act for 2005, Section 3116 process • Updates to the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing evaluation and citation process • Adds new Waste Incidental to Reprocessing process which is like the citation process but requires additional documentation • Assigns responsibility for those documents formerly under the Civilian Radioactive Waste Office • Does not identify a disposition/pathway for HLW waste

8. DOE Order 435.1 Revision Transuranic Waste Changes • No significant changes to requirements except for new packaging instructions: • Remote and Contact-Handled TRU Waste Packaging Instructions currently a DOE Notice (Approved August 2011) will be in TRU Guidance • Updates Management of Specific Wastes • Requirement to address classified TRU waste

9. DOE Order 435.1 Revision Low Level Waste Changes • Technical Standard for Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) Documents • Merges current guidance and “rogue” guidance, e.g., LFRG Manual, format and content guide • Approval of DAS based on review/approval of: • Performance Assessment • Composite Analysis • PA/CA Maintenance Plan (includes PA/CA Software Quality Assurance Plan) • Preliminary Closure Plan • PA/CA Monitoring Plan • Waste Acceptance Criteria • UDQE – new change control process based on Safety Management System • Other requirements in the Technical Standard • Annual Summary • Environmental Restoration In-Situ Closure • Addresses CERCLA-only Wastes • Addresses inclusion of non-CERCLA Wastes

10. DOE Order 435.1 Revision Schedule • Currently finalizing review of Order internally at HQ – field heavily involved with developing revised Order (mid-October?) • Guides undergo HQ review (October & November?) • Following HQ review, will hold webinars with Field to explain changes from the last version they reviewed and brief Field Managers (December?) • Public comment period for 60 days (mid-January – mid-March?) • Comment response document and submit to RevCom (May?) • Issue (December?) • Sites required to come into compliance within a year.

11. Original TSDF Audits Multiple teams annually Inconsistency in audit Costly Difficulty in scheduling CAP Effectiveness reviews difficult DOECAP TSDF Audits Historical Perspective • Consolidated Approach • Efficient • Cost effective • Consistency • Continuous improvement • Regulatory interfaces enhanced

12. Reasons for Success • DOE HQ Support- George Detsis • DOECAP Operations Team- Jorge Ferrer, Richard Martin and Operations Team • TSDF Maturation- “Sites take it seriously” • DOECAP AUDITORS- Committed group of experienced auditors

13. Current DOE 435.1 Language on Audit Frequency • Such non-DOE facilities shall: 1. Comply with applicable Federal, State, and local requirements; 2. Have the necessary permit(s), license(s), and approval(s) for the specific waste(s); and 3. Be determined by the Field Element Manager to be acceptable based on a review conducted annually by DOE.

14. Proposed Language on Audit Frequency • Proposed 435.1 revision states: “Facilities must be authorized and qualified to perform the storage, treatment or disposal of the specified waste type(s), based on a DOE review of such facilities conducted prior to their first use by DOE, and biennially thereafter.” • Initial reaction/feedback • Capture multiple perspectives 1. TSDF Perspective 2. DOECAP Operations 3. Auditors 4. FEM

15. Questionnaire Audit Questionnaire in Support of DOE ASP Workshop • Do you believe your Field Element Manager (FEM) would be satisfied with DOECAP audits performed every two years? If not, what specific concerns do you have? Responses: Yes, Case-by-Case, number of findings, severity, No priority 1, annual regulatory review, follow order frequency

16. Questionnaire (cont.) • Do you believe some type of focused audit should be done in the off-year? How do you think this could be implemented? Do you have any program examples/ lessons learned that would support performing a focused audit in the off-year? Responses: No, Yes but focused verifying corrective actions, desk audit, regulatory visit

17. Questionnaire (cont.) 3. Do you believe some sort of desk audit, not involving a site visit, would satisfy your FEM for the off-year? What should such a desk audit cover? Responses:We already do and rely heavily on annual report, yes focused, regulatory focused, downsize checklist to accommodate off year

18. Questionnaire (cont.) 4. Should an agency review be included in an off-year audit? Would your FEM be satisfied with phone or e-mail inquiries, or should we actually visit with the regulator? Responses: Yes, Review ECHO Environmental Compliance History On-Line

19. Questionnaire (cont.) 5. What other types of audits or reviews would you recommend for the off-year? Responses: None, only if previous Priority 1, Recycle Facilities such as Clean Harbors, perform trending for weakness in previous years and perform focused reviews

20. Questionnaire (cont.) • What factors should be considered when determining whether an off-year audit is conducted, or for determining the scope of an off-year audit? • a. Timeliness in completion of Corrective Actions? • b. Past performance and number of audit findings from previous audits? • c. Other? • Responses: Number and severity, regulatory fines, yearly planning discussions with TSDF to determine any major changes, a and b

21. Questionnaire (cont.) • If we do not review corrective actions each year, findings may routinely be open for up to 2 years. Would this present a concern? • Responses: No, yes, possibly

22. Questionnaire (cont.) • Would you prefer site-specific or otherwise modified lines of inquiry for a focused audit in the off-year, versus the current standardized set? • Responses: Focused, customized, no current set adequate, standardized

23. Questionnaire (cont.) • Is consistency in audit report format desirable, or would you accept an alternative format for off-year audit reports? • Responses: Consistency desirable, off year could be letter, format, new template for off years

24. Questionnaire (cont.) • Do you have any suggestions on how to reduce travel costs/overall audit costs? • Responses: No not without compromising quality, DOE CAP ICS not needed, multi qualified assessors, go three years and in alternative years use one auditor

25. Questionnaire (cont.) Favorite Response “ I’m not bringing my lunch, I’m not sharing a room with another auditor, and I’m not driving my car to the East Coast”

26. Small Site- FEM Feedback • 1. Are you familiar with DOECAP and the annual TSDF audit reports? Yes • 2. Do you rely on the current DOECAP TSDF Annual Reports as part of your annual review of acceptability as required by DOE Order 435.1? How do you rely on the reports? Yes--we are a small site and rely on DOECAP to conduct assessments.

27. Small Sites- Feedback (cont.) 3. If TSDF reviews of acceptability/audits were not required on an annual basis would you be comfortable sending waste to a facility that wasn’t audited on an annual basis? What would be some of your concerns? As a small site, we are sending waste to sites (e.g., Energy Solutions, Clive) that are used for disposal by other, larger DOE facilities, and that are the object of oversight by the DOE HQ waste group. Therefore, if HQ or other large sites do not have concerns about less than annual reviews, we as a small site are not concerned. However, if we were to seek to send waste to a little used or new facility, we would have a lower comfort level. 4. Do you have any thoughts on what circumstances would drive you to a more frequent TSDF acceptability review? New facilities, facilities with a poor compliance history, small facilities, facilities with little use by DOE complex.

28. Small Sites- Feedback (cont.) • 5. Do you have any thoughts on what would provide you a level of comfort to not perform TSDF acceptability reviews annually? Mainly, we are a small site; if we are using facilities managing waste from the complex, including larger sites (e.g., Clive, Utah), that provides comfort. • 6. WCS for the past couple years had no findings as part of the annual DOECAP audits. With the addition of the WCS Federal Waste Disposal Facility ( FWF) would you want to see an acceptability review performed this year before you sent waste to WCS or would you be comfortable with alternating a year? If not supportive of alternating a year what would you want the TSDF acceptability review to focus on this year? OK with alternating a year.

29. Suggestions for Alternative Audit Approaches - Feedback Session Historical

30. New Audit Approaches Group Discussion – Capture feedback on flip chart

31. Path Forward / Questions? • Summarize issues/concerns • Summarize alternative approaches • Continue to engage FEM’s and obtain feedback • Provide data to DOECAP Operations/HQ • Recommend working group to develop alternative approaches for review

32. THANK YOU