The PDF version 
Display Related Directives to this directive.
Approved: 7-09-99
IMPLEMENTATION
GUIDE
for use with DOE M 435.1-1
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Distribution: Initiated By:
All Departmental Elements Office of Environmental Management (This page intentionally left blank.) DOE G 435.1-1 I-
XX-XX-XXDRAFTCHAP1-V7.WPD April 13, 1998CHAP1-V7.WPD March 26, 1998CHAP1-V7.WPDChapter I - General RequirementsMarch 26, 1998CHAP1-V7.WPDChapter I - General RequirementsMarch 26, 1998IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE FOR USE WITH
DOE M 435.1-1, RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT MANUAL
INTRODUCTION
This guide was developed to aid in implementing the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1,
Radioactive Waste Management Manual. The guide has the same format as the Manual and is
divided into four chapters.
Chapter I, General Requirements and Responsibilities
Chapter II, High-Level Waste Requirements
Chapter III, Transuranic Waste Requirements
Chapter IV, Low-Level Waste Requirements
The material presented in this guide provides suggestions and acceptable ways of implementing
DOE M 435.1-1 and should not be viewed as additional or mandatory requirements. The
objective of the guide is to ensure that responsible individuals understand what is necessary and
acceptable for implementing the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1. For each requirement in DOE
M 435.1-1, the guide provides:
The objective of the requirement;
Discussion of the technical, management, and administrative aspects covered by the
requirement;
Principles, practices, and methods for implementing the requirement, including examples;
Performance measures for evaluating implementation of the requirement; and
Supplemental references which may be consulted for more detailed information related to
the requirement.
The guide aids in understanding what is necessary to attain compliance, facilitates effective and
efficient implementation of the requirements, and offers acceptable ways to implement the
requirement. As noted, the guide provides suggestions and acceptable ways of implementing the
requirements, and is not mandatory. Provisions in the guide should not be construed as
requirements. The approaches presented in the guidance are not the only acceptable ways of
complying with any given requirement. Alternate methods that satisfy the requirements of DOE
O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 also are acceptable. A rationale and basis for the approaches
identified in the guide has been provided and no further basis is required to implement the
approaches outlined in the guide. Any implementation method selected must ensure an adequate
level of safety commensurate with the hazards associated with the work. The implementation
method selected must be consistent with the radioactive waste management basis.
Situation-specific attributes and application of the graded approach should always be considered
in applying the information contained in this guide. Activities with greater potential
consequences or hazards may require more rigor or effort to implement the requirements of
DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual.
Wherever possible, existing processes, programs, and documentation should be considered as
possible routes to complying with the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1. Existing processes and
programs generally provide mechanisms for demonstrating compliance and providing auditable
records which will also meet the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1. Therefore, it should not be
necessary to repeat or recreate programs into which the DOE M 435.1-1 requirements can be
integrated.
Chapter I, General Requirements and Responsibilities, provides guidance on DOE management
responsibilities and requirements that are applicable to the management of all DOE radioactive
waste types. Chapter II, High-Level Waste Requirements; Chapter III, Transuranic Waste
Requirements; and Chapter IV, Low-Level Waste Requirements, provide guidance on waste-type
specific requirements to be used in conjunction with the guidance on General Requirements and
Responsibilities.
Other requirements and DOE directives are referenced in DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste
Management Manual, because their applicability to radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities was identified through a hazards analysis as necessary for protection of
workers, the public, or the environment. It is understood and expected that requirements of this
Manual may be satisfied by compliance with other requirements.
Paragraph (4) of the Introduction to the Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1, states that any of the requirements in the Manual may be waived or modified through
application of a DOE-approved requirements tailoring process, such as the "Necessary and
Sufficient Closure Process" in DOE P 450.3 and DOE M 450.3-1 and DOE P 450.4, Safety
Management System Policy, the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
identification process for actions taken pursuant to the Department's CERCLA authorities, or by
an exemption processed in accordance with the requirements of DOE M 251.1-1A, Directives
System Manual. The series of manuals and implementation guides under DOE P 450.4 contain
requirements and guidance for implementing the evaluation processes mentioned above that
would allow a waiver or modification to any of the individual DOE M 435.1-1 requirements.
Chapter VII of DOE M 251.1-1A provides the requirements, including roles and responsibilities,
for exempting a DOE site or facility from any of the DOE M 435.1-1 requirements.
When the exemption process of DOE M 251.1-1A is used, the policies of the integrated Safety
Management System must still be followed, and the overall effect of modifications and
exemptions to individual requirements should be evaluated and a determination made that they
are not detrimental to the objectives of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 for the protection of
the public, workers, and the environment.
Paragraph (4) of the Introduction to the Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1, also states that all DOE entities shall be in compliance with this directive within one year of
issuance. Compliance is defined as implementing the requirements or an approved
implementation or corrective action plan. If compliance cannot be achieved within one year, the
Field Element Manager must request approval from the cognizant Program Secretarial Officer to
extend the compliance date to no later than October 1, 2001. The purpose of this requirement is
to encourage DOE sites and programs to implement the requirements of the Order and Manual as
soon as possible, to ensure that a plan is developed for implementing requirements that will take
longer than one year to implement, and to ensure that the cognizant Program Secretarial Officer
is aware of those requirements for which compliance cannot be achieved in one year. Field
Elements need to evaluate the state of readiness of facilities, operations, and activities under their
authority for compliance with the revised radioactive waste management requirements, and
invoke a systematic process for achieving full implementation as soon as possible.
Implementation or corrective action plans establish a commitment and strategy for how sites will
implement the requirements by October 1, 2001, and should include objectives and milestones,
including dates, for implementing the requirements on a site or facility basis.
Example 1: A site implementation plan addresses the requirement for Radioactive Waste
Management Basis (RWMB) in one of two ways. For facilities with an existing
Authorization Basis, the strategy for implementing the RWMB requirement is to review
the Authorization Basis to determine whether it sufficiently covers the requirements
needed for a RWMB, then issue a blanket RWMB for those facilities. For facilities which
do not have an Authorization Basis, implementation of the RWMB will follow
implementation of Waste Acceptance Requirements (for facilities receiving waste) and
Waste Generator Requirements (for facilities generating waste).
Example 2: A site develops an implementation plan for section III.L.(1)(b) "Vents or
other mechanisms...." The site has 1,000 drums of transuranic waste in storage. Two
hundred drums have been prepared to the Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP WAC) including having filter vents installed. Of the
remaining 800 drums which are not vented, 500 drums are stored in air support storage
buildings awaiting certification, and 300 drums are retrievably stored in earthen-covered
berms. The site prepares an implementation plan for this requirement which summarizes
how the remaining 800 drums will meet the requirement based on existing plans for
management of this waste. The plan states that the 500 drums in the air support storage
buildings are scheduled to be prepared to WIPP WAC during the following two years.
Filter vents will be installed during the certification process. The site has plans to begin
retrieving the bermed waste in five years. Filter vents will be installed on the drums as
they are removed from the berms. The implementation plan shows the schedule and notes
that although the requirement will be implemented outside of the three year
implementation period, the requirement allow for vents to be installed on existing waste
in storage as soon as practical (i.e., the next time the waste is actively managed).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. . . . .I-1
1. REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-1
A. Delegation of Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-1
B. Use of Guidance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-3
C. Radioactive Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . .I-7
D. Analysis of Environmental Impacts. . . . . . . . . I-13
E. Requirements of Other Regulations and DOE DirectivesI-15
(1) Analysis of Operations Information. . . . . . I-17
(2) Classified Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18
(3) Conduct of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18
(4) Criticality Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19
(5) Emergency Management Program. . . . . . . . . I-19
(6) Environmental and Occurrence Reporting. . . . I-19
(7) Environmental Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . I-20
(8) Hazard Analysis Documentation and Authorization BasisI-21
(9) Life-Cycle Asset Management . . . . . . . . . I-22
(10) Mixed Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23
(11) Packaging and Transportation. . . . . . . . . I-23
(12) Quality Assurance Program . . . . . . . . . . I-24
(13) Radiation Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . I-24
(14) Records Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-25
(15) Release of Waste Containing Residual Radioactive MaterialI-26
(16) Safeguards and Security . . . . . . . . . . . I-26
(17) Safety Management System. . . . . . . . . . . I-27
(18) Site-Evaluation and Facility Design . . . . . I-28
(19) Training and Qualification. . . . . . . . . . I-29
(20) Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention . I-29
(21) Worker Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-30
2. RESPONSIBILITIESI-32 . . . . . . .
A. Program Secretarial Officers . . . . . . . . . . . I-32
B. Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management . I-35
(1) Complex-Wide Radioactive Waste Management ProgramsI-35
(2) Changes to Regulations and DOE Directives . . I-39
C. Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and HealthI-41
D. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management. . I-43
(1) Complex-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program PlansI-43
(2) Waste Management Data System. . . . . . . . . I-52
E. Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste Management and EnvironmentalRestorationI-54
(1) Disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-54
(2) Site Closure Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-64
F. Field Element Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-70
(1) Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management ProgramsI-70
(2) Radioactive Waste Management Basis. . . . . . I-82
(3) Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention . I-98
(4) Approval of Exemptions for Use of Non-DOE FacilitiesI-100
(5) Environmental Restoration, Decommissioning, and Other Cleanup WasteI-108
(6) Radioactive Waste Acceptance Requirements . .I-124
(7) Radioactive Waste Generator Requirements. . .I-130
(8) Closure Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-137
(9) Defense-In-Depth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-142
(10) Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-144
(11) Training and Qualification. . . . . . . . . .I-147
(12) As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) . . .I-149
(13) Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-152
(14) Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-155
(15) Disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-157
(16) Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-162
(17) Material and Waste Declassification for Waste ManagementI-165
(18) Waste Incidental to Reprocessing. . . . . . .I-169
(19) Waste with No Identified Path to Disposal . .I-174
(20) Corrective Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-183
G. All Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I-185
(1) Problem Identification. . . . . . . . . . . .I-185
(2) Shutdown or Curtailment of Activities . . . .I-186
CHAPTER II - HIGH-LEVEL WASTE REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . II-1
A. Definition of High-Level Waste . . . . . . . . . . II-1
B. Waste Incidental to Reprocessing . . . . . . . . .II-13
(1) Citation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-13
(2) Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-13
C. Management of Specific Wastes. . . . . . . . . . .II-34
(1) Mixed High-Level Waste. . . . . . . . . . . .II-34
(2) TSCA-Regulated Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . .II-34
D. Complex-Wide High-Level Waste Management Program .II-38
E. Site-Wide High-Level Waste Management Program. . .II-39
F. Radioactive Waste Management Basis . . . . . . . .II-43
(1) Generators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-43
(2) Pretreatment and Treatment Facilities . . . .II-43
(3) Storage Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-43
G. Quality Assurance Program. . . . . . . . . . . . .II-48
(1) Product Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-48
(2) Audits and Assessments. . . . . . . . . . . .II-48
H. Contingency Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-51
(1) Contingency Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-51
(2) Transfer Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-51
I. Corrective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-56
(1) Order Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-56
(2) Operations Curtailment. . . . . . . . . . . .II-58
J. Waste Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-61
(1) Technical and Administrative. . . . . . . . .II-61
(2) Evaluation and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . .II-68
K. Waste Generation Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . .II-71
(1) Life-Cycle Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-71
(2) Waste With No Identified Path to Disposal . .II-71
L. Waste Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-77
(1) Data Quality Objectives . . . . . . . . . . .II-84
(2) Minimum Waste Characterization. . . . . . . .II-89
(3) Hazardous Characteristics . . . . . . . . . .II-92
M. Waste Certification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II-93
(1) Certification Program . . . . . . . . . . . .II-98
(2) Certification Before Transfer . . . . . . . II-101
(3) Maintaining Certification . . . . . . . . . II-102
N. Waste Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-105
(1) Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-105
(2) Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-107
(3) Records and Transfer Reporting. . . . . . . II-110
O. Packaging and Transportation . . . . . . . . . . II-114
(1) Canistered Waste Form . . . . . . . . . . . II-114
P. Site Evaluation and Facility Design. . . . . . . II-120
(1) Site Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-120
(2) Facility Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-125
Q. Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-160
(1) Operation of Confinement Systems. . . . . . II-160
(2) Structural Integrity Program. . . . . . . . II-162
(3) Canistered Waste Form Storage . . . . . . . II-171
R. Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-174
S. Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-176
T. Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-182
U. Closure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-187
(1) Decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-187
(2) CERCLA Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-187
(3) Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-187
V. Specific Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-203
(1) Operation of Lifting Devices. . . . . . . . II-203
(2) Operation of Facilities for Receipt and Retrieval of High-Level WasteII-204
CHAPTER III - TRANSURANIC WASTE REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . .III-1
A. Definition of Transuranic Waste. . . . . . . . . .III-1
B. Management of Specific Wastes. . . . . . . . . . .III-7
(1) Mixed Transuranic Waste . . . . . . . . . . .III-7
(2) TSCA-Regulated Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . .III-7
(3) Pre-1970 Transuranic Waste. . . . . . . . . .III-7
C. Complex-Wide Transuranic Waste Management ProgramIII-12
D. Radioactive Waste Management Basis . . . . . . . III-13
(1) Generators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-13
(2) Treatment Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . III-13
(3) Storage Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . III-13
(4) Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . III-13
E. Contingency Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-19
(1) Contingency Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . III-19
(2) Transfer Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . III-19
F. Corrective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-23
(1) Order Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-23
(2) Operations Curtailment. . . . . . . . . . . III-25
G. Waste Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-28
(1) Technical and Administrative. . . . . . . . III-28
(2) Evaluation and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . III-37
H. Waste Generation Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . III-41
(1) Life-Cycle Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . III-41
(2) Waste With No Identified Path to Disposal . III-45
I. Waste Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-52
(1) Data Quality Objectives . . . . . . . . . . III-58
(2) Minimum Waste Characterization. . . . . . . III-62
J. Waste Certification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-66
(1) Certification Program . . . . . . . . . . . III-71
(2) Certification Before Transfer . . . . . . . III-74
(3) Maintaining Certification . . . . . . . . . III-75
K. Waste Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-81
(1) Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-84
(2) Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-87
L. Packaging and Transportation . . . . . . . . . . III-92
(1) Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-92
(2) Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III-102
M. Site Evaluation and Facility Design. . . . . . .III-106
(1) Site Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III-106
(2) Facility Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III-110
N. Storage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III-127
(1) Storage Prohibitions. . . . . . . . . . . .III-127
(2) Storage Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . .III-128
(3) Container Inspection. . . . . . . . . . . .III-130
(4) Retrievable Earthen-Covered Storage . . . .III-134
O. Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III-139
P. Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III-142
Q. Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III-146
(1) All Waste Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . .III-146
(2) Stored Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III-148
(3) Liquid Waste Storage Facilities . . . . . .III-150
CHAPTER IV - LOW-LEVEL WASTE REQUIREMENTS. . . . . . . . . . IV-1
A. Definition of Low-Level Waste. . . . . . . . . . . IV-1
B. Management of Specific Wastes. . . . . . . . . . . IV-7
(1) Mixed Low-Level Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7
(2) TSCA-Regulated Waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-7
(3) Accelerator-Produced Waste. . . . . . . . . . IV-7
(4) 11e.(2) and Naturally Occurring Radioactive MaterialIV-7
C. Complex-Wide Low-Level Waste Management Program. .IV-15
D. Radioactive Waste Management Basis . . . . . . . .IV-18
(1) Generators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-18
(2) Treatment Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-18
(3) Storage Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-18
(4) Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-18
E. Contingency Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-23
(1) Contingency Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-23
(2) Transfer Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-23
F. Corrective Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-28
(1) Order Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-28
(2) Operations Curtailment. . . . . . . . . . . .IV-32
G. Waste Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-35
(1) Technical and Administrative. . . . . . . . .IV-35
(2) Evaluation and Acceptance . . . . . . . . . .IV-49
H. Waste Generation Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-52
(1) Life-Cycle Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-52
(2) Waste With No Identified Path to Disposal . .IV-57
I. Waste Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-69
(1) Data Quality Objectives . . . . . . . . . . .IV-75
(2) Minimum Waste Characterization. . . . . . . .IV-79
J. Waste Certification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-83
(1) Certification Program . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-88
(2) Certification Before Transfer . . . . . . . .IV-91
(3) Maintaining Certification . . . . . . . . . .IV-92
K. Waste Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-96
(1) Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV-99
(2) Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-101
L. Packaging and Transportation . . . . . . . . . . IV-107
(1) Packaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-107
(2) Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-113
M. Site Evaluation and Facility Design. . . . . . . IV-117
(1) Site Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-117
(2) Low-Level Waste Treatment and Storage Facility DesignIV-132
(3) Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Design. . IV-149
N. Storage and Staging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-159
(1) Storage Prohibitions. . . . . . . . . . . . IV-159
(2) Storage Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-160
(3) Storage Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-165
(4) Waste Characterization for Storage. . . . . IV-167
(5) Container Inspection. . . . . . . . . . . . IV-171
(6) Storage Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-174
(7) Staging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-175
O. Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-178
P. Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-182
(1) Performance Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . IV-182
(2) Performance Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . IV-185
(3) Composite Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-196
(4) Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis MaintenanceIV-199
(5) Disposal Authorization. . . . . . . . . . . IV-203
(6) Disposal Facility Operations. . . . . . . . IV-206
(7) Alternate Requirements for Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Design
and Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-216
Q. Closure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-218
(1) Disposal Facility Closure Plans . . . . . . IV-218
(2) Disposal Facility Closure . . . . . . . . . IV-228
R. Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-234
(1) All Waste Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . IV-234
(2) Liquid Waste Storage Facilities . . . . . . IV-236
(3) Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-239
APPENDIX A TECHNICAL BASIS FOR DOE O 435.1 . . . . . . . . .A-1
(This page intentionally left blank.)
IMPLEMENTATION
GUIDE
for use with DOE M 435.1-1
(This page intentionally left blank.) I. 1.A. Delegation of Authority.
Managers charged with responsibilities within this Manual may delegate authority
for these tasks to another manager. All delegations of authority shall be
documented.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to provide DOE managers with the needed flexibility in
managing programs while retaining DOE responsibility and ensuring traceability of authority.
Discussion:
Delegation of authority is authorizing another DOE manager to perform the task for the manager
who has been assigned the responsibility in a DOE Directive. The responsibility for ensuring
that the task is performed remains with the DOE manager charged with the responsibility in the
DOE Directive. Requiring that delegation be to another DOE manager retains the elements of
DOE responsibility, accountability, and attention. DOE attention provides a mechanism for
assigning resources necessary for successful execution of the task. Requiring documentation
ensures the traceability of authority.
The delegation of authority can be made to any DOE manager at any level by the DOE manager
charged with the responsibility in DOE M 435.1-1. Any managers who fall in the management
chain between the manager who has been assigned the responsibility in DOE M 435.1-1 and the
manager who is charged the responsibility for the task have no responsibility for the task
themselves but should be notified of the delegation by a copy of the memorandum of record.
The delegation of authority can be revoked at any time and delegated to a different DOE
manager by the DOE manager charged with the responsibility in DOE M 435.1-1. The manager
delegated the authority for a task may further delegate this authority to another manager but must
notify the DOE manager charged with the responsibility of this re-delegation, with a copy to
other managers, as appropriate for their information. The performance of tasks by other DOE
staff or contractors can be assigned by the DOE manager with the authority to perform a task
without affecting the delegation of authority. The manager charged with the responsibility in
DOE M 435.1-1 needs to ensure the delegation of authority is successful. This can be achieved
by periodically discussing the task with the manager to whom the authority was delegated, or
requiring a written report from that manager describing how the task is being implemented.
The delegation of authority can be indefinite or for a specific time period, but the selected time
period should be clearly identified in the documentation of the delegation of authority. The
documentation of the delegation of authority can be accomplished by a memorandum of record
which should be maintained as an auditable record. The documentation of the delegation of
authority should clearly describe the authority being delegated; identify any terminating
condition(s) or a termination date of the delegation, as appropriate; identify the DOE manager to
whom authority is being delegated; contain a mechanism for acknowledgment of receipt; and be
managed as an auditable record as long as the delegation is in effect. A delegation of authority
that contains these elements should be considered complete and meets the Manual requirement.
Example: The Field Element Manager is assigned responsibility in DOE M 435.1-1 for
ensuring development of, review, approval, and implementation of closure plans for low-level waste disposal facilities. The Field Element Manager delegates authority for these
responsibilities to the DOE Radioactive Waste Manager at the site in a memorandum.
The Radioactive Waste Manager does not report directly to the Field Element Manager
but is two levels removed in the management chain. The memorandum states that the
Radioactive Waste Manager is responsible for ensuring development of, review,
approval, and implementation of closure plans for all of the site's low-level waste
disposal facilities. The memorandum establishes the effective date as the date that the
Radioactive Waste Manager acknowledges receipt of the memorandum and states that
this delegation is in effect until revoked by the Field Element Manager. The manager
who falls in the management chain between the manager charged with the responsibility
and the one who is delegated the authority is copied in the memorandum. The
memorandum is identified as a quality assurance record that must be maintained in
accordance with the Quality Assurance Program's record keeping requirements.
Delegations of authority should be reviewed whenever a change in DOE management takes place
(e.g., there is a reorganization or a manager leaves). These reviews should evaluate the status of
the delegation of authority to establish its continued validity over time or under the changed
circumstances.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated if all DOE managers who have been delegated
authority for DOE M 435.1-1 have documentation that describes the authority being delegated,
identifies the time period for the delegation, and contains an acknowledgment of the receipt of
the delegation of authority. This documentation must be maintained as an auditable record.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1997. Manual of Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities,
DOE M 411.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 8, 1997.
I. 1.B. Use of Guidance.
Additional information supporting the requirements in this Manual is contained in
the Implementation Guide for use with DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste
Management Manual. This Guide, DOE G 435.1-1, Implementation Guide for DOE
M 435.1-1, shall be reviewed when implementing the requirements of this Manual.
The Guide provides additional information and acceptable methods for meeting the
requirements. Other methods may be used but must ensure an adequate level of
safety commensurate with the hazards associated with the work and be consistent
with the radioactive waste management basis.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that individuals responsible for DOE radioactive
waste management operations, facilities, and activities understand what is necessary and
acceptable for implementing the requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management,
and DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual. By understanding the objective
of these requirements, individuals responsible for managing radioactive waste should be able to
take the appropriate action even in situations not previously discussed in the requirements.
Discussion:
The Implementation Guide for DOE M 435.1-1, DOE G 435.1-1, serves as a tool to assist
personnel in gaining a comprehensive understanding of how to implement DOE O 435.1 and
DOE M 435.1-1 requirements. Guidance for each requirement discusses the technical,
management, and administrative aspects of the requirement and identifies acceptable principles,
practices, and methods for implementing the requirement. Performance measures for evaluating
acceptable implementation of each requirement are also presented. The guidance also includes
examples to help illustrate concepts being discussed. These examples are based on hypothetical
situations and should not be used as the basis for adapting specific technical standards. Users
need to evaluate real situations to identify the hazards which need to be managed and establish
the appropriate technical standards. The guide, in many cases, also provides a list of
supplemental references that may benefit the individuals responsible for implementing DOE O
435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1. The referenced documents may, in some instances, be regularly
updated. Users are responsible for ensuring that the most current versions of these documents
are available to affected workers and are referenced as appropriate.
Although the requirements in DOE M 435.1-1 were prepared to be as clear and concise as
possible, they may be interpreted differently among users. The guidance provides contextual
information and explanation to aid users in understanding the purpose and intent of the
requirements. Reviewing the guidance can facilitate use of more consistent approaches to
implementing the requirements throughout the complex and prevent over or under-interpretation
of the requirements. The information is intended to facilitate understanding of intent, scope of
application, graded application, degree of effort, and, if possible, measurable standards.
The guide also serves as the mechanism for further elaboration and emphasis on concepts which
are important to consider in the implementation of requirements, and describes acceptable ways
of implementing the requirements. The guidance describes situation-specific considerations and
application of the graded approach and necessary and sufficient processes, which can be
considered in applying the requirements. In addition, many requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 can
be met with existing processes, programs, and documentation.
Although DOE M 435.1-1 stipulates that the guidance must be reviewed, this does not mean that
all personnel are responsible for reviewing all guidance. The intent of the requirement is that
personnel responsible for performing particular work processes are accountable for correctly
understanding and interpreting the DOE M 435.1-1 requirements that apply to the work they
perform. For example, those personnel who are responsible for translating specific DOE M
435.1-1 requirements into controlling documents and operating procedures at the sites should
understand how to effectively and efficiently implement them.
Example: Site Z has constructed a new facility for storing transuranic waste. Facility
personnel responsible for preparing the waste acceptance criteria read DOE O 435.1
and DOE M 435.1-1 to identify relevant requirements. Based on their review, they
determine that they need to review the General Requirements and Responsibilities
guidance for Radioactive Waste Management Basis, Radioactive Waste Acceptance
Requirements, Radioactive Waste Generator Requirements, Training and Qualification,
Storage, and Waste Declassification. They also read guidance corresponding the
Transuranic Waste Requirement for Definition of Transuranic Waste, Management of
Specific Wastes, Radioactive Waste Management Basis, Contingency Actions, Waste
Acceptance, Waste Certification, Waste Transfer, Packaging and Transportation, and
Storage. The review reminds the storage facility personnel of other sources of
information which need to be considered in developing the waste acceptance criteria,
including the safety analysis, the Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant, and the DOE directives addressing safeguards and securities, records
management, and the Safety Management System. Equipped with all of these resources,
waste acceptance criteria that provide for safe receipt and storage of transuranic waste
are developed.
The guide aids in understanding what is necessary to attain compliance, facilitates effective and
efficient implementation of the requirements, and offers acceptable ways to implement the
requirement. Guidance documents, including technical standards, can assist in implementing
requirements. This guide is intending to provide useful information and methodologies on how a
requirement might be implemented. The guidance includes background information regarding
the intent of the requirement and its technical underpinnings.
Unlike the requirements specifically set forth in a rule or Order, the provisions in guidance
documents are not mandatory. Failure to follow a guidance document does not in itself indicate
noncompliance with a specific requirement a finding of noncompliance must be based on a
failure to satisfy the requirement. The guidance provided in implementation guides and
standards referenced therein are considered acceptable methods to satisfy requirements. The
approaches presented in the guidance are not the only acceptable ways of complying with any
given requirement. Alternative methods that satisfy the requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE
M 435.1-1, are also acceptable. Any implementation method selected must ensure that an
adequate level of safety commensurate with the identified hazards associated with work is
achieved and be consistent with the radioactive waste management basis. Generally it is
expected that site documents (e.g., program plans, procedures, waste acceptance criteria) will
provide documentation showing that a requirement is being met consistent with the guidance.
However, personnel can employ alternative methods that may be more appropriate for specific
situations.
To the extent that a unique or different approach other than that addressed in the guidance does
not otherwise have a documented rationale or basis, it will be necessary to create one.
Documentation should identify the alternative method and should include a technically
defensible reason for using the alternative approach. The Integrated Safety Management
standards identification processes already have safeguards to address the adequacy of standards
and these should be the processes used for making and documenting any such decisions.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by key individuals being familiar with the
intent of DOE M 435.1-1 requirements based on their review of the guidance, and sites meeting
DOE M 435.1-1 requirements by establishing processes described in the guidance. Sites meeting
DOE M 435.1-1 requirements in a way different than described in the guidance will be able to
demonstrate that an adequate level of safety commensurate with the hazards associated with the
work is being maintained, that the method is consistent with the radioactive waste management
basis, and if necessary, documentation of the rationale for the alternative approach.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1998. Directives System and Directives System Manual, DOE O 251.1A and DOE
M 251.1-1A, U.S. Department of Energy, January 30, 1998.
2. DOE, 1995. Performance Indicators and Analysis of Operations Information, DOE O
210.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 27, 1995.
3. DOE, 1995. Environment, Safety, and Health Policy for the Department of Energy
Complex, DOE P 450.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., June 15, 1995.
4. DOE, 1996. Identifying, Implementing and Complying with ES&H Requirements, DOE P
450.2A, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., May 15, 1996. I. 1.C. Radioactive Waste Management.
All radioactive waste subject to DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and
the requirements of this Manual shall be managed as high-level waste, transuranic
waste, low-level waste, or mixed low-level waste.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that all DOE radioactive waste is managed as one
of the established waste types, and to eliminate the creation of other waste categories or the
management of radioactive waste outside of the requirements established in DOE M 435.1-1. It
is also the objective of this requirement to ensure that the radioactive waste is managed safely
and effectively within the established programs for high-level waste, transuranic waste, low-level
waste, or mixed low-level waste.
Discussion:
The DOE system for management of radioactive waste has evolved over the last several years
into four complex-wide program areas. The first three correspond to the radioactive waste types
identified in DOE O 435.1: high-level waste, transuranic waste, and low-level waste. The fourth
program, for management of mixed low-level waste, evolved separately from the low-level waste
management program due to the hazardous portion of the waste also being subject to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Mixed low-level waste, being a subset of
low-level waste, must be managed in accordance with the low-level waste requirements of DOE
M 435.1-1 and the applicable requirements of RCRA.
The evolution of the management of high-level waste and transuranic waste, based on the driving
statutes for their management, has not resulted in separate programs for mixed high-level or
mixed transuranic waste. Rather, the programs for those waste types address the combined
programmatic planning aspects of storage, treatment, and disposal of mixed and non-mixed
waste varieties of those waste types.
Management of wastes containing radioactivity that do not meet the definitions of the radioactive
waste types in DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 (i.e., 11e.[2] byproduct material, residual
radioactive material as defined in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act [UMTRCA],
or naturally occurring radioactive material [NORM]) should continue to be managed under the
provisions of the UMTRCA, 40 CFR Part 192, or DOE 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the
Public and the Environment, as applicable. However, DOE M 435.1-1 allows for small
quantities of these wastes to be managed in accordance with Chapter IV, Low-Level Waste
Requirements (see the Guidance on DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.B). Waste in quantities too
large for acceptance at DOE low-level waste disposal sites shall be managed according to the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 192, and disposed of at specially designated DOE sites or tailing
disposal sites established under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
During the development of the requirements in DOE M 435.1-1, a safety and hazards analysis
was performed to identify operational activities which presented potential hazards that needed to
be mitigated. The analysis was conducted on the waste types that have been established through
federal legislation and regulation, i.e., high-level, transuranic, low-level, and mixed low-level
waste. In order to ensure that the public, workers, and the environment are protected in the
course of radioactive waste management, any waste managed by the Department, pursuant to
DOE M 435.1-1, must be identified as one of these waste types and managed within the
appropriate program. For many years some sites have identified as special case waste that would
otherwise meet the definition of high-level, transuranic, or low-level waste. This term was
initially used for any waste that did not have a disposition path and evolved to encompass waste
which needed special attention. This requirement is intended to preclude the categorization of a
radioactive waste as a special-case waste or something other than high-level, transuranic, low-level, or mixed low-level waste, and avoid potential problems associated with the waste not
being recognized by and managed within one of the existing waste type programs discussed
above. Table I-1.C provides examples of different waste streams and how they could be
categorized by waste type and by waste management program.
Table I-1.C. Examples of Waste Type and Program Identification
Previous Designation or
Description of Waste
DOE O 435.1 Designation
Management Program
DOE Equivalent to GTCC
Low-Level Waste
LLW or MLLW
Surplus Sealed Sources with
No Potential Reuse
Low-Level Waste or
Transuranic Waste
LLW or TRU
Special Performance
Assessment Required
(SPAR)
Low-Level Waste or
Transuranic Waste
LLW, MLLW, or TRU
Waste Samples from Control
Runs of DWPF
High-Level Waste or
HLW
Waste Incidental to
Reprocessing if determined
to be so
LLW, MLLW, or TRU
Example: A site with a low-level waste disposal facility has waste that has been
accumulating in storage over the last 20 years. The waste is contaminated with less than
100 nCi/g (3700 Bq/g) of transuranic radionuclides so it does not meet the definition of
transuranic waste. Even though the transuranic radionuclide concentration is less than
100 nCi/g (3700 Bq/g), the low-level waste disposal facility performance assessment does
not project that the waste can be disposed with a reasonable expectation of meeting the
disposal performance measures. Rather than categorize the waste as a special case,
performance assessment-limited waste, the site correctly categorizes the waste as a
low-level waste and includes it as such in the site radioactive waste management
program. Since it is included as a low-level waste and there is not an identified path to
disposal, plans will be developed for resolving conditions which prevent its disposal, and
its existence will be reported to Headquarters for consideration in complex-wide
planning.
This requirement mandating the management of all radioactive wastes as one of the waste types
is not intended to force a presumption about the hazards of managing a waste, nor to
automatically define the management steps to be followed based on the categorization of a
radioactive waste. Instead, it is intended to promote safe management and timely disposal by
ensuring that all wastes subject to DOE O 435.1, including legacy waste and various wastes
traditionally called special case wastes, are managed within one of the four existing waste
programs. The hazards associated with the waste should still be the most important factor in
determining the appropriate management steps for the waste. Therefore, it would be appropriate,
for example, to manage all remote-handled waste in one location, even if some of it has been
categorized as transuranic waste and some as low-level waste, as long as the waste containers are
distinctly marked and segregated, if necessary to deter cross-contamination.
Example 1: The Defense Waste Processing Facility has a piece of failed equipment that
is contaminated as a result of high-level waste operations. Site personnel characterize
the failed equipment to determine the radioactive species and inventories. By applying
the "waste incidental to reprocessing" process described in DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter II,
High-Level Waste Requirements, site personnel determine that the failed equipment is
low-level waste because it meets the evaluation criteria of Section II.B and can be
disposed of in the onsite low-level waste disposal facility.
Example 2: A site has a waste known to be contaminated with transuranic radionuclides
that has been accumulating in storage over the last 20 years. Because a method for
disposing of the waste has not been determined, the waste has been called a special case
waste. Site management determines that the waste meets the definition of transuranic
waste. This categorization does not mean that the waste will necessarily be disposed of
at WIPP. However, it establishes the program in which the waste will be managed and
also the Manual requirements for managing the waste. Site management must ensure
that the waste is appropriately managed as a transuranic waste, considering the hazards
of managing it, and managed to achieve disposal in an appropriate waste disposal
facility.
If a legacy waste is not characterized and the waste type is not known, then the organization
responsible for the waste should:
decide the program under which the waste should be managed;
identify whether there is a path forward for disposition of the waste;
delineate any issues associated with further management steps, including whether it
requires further characterization;
provide plans for accomplishing the steps needed to achieve disposal; and
include this information in the documentation of the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste
Management Program.
Example: A piece of equipment remaining from certain processes no longer conducted at
the site is in storage at Building 400. The equipment has been declared waste, but is not
fully characterized. It has lead shielding which is known to be contaminated, and based
on the processes it was used for, is called mixed low-level waste. It is included in the
FY 1999 Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program documentation as mixed
low-level waste without a path forward for disposal, and management steps are
described to fully characterize the equipment to confirm the waste type designation and
to begin an options analysis for treatment and disposal. (Note: Documentation in this
case is the information in the update to the Site's FFCA Treatment Plan.)
Figure 1 provides a logic diagram to assist in determining the proper waste type and the
appropriate program for managing wastes. Guidance for each waste type chapter should also be
consulted for more detailed information about characterization of specific wastes or waste
streams. As noted above, any waste managed by the Department, pursuant to DOE M 435.1-1,
must be identified as high-level, transuranic, low-level, or mixed low-level waste, and managed
within the appropriate program. For many years some sites have identified as special case waste
that would otherwise meet the definition of high-level, transuranic, or low-level waste. This term
was initially used for any waste that did not have a disposition path and evolved to encompass
waste which needed special attention. Special case waste designations should not be used, nor
should separate systems and/or management programs be established outside the existing
radioactive waste programs.
The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management is responsible for developing and
maintaining complex-wide programs for managing the three radioactive waste types
(DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.B.(1)). Guidance on that requirement discusses the important
elements to be included in a waste type management program. The guidance also explains how
this responsibility can be met through the existing four waste type specific programs. Specific
guidance for the mixed low-level waste management program, which supplements the guidance
on General Requirements, is provided in the guidance for a complex-wide low-level waste
program, DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.C.
Compliance with this requirement is met by demonstrating that all radioactive wastes are
correctly categorized as high-level waste, transuranic waste, low-level waste, or mixed low-level
waste, and that all waste and waste streams are managed under one of the four existing waste
type specific management programs. For waste that is not adequately characterized, the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program documentation should detail the plans for
management of this waste under one of the four programs and should include a step for
confirming the waste type categorization.
Supplemental References:
1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, October 21, 1986.
2. NRC, 1969. "Proposed Rule Making, 10 CFR Part 50 Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities," Federal Register, Vol. 34, No. 8712, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C., June 3, 1969.
3. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, January 7, 1983.
4. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, as amended, January 15,
1986.
5. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1992, as amended, October 30, 1992.
6. EPA. Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 40 CFR Part 261, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
7. DOE, 1990. Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, DOE 5400.5, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1990.
8. Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq., 1978.
Figure 1 Logic Diagram for Waste-Type/Program I. 1.D. Analysis of Environmental Impacts.
Existing and proposed radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and
activities shall meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 1021, National Environmental
Policy Act Implementing Procedures; and DOE O 451.1A, National Environmental
Policy Act Compliance Program. All reasonable alternatives shall be considered, as
appropriate. Nothing in this Order is meant to restrict consideration of alternatives
to proposed actions.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure the protection of the public, workers, and the
environment in the management of radioactive waste, and in particular, compliance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Discussion:
The safety and hazards analysis indicated that comprehensive evaluation and documentation of
alternatives to radioactive waste management operations and activities was one way of ensuring
that risks associated with the management of radioactive waste were understood, and avoided if
possible. Additionally, compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) is required for all Departmental actions. The requirements analysis concluded that
the current set of requirements invoked by 10 CFR Part 1021, National Environmental Policy Act
Implementing Procedures, and DOE O 451.1A, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
Program, adequately addressed the controls which were needed to effect such a program.
Under 10 CFR Part 1021, the Department adopts in full the regulations for implementing the
National Environmental Policy Act published by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) at
40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508. 10 CFR Part 1021 lays out the procedures DOE decision
making must follow and the general requirements for implementing the CEQ requirements for
Department of Energy projects. In accordance with these requirements, the Department must
review all actions to determine the significance of potential environmental impacts and, as
appropriate, prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements; prepare,
analyze, and consider alternatives; and provide for public participation in the Department's
decision making processes.
DOE's Office of Environment, Safety, and Health (EH) has published extensive guidance on
implementation of CEQ regulations and performing required NEPA analysis for DOE projects in
a two volume set entitled, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Guide. This guidance
contains all the relevant sections of laws, and all Executive Orders, DOE policies, and policies
from other governmental agencies that need to be considered in complying with NEPA
requirements for DOE projects, including those involving radioactive waste management
facilities, operations, and activities. No additional guidance on complying with NEPA
requirements or to evaluate radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities is
needed.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE. National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, 10 CFR Part 1021,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
2. CEQ. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, Council on Environmental Quality,
Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.
3. DOE, 1998. National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Guide, Volumes I and II,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., August 1998. I. 1.E. Requirements of Other Regulations and DOE Directives.
The following requirements and DOE directives are required for all DOE
radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities as applicable.
Any of the requirements for the following Departmental directives may be waived or
modified through application of a DOE-approved requirements tailoring process,
such as the "Necessary and Sufficient Closure Process" in DOE P 450.3 and DOE M
450.3-1 and DOE P 450.4, Safety Management System Policy, or by an exemption
processed in accordance with the requirements of that directive or DOE M 251.1-1A, Directives System Manual.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure the protection of the public, workers, and the
environment in the management of radioactive waste through the implementation of controls
required in other regulations and DOE Directives.
Discussion:
The safety and hazards analysis conducted during development of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M
435.1-1 was a comprehensive analysis which evaluated all functions of radioactive waste
management from generation to post-closure of disposal facilities, and which considered
potential impacts on the public, workers, and the environment. The analysis identified numerous
weaknesses and conditions requiring controls that are addressed in other existing DOE directives
or Federal regulations. During the requirements analysis, these directives and regulations were
evaluated to determine if they adequately address the weaknesses and conditions identified in the
safety and hazards analysis. It was determined that many of the directives and regulations
include all of the controls necessary. Rather than repeating or paraphrasing existing
requirements within DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, the current requirement invokes the
controls of those directives and regulations in order to provide full regulation of the activities
undertaken in the management of radioactive waste.
In the case of a few of the directives and regulations evaluated, certain controls were considered
too generic to adequately address the specific needs in management of radioactive waste, but
most of the controls were found to be adequate. Also, in the case of a few of the directives and
regulations, emphasis on certain important requirements in them was considered necessary to
ensure adequate protection of the public, workers, and the environment. In both of these cases,
the current requirement invokes the controls of the existing directive or regulation, and additional
requirements are added in DOE M 435.1-1. The need for additional controls is included in the
guidance discussions addressing each of the existing directives or regulations which has been
invoked.
The safety and hazard analysis conducted in support of the DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1
requirements was conducted using generalized assumptions and generic facilities. It is
recognized that this may have resulted in the directives list in this Section containing one or more
directives that do not apply to certain facilities. This list is not meant to force a facility to
comply with those directives, rather, the facility should continue to comply with only the
applicable directives.
Example: Facility A is not a nuclear facility or activity. Therefore, the requirements of
DOE O 420.1 and other nuclear safety orders are not being followed at Facility A. No
additional requirements are invoked to replace these requirements, nor is there any
implication that a provision of DOE M 435.1-1 is being violated.
It is expected that the responsibilities which are assigned in these directives and regulations will
be adhered to, as well as the requirements for processing exemptions and other administrative
requirements. It is also expected that any implementation guidance which already exists for the
other directives or regulations will be followed. The guidance discussions that follow include
specific implementation guidance for radioactive waste management facilities which augments
whatever implementation guidance already exists.
Waivers, Modifications, and Exemptions. Because the comprehensive safety and hazards
analysis is the basis for inclusion of the controls of the other existing DOE directives and
regulations in DOE M 435.1-1, the controls should be met to ensure the public, workers, and the
environment are protected. However, since the safety and hazards analysis was conducted using
generic scenarios for radioactive waste management, it is recognized that facility-specific
requirements may be different. There are structured processes through which the requirements of
DOE directives invoked in this section of DOE M 435.1-1 may be determined to be unnecessary
or satisfied through application of some other requirement. See DOE P 450.3 and DOE M
450.3-1 on Necessary and Sufficient Closure Process. Also, an exemption may be requested and
granted for DOE requirements which can be demonstrated to be unnecessary for protection of the
public, workers, or the environment. Consistent with the guidance implementing the Safety
Management System Policy, DOE P 450.4, this requirement does not allow exemptions from
regulations or other requirements which are mandated by law. Regulatory relief from these
regulations and requirements must be obtained by the contractor. See DOE M 450.3-1 and 48
CFR 970.5204-7(8).
The process that is used to justify a requirement as unnecessary or adequately addressed (e.g.,
"Necessary and Sufficient Closure Process" in DOE P 450.3 and DOE M 450.3-1 and DOE P
450.4, Safety Management System Policy) should be documented in accordance with the
requirements and guidance of that process. If an exemption is used to demonstrate a requirement
does not need to be met, the exemption should be documented in accordance with the process
and requirements in the directive from which an exemption is being requested. If the subject
directive does not have requirements for exemptions, then the requirements for exemptions in
DOE M 251.1-1A, Directives System Manual, should be followed. Additionally, the
documentation should be managed as an auditable record as long as the requirement is
considered unnecessary or an exemption is in effect. Documentation that identifies a
requirement as being unnecessary or adequately addressed, through the use of an accepted
process and which meets the requirements of that process, should be considered complete and in
compliance with the DOE M 435.1-1 requirement.
Each of the regulations and DOE directives invoked by the current requirement is identified
below, and a discussion follows that includes information on why the regulation or directive is
specifically identified in DOE M 435.1-1. Also, where needed, information on implementing the
regulation or directive at DOE radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities
is included, as well as references to other guidance sections that discuss the implementation of
requirements in these regulations or directives.
I. 1.E.(1) Analysis of Operations Information. Data that measure the
environment, safety, and health performance of radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, and activities shall be identified,
collected, and analyzed as required by DOE O 210.1, Performance
Indicators and Analysis of Operations Information.
Discussion:
The functional and requirements analyses conducted in development of DOE O 435.1 and DOE
M 435.1-1 concluded that an effective system for identification, monitoring, and analysis of
important data and measurements of environment, safety, and health performance was an
effective measure for identifying potential issues before they begin to propagate throughout the
system or begin to present themselves at other facilities in the complex. The Complex-Wide and
Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Programs required by DOE M 435.1-1 should
include such a feedback mechanism as part of the evaluation process.
The requirements analysis indicated that the programs in compliance with DOE O 210.1,
Performance Indicators and Analysis of Operations Information, were sufficient for effecting
this type of program for radioactive waste management. The program should track and analyze
appropriate measures of radioactive waste management performance in order to identify potential
problems requiring technical or management attention before the safety of workers, the public, or
the environment, is threatened. More guidance on an effective feedback mechanism for
radioactive waste management programs can be found in guidance on DOE M 435.1-1, Sections
I.2.B.(1) and I.2.F.(1). The Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Recommendation 98-1, Department of Energy Plan to Address and Resolve Safety Issues
Identified by Internal Independent Oversight, March 10, 1999, contains additional guidance for
feedback and tracking systems.
I. 1.E.(2) Classified Waste. Radioactive waste to which access has been limited
for national security reasons and cannot be declassified shall be
managed in accordance with the requirements of DOE 5632.1C,
Protection and Control of Safeguards and Security Interests, and
DOE 5633.3B, Control and Accountability of Nuclear Materials.
Discussion:
During the safety and hazards analysis, no significant risks were identified concerning the
management of DOE classified waste. However, the requirements analysis did conclude that any
classified radioactive waste should continue to be managed appropriately, and if this meant that
its classified status must be maintained, then the current requirements invoked by the Department
for protecting and controlling classified materials were sufficient.
On the other hand, the requirements analysis also concluded that, if possible, the management of
waste as classified should be continued only if necessary. Therefore, DOE M 435.1-1 contains a
requirement to declassify or render suitable for unclassified radioactive waste management to the
extent practical (DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(17)) so it can be managed efficiently with other
like wastes, which would help ensure consistency of controls and probably be less expensive.
Guidance is provided on DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(17) for making as much radioactive
waste as practical suitable for unclassified management, thereby minimizing the amount that
must continue to be managed as classified waste.
I. 1.E.(3) Conduct of Operations. Radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities shall be conducted in a manner based on
consideration of the associated hazards. Waste management facilities,
operations, and activities shall meet the requirements of DOE 5480.19,
Conduct of Operations Requirement for DOE Facilities.
Discussion:
The safety and hazard analysis indicated that many weaknesses and conditions which could lead
to potential radiation exposures and environmental contamination could be prevented through
effective analysis of functions being conducted in management of waste and establishment of
procedures to control the activities that would lead to the desired results. These types of required
controls are already implemented by compliance with DOE 5480.19, Conduct of Operations
Requirement for DOE Facilities, and this requirement serves to emphasize the continued
importance of effective conduct of operations as a protective measure, especially in light of some
of the complex activities that are needed in radioactive waste management. No additional
guidance is provided here for implementing these requirements for radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, or activities.
I. 1.E.(4) Criticality Safety. Radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities shall be covered by a criticality safety
program in accordance with DOE O 420.1, Facility Safety.
Discussion:
The safety and hazard analysis identified that situations which could lead to criticality were a
particularly high-risk aspect of radioactive waste management because the consequences of a rare
event of this type could be catastrophic. The Department already requires a criticality safety
program in compliance with DOE O 420.1, Facility Safety. This DOE M 435.1-1 requirement
serves to emphasize that a criticality program in accordance with DOE O 420.1 must be in place
for radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities for which criticality is an
important consideration. No additional guidance is provided here for implementing these
requirements for radioactive waste management facilities, operations, or activities.
I. 1.E.(5) Emergency Management Program. Radioactive waste management
facilities, operations, and activities shall maintain an emergency
management program in accordance with DOE O 151.1,
Comprehensive Emergency Management System.
Discussion:
The safety and hazards analysis identified that an emergency management program which
institutes precautions against potential situations which could lead to worker and public radiation
exposures, and which can effectively respond to emergencies is a mitigating measure that should
be in place for all radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities. The
requirements analysis indicated that the programs required to be in compliance with DOE O
151.1, Comprehensive Emergency Management System, would be sufficient.
The safety and hazard analysis also revealed a few weaknesses and conditions concerning
radioactive waste management that required special emphasis due to the consequences of
accidents involving liquid radioactive waste. Therefore, additional requirements for contingency
actions for radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities are found in each
of the waste type chapters, and implementation guidance on the requirements (DOE M 435.1-1,
Sections II.H, III.E, and IV.E) should be consulted for discussions on meeting those requirements
by incorporating actions into the existing emergency response programs of DOE O 151.1.
I. 1.E.(6) Environmental and Occurrence Reporting. Radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, and activities shall meet the
reporting requirements of DOE O 231.1, Environment, Safety and
Health Reporting, and DOE O 232.1A, Occurrence Reporting and
Processing of Operations Information.
Discussion:
The functional and requirements analyses conducted in development of DOE O 435.1 and
DOE M 435.1-1 concluded that a system for monitoring and reporting important environmental
data and occurrences of certain actions or off normal events was an effective measure for
mitigating radioactive waste management problems. Reporting is especially important for
identifying potential issues before they propagate through the system or for identifying problems
and issues before they present themselves at other facilities in the complex. The requirements
analysis indicated that the programs already in place in compliance with DOE O 231.1,
Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, and DOE O 232.1A, Occurrence Reporting and
Processing of Operations Information, were sufficient for effecting this type of program for
radioactive waste management.
The Complex-Wide and Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Programs should incorporate
these feedback mechanism as part of the evaluation process. More guidance on effective
feedback mechanisms for radioactive waste management programs can be found in guidance on
DOE M 435.1-1, Sections I.2.B.(1) and I.2.F.(1).
I. 1.E.(7) Environmental Monitoring. Radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities shall meet the environmental monitoring
requirements of DOE 5400.1, General Environmental Protection
Program, and DOE 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and
Environment.
Discussion:
The safety and hazard analysis identified that monitoring for releases of radiation and radioactive
material to the environment was an especially important mitigating factor for potential
weaknesses and conditions in radioactive waste management. The requirements analysis
concluded that the environmental monitoring programs and plans, as required by DOE 5400.1,
General Environmental Protection Program; and DOE 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the
Public and Environment, implemented monitoring that would address the kinds of concerns
evaluated in the analysis.
However, monitoring of disposed radioactive waste, because it must remain effective for a long
time period following cessation of operations, presents a unique challenge. Additional
monitoring of low-level waste disposal facilities is addressed in DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.R.
Implementation guidance for those requirements should be consulted for information on
incorporating additional low-level waste disposal facility performance monitoring into the
environmental monitoring program and plans already required to be in compliance with the
subject DOE Orders on environmental monitoring.
I. 1.E.(8) Hazard Analysis Documentation and Authorization Basis.
Radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities
shall implement DOE Standards, DOE-STD-1027-92, Hazard
Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with
DOE 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, and/or DOE-EM-STD-5502-94, DOE Limited Standard: Hazard Baseline Documentation, and
shall, as applicable, prepare and maintain hazard analysis
documentation and an authorization basis as required by DOE O
425.1A, Startup and Restart of Nuclear Facilities, DOE 5480.21,
Unreviewed Safety Questions, DOE 5480.22, Technical Safety
Requirements, and DOE 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports.
Discussion:
The safety and hazard analysis that was conducted in development of DOE O 435.1 and
DOE M 435.1-1 considered a generic or composite facility, operation, or activity in determining
the risks associated with management of radioactive waste. During the analysis, it was
recognized that for an actual facility, operation, or activity, the real risks posed could be different
than those used in development of the set of requirements in the Manual. This requirement was
included to ensure that, where appropriate, hazard analysis and documentation was prepared for
actual facilities in accordance with the established DOE directives covered, so that if any more
severe risks did exist with any radioactive waste management facilities, operations, or activities,
then appropriate controls would be developed to mitigate them. Guidance that discusses the
authorization basis that may be developed in implementing DOE O 425.1A, Startup and Restart
of Nuclear Facilities, DOE 5480.21, Unreviewed Safety Questions, DOE 5480.22, Technical
Safety Requirements, and DOE 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, appears in discussions
of the radioactive waste management basis requirement, DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(2).
Supporting the implementation of the DOE Orders are two DOE Standards: DOE-STD-1027-92,
Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order
5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, and DOE-EM-STD-5502-94, DOE Limited Standard:
Hazard Baseline Documentation. The first Standard establishes guidance for the preparation and
review of hazard categorization and accident analyses techniques as required in DOE 5480.23
and therefore, applies only to nuclear facilities, i.e., Hazard Category facilities/operations 1, 2,
and 3. The second is a DOE-EM Limited Standard that establishes uniform Office of
Environmental Management guidance on hazard baseline documents that identify and control
radiological and non-radiological hazards for all Office of Environmental Management facilities
including nuclear, radiological, non-nuclear, and industrial.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1992. Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance
with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, DOE-STD-1027-92, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., December 1992.
2. DOE, 1994. DOE Limited Standard: Hazard Baseline Documentation, DOE-EM-STD-5502-94, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., August 1994.
I. 1.E.(9) Life-Cycle Asset Management. Planning, acquisition, operation,
maintenance, and disposition of radioactive waste management
facilities shall be in accordance with DOE O 430.1A, Life-Cycle Asset
Management, and DOE 4330.4B, Maintenance Management Program,
including a configuration management process to ensure the integrity
of physical assets and systems. Corporate physical asset databases
shall be maintained as complete, current inventories of physical assets
and systems to allow reliable analysis of existing and potential
hazards to the public and workers.
Discussion:
The hazards analysis and requirements analysis conducted in development of DOE O 435.1 and
DOE M 435.1-1 indicated that effective planning throughout the entire life of a facility or
process, coupled with a maintenance program to maintain facilities and systems in proper
working order, and configuration management to orderly track changes and decisions made in
the life of a facility or operation, were effective ways to avoid problems in management of
radioactive waste. DOE O 430.1A, Life-Cycle Asset Management, provides for the kind of
planning and configuration management envisioned by the development process, and is cited in
this requirement for emphasis. Likewise, the maintenance process required by DOE 4330.4B,
Maintenance Management Program, would achieve adequate maintenance for radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, and activities, and is also cited for emphasis. The guidance
for the following requirements should be consulted for incorporation of aspects of
implementation of the process and programs required by these Orders into radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, and activities: DOE M 435.1-1, Section II.P.(2); Section III.
M.(2); and Section IV.M.(2).
However, both the safety and hazards and the requirements analyses indicated that some of the
specific weaknesses and conditions which could be experienced with management of radioactive
waste are not covered by the planning required by DOE O 430.1A, Life-Cycle Asset
Management. Specific weaknesses identified that were not adequately addressed by DOE O
430.1A requirements dealt with planning and facility closure when waste streams requiring
additional management or which had no path to disposal were involved. An emphasis on life-cycle planning for cradle-to-grave management of waste streams from facilities, operations, and
activities was thought to cover these weaknesses and conditions that need controlling in the
management of radioactive waste. Therefore, the concept of life-cycle planning for waste
streams is introduced in DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1. The incorporation of life-cycle
planning for radioactive waste is discussed in guidance for the Complex-Wide and Site-Wide
Radioactive Waste Management Programs (DOE M 435.1-1, Sections I.2.B.(1) and I.2.F.(1)),
and the Radioactive Waste Generator Requirements (DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(7)).
I. 1.E.(10) Mixed Waste. Radioactive waste that contains both source, special
nuclear, or by-product material subject to the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, and a hazardous component is also subject to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended.
Discussion:
The potential additional risks posed by mixed radioactive waste due to the hazardous constituents
involved, and the complexities of managing mixed radioactive waste, have been recognized for
years. This requirement acknowledges the regulation of the hazardous constituents of mixed
radioactive wastes in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as
amended or in accordance with state hazardous waste regulations promulgated under RCRA
authority. Each of the waste type chapters in DOE M 435.1-1 contains additional requirements
for mixed radioactive wastes. Guidance for those additional requirements (DOE M 435.1-1,
Sections II.C, III.B, and IV.B.(1)) should be consulted to find discussions on management of
radioactive mixed waste under DOE O 435.1. Also, implementation guidance on the
Department's management of mixed low-level waste is in the guidance on the Complex-Wide
Low-Level Waste Management Program requirement, DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.C.
I. 1.E.(11) Packaging and Transportation. Radioactive waste shall be packaged
and transported in accordance with DOE O 460.1A, Packaging and
Transportation Safety, and DOE O 460.2, Departmental Materials
Transportation and Packaging Management.
Discussion:
The Department of Transportation maintains regulations covering the transportation of
radioactive materials, and DOE will continue to meet these requirements for all applicable
transportation situations. This requirement emphasizes the need to continue to meet DOE O
460.1A, Packaging and Transportation Safety, and DOE O 460.2, Departmental Materials
Transportation and Packaging Management, for all transportation of radioactive waste.
However, the safety and hazard analysis revealed weaknesses and conditions concerning
packaging of radioactive waste and waste containers that are not sufficiently covered in the
existing transportation regulations because of the long time frames radioactive waste needs to be
managed compared with the short time radioactive waste is in transport. Therefore, additional
requirements for packaging and transportation of radioactive waste are found in each of the waste
type chapters, and guidance for the requirements (DOE M 435.1-1, Sections II.O, III.L, and
IV.L) should be consulted for discussions on meeting those requirements.
I. 1.E.(12) Quality Assurance Program. Radioactive waste management
facilities, operations, and activities shall develop and maintain a
quality assurance program that meets the requirements of 10 CFR
830.120, Quality Assurance Requirements, and DOE O 414.1, Quality
Assurance, as applicable.
Discussion:
The safety and hazards analysis indicated that a strong quality assurance program is appropriate
because of the risks posed by the management of DOE's radioactive waste. The analysis of
requirements concluded that most of the requirements already imposed for quality assurance
programs in 10 CFR 830.120, Quality Assurance Requirements and Responsibilities, and DOE O
414.1, Quality Assurance, would establish a sufficient program to maintain the quality of
products and processes needed for radioactive waste management. Some specific additional
quality assurance program requirements are invoked for high-level waste management in DOE M
435.1-1, Section II.G, and the guidance for those requirements should be consulted to determine
how they can be implemented within the quality assurance programs already in place as a result
of compliance with 10 CFR 830.120 and DOE O 414.1.
I. 1.E.(13) Radiation Protection. Radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities shall meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part
835, Occupational Radiation Protection, and DOE 5400.5, Radiation
Protection of the Public and the Environment.
Discussion:
The protection of humans and the environment from the dangers of radiation due to radioactive
waste management facilities, operations, and activities is a fundamental requirement of the
revised DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and is invoked in DOE O 435.1, Section
4, Requirements. This DOE M 435.1-1 requirement emphasizes the need to ensure that the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection, and DOE 5400.5,
Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, are met for radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, and activities.
An important element of these DOE directives is the As Low As Reasonably Achievable
(ALARA) process. The Manual contains a specific requirement for the Field Element Manager
to ensure that the ALARA principles are incorporated for radioactive waste management
facilities, operations, and activities. The guidance on that Manual requirement (DOE M 435.1-1,
Section I.2.F.(12)) should be consulted for additional information in implementing the ALARA
principles for activities covered by this Manual.
I. 1.E.(14) Records Management. Radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities shall develop and maintain a record-keeping
system, as required by DOE O 200.1, Information Management
Program, and DOE O 414.1, Quality Assurance. Records shall be
established and maintained for radioactive waste generated, treated,
stored, transported, or disposed. To the extent possible, records
prepared in response to other requirements may be used to satisfy the
documentation requirements of this Manual. Additional records may
be required to satisfy the regulations applicable to the hazardous
waste components of mixed waste.
Discussion:
The safety and hazards analysis demonstrated that management of information important to
understanding the risks posed by radioactive waste and the needs for establishing controls was an
important control in and of itself. This mitigating factor showed up in many places in the
analysis, and the requirements analysis indicated that DOE O 200.1, Information Management
Program, and DOE O 414.1, Quality Assurance, provided for the necessary programmatic
considerations in establishing effective records and information management.
However, some of the specific controls which were thought necessary for managing the technical
adequacy and accuracy needed for radioactive waste records, especially considering the
magnitude of consequences that could be involved and the long time frames associated with
disposal of waste, are not specific enough in these two orders. Thus, there are specific references
in many places in all three waste type chapters to establishing a particular kind of record, what
the record may be used for, and some indication of the time the record must be kept. These
additional considerations are then discussed in the guidance that explains that requirement in
detail. It is intended that the programmatic recordkeeping requirements of the particular site will
incorporate the necessary changes and accommodations to implement the intent of the DOE M
435.1-1 recordkeeping requirement.
Records for Waste Generated, Treated, Stored, Transported, and Disposed. The requirement
states that records shall be established for radioactive waste generated, treated, stored,
transported, or disposed. The intention of this part of the requirement is to emphasize that
records should be kept throughout the entire life-cycle of the waste, including after it is disposed.
To that end, there are specific requirements for recordkeeping in waste certification, waste
transfer, high-level waste disposal, low-level waste storage, and radioactive waste management
basis sections of DOE M 435.1-1. Site- or facility-specific recordkeeping requirements for any
radioactive waste management functions that are deemed necessary in addition to the
requirements called out in DOE M 435.1-1 should be established in order to maintain the
information important to protection of the public, workers, and the environment.
Use of Other Documentation Requirements. It is possible that documentation required by other
DOE directives, regulations, or site- or facility-specific requirements may contain all the
necessary information needed and be maintained adequately for radioactive waste management
recordkeeping. To the extent practical, any other recordkeeping requirements that are already
being complied with should be used, or modified if appropriate, to meet the recordkeeping
requirements of DOE M 435.1-1. It is not intended that duplicate or additional recordkeeping be
established to meet DOE M 435.1-1 requirements where sufficient recordkeeping already exists.
Mixed Waste Documentation Requirements. Additional recordkeeping and records management
requirements may be needed for radioactive mixed waste to comply with Federal and/or State
hazardous waste requirements. This part of the requirement stands as a reminder that the
hazardous waste records requirements must still be complied with regardless of the records
management requirements for the radioactive contaminants being addressed in DOE M 435.1-1.
Unless it is agreed to by the appropriate regulators for the hazardous component of mixed waste,
the recordkeeping requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 do not necessarily achieve compliance with
the separate requirements for the hazardous component of the waste.
I. 1.E.(15) Release of Waste Containing Residual Radioactive Material. The
process for determining and documenting that waste is suitable to be
released and managed without regard to its radioactive content shall
be in accordance with the criteria and requirements in DOE 5400.5,
Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment.
Discussion:
The requirements analysis indicated that controls for the management of radioactive waste in
DOE M 435.1-1 may not be necessary for wastes that may have low concentrations of residual
radioactive material. Consistent with DOE 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the
Environment, this requirement allows the determination of waste streams that may be managed
without regard to their radioactivity. The current requirements in DOE 5400.5, Radiation
Protection of the Public and the Environment, along with implementation guidance established
by the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health, for making and documenting these
determinations should be consulted for appropriately managing waste streams without regard to
their radioactive content.
I. 1.E.(16) Safeguards and Security. Appropriate features shall be incorporated
into the design and operation of radioactive waste management
facilities, operations, and activities to prevent unauthorized access and
operations, and for purposes of nuclear material control and
accountability, where applicable; and shall be consistent with DOE O
470.1, Safeguards and Security Program.
Discussion:
The requirements analysis concluded that the current requirements delineated in DOE O 470.1,
Safeguards and Security Program, adequately provide for the safeguarding of classified
information and material as well as security for radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities. Therefore, DOE O 470.1 is cited in DOE M 435.1-1 for emphasis. No
additional implementation guidance is considered necessary to address any special needs of the
required programs due to the management of radioactive waste.
I.1.E.(17) Safety Management System. Radioactive waste management
facilities, operations, and activities shall incorporate the principles of
safety management as described in DOE P 450.4, Safety Management
System Policy, and DOE P 450.5, Line Environment, Safety and Health
Oversight, and meet the requirements of the safety management
systems sections of 48 CFR Chapter 9, Department of Energy
Acquisition Regulations and DOE M 411.1-1, Manual of Safety
Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities.
Discussion:
DOE P 450.4, Safety Management System Policy, establishes the Department's policy that a
formal, organized process shall be used for planning, performing, assessing, and improving the
safe conduct of work. DOE P 450.5, Line Environment, Safety and Health Oversight, establishes
the Department's policies that line management conduct environment, safety and health line
oversight in a cost-effective, coordinated, integrated, and efficient manner that is seamless to
contractors and that value is placed on the Department's line managers and contractors working
together to identify and ensure resolution of environment, safety and health concerns. In keeping
with this Departmental policy, the principles of integrated safety management were embodied in
the technical analyses and processes used to determine the essential requirements of the DOE
Order and Manual on radioactive waste management. The core functions for implementing these
principles are (1) define the scope of work; (2) analyze the hazards; (3) develop and implement
hazard controls; (4) perform work within the controls; and (5) provide feedback and continuous
improvement.
Requirements for these policies are set forth in Chapter 9 of Title 48, the Department of Energy
Acquisition Regulations, and in DOE M 411.1-1, Manual of Safety Management Functions,
Responsibilities, and Authorities. These requirement sets are invoked in DOE M 435.1-1 not
only because of the flowdown of the Departmental policies, but also because the implementation
of the policies in the Order and Manual were done through evaluating generic situations on a
complex-wide basis. The actual implementation of the policies for radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, and activities is required on an actual site- and facility-specific
basis. Guidance for implementation of a compliant integrated safety management system is
found in DOE G 450.4-1A, Safety Management System Guide. No additional guidance is needed
for implementing a system for radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and
activities.
I. 1.E.(18) Site-Evaluation and Facility Design. New radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, and activities shall be sited and
designed in accordance with DOE O 420.1, Facility Safety, and
DOE O 430.1A, Life-Cycle Asset Management.
Discussion:
The safety and hazards analysis demonstrated that the selection and evaluation of a suitable site
plus an appropriate facility design that considered the characteristics of the site chosen were
effective mitigation measures to prevent potential problems with the management of radioactive
waste, especially when the long-time frames required for effective management of disposed
waste are considered. The provisions of DOE O 420.1, Facility Safety, and DOE O 430.1A, Life-Cycle Asset Management, were evaluated and found to be adequate in providing the necessary
controls in radioactive waste management. In addition to these Orders, refer to the DOE
Handbook, DOE-HDBK-1132-99, Design Considerations. This Handbook includes information
and considerations for the design of systems typical to nuclear facilities, design considerations
specific to various types of special facilities, and information useful to various design disciplines.
The Handbook specifically includes design considerations for confinement systems and radiation
protection and effluent monitoring systems as well as good practices and design principles that
should be considered in specific design disciplines.
The DOE M 435.1-1 waste-type chapters contain specific requirements to supplement DOE O
420.1 and DOE O 430.1A for radioactive waste management facilities. DOE M 435.1-1
(Sections II.P, III.M, and IV.M) contains detailed additional requirements for both site evaluation
and facility design.
The intent of the specific facility design requirements in each waste type chapter is to have them
applied to all radioactive waste management facilities, both existing and new. However, it is
recognized that in some cases it may not be practical, or possible, to apply these requirements to
existing facilities or operations. In such cases a graded application of the requirement, or an
exemption to the requirement, may be warranted. Use of a graded application or exemption to
the requirements may be due to limited programmatic usage, a short service life, or other reasons
that make long-term, capital intensive upgrades unreasonable. The guidance for the DOE M
435.1-1 waste type specific facility design requirements contain discussions for conducting
adequate facility designs for radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities
and additional discussions on the application of a graded approach to achieving compliance with
the requirements.
I. 1.E.(19) Training and Qualification. A training and qualification program
shall be implemented for radioactive waste management program
personnel, and shall meet the requirements of DOE O 360.1, Training,
and DOE 5480.20A, Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training
Requirements for DOE Nuclear Facilities.
Discussion:
The safety and hazards analysis indicated that an effective mitigating measure for a large number
of weaknesses and conditions that could arise in management of radioactive waste was an
effective program for qualification and training of personnel. The requirements analysis
indicated that DOE's current programs implementing DOE O 360.1, Training, and DOE
5480.20A, Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training Requirements for DOE Nuclear
Facilities were adequate in establishing effective radioactive waste management personnel
qualification and training programs.
It is expected that some changes, additions, or improvements to the existing radioactive waste
management personnel qualification and training programs would be needed to train personnel
on the new and revised requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1. The Field Element
Manager is assigned a specific responsibility in DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(11) to ensure that
this training and re-qualification is reflective of each individuals specific job responsibilities and
the changes and improvements made to the radioactive waste management Order. Guidance on
DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(11) should be consulted for more discussion about the
implementation of a radioactive waste management qualification and training program.
I. 1.E.(20) Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention. Waste minimization
and pollution prevention shall be implemented for radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, and activities to meet the
requirements of Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with
Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements, and
Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government through Waste
Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition, and DOE 5400.1,
General Environmental Protection Program.
Discussion:
The safety and hazards analysis indicated that an effective mitigating measure in management of
radioactive waste was to avoid potential weaknesses and conditions through minimization of
waste. The requirements analysis indicated that DOE's current programs implementing
Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention
Requirements and Responsibilities, and Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government
through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition, and DOE 5400.1, General
Environmental Protection Program, were adequate in establishing effective waste minimization
programs. In addressing this subject, the NRC endorsed EPA's Guidance to Hazardous Waste
Generators on the Elements of a Waste Minimization Program (59 FR 31114). This guidance
should be reviewed for applicability to site waste minimization issues, and establishing a waste
minimization program. For emphasis, the Field Element Manager is assigned a specific
responsibility in DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(3) to ensure that a waste minimization program
is fully implemented.
I. 1.E.(21) Worker Protection. Radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities shall meet the requirements of DOE O
440.1A, Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and
Contractor Employees.
Discussion:
The safety and hazards analysis indicated that many risks were posed by the management of
radioactive waste that were related to non-radioactive characteristics of the waste, and/or by
activities that would need to be carried out on the waste regardless of its radioactive content. A
few examples of these activities are: conducting activities in tight spaces, handling of heavy,
unstable packages, and operation of forklifts. The requirements analysis concluded that the
requirements of DOE O 440.1A, Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and
Contractor Employees adequately covered these risks and should be cited in DOE M 435.1-1 for
completeness. DOE O 440.1A invokes external Occupational Safety and Health Administration
requirements (e.g., 29 CFR Part 1910, Occupational Safety and Health Standards) for both DOE
Federal and contractor personnel, along with several industrial and consensus standards for safe
workplaces, such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Safety Code, and the National Fire Protection Association's Electrical Safety Requirements for
Employee Workplaces. No additional implementation guidance is needed for implementing DOE
O 440.1A for radioactive waste management facilities, operations, or activities.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE. Nuclear Safety Management, Quality Assurance Requirements, 10 CFR 830.120,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
2. DOE, 1995. Facility Safety, DOE O 420.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
D.C., October 13, 1995. I. 2.A. Program Secretarial Officers.
Program Secretarial Officers with radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, or activities are responsible within their respective programs for
ensuring that the Field Element Managers meet the requirements of DOE O 435.1,
Radioactive Waste Management, and this Manual.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure DOE Headquarters management attention and
oversight of Field Offices' management of radioactive waste.
Discussion:
This requirement applies to any Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) that has responsibility for
facilities, operations, or activities involving the management of radioactive waste. PSOs should
be cognizant of Field radioactive waste management activities under their purview and provide
appropriate oversight of Field Element Manager's implementation of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M
435.1-1.
A key to successful compliance with any DOE Directive is oversight. This is particularly true of
directives which, like DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, have performance-oriented
requirements that call for review and approval of site- or facility-specific implementation of
procedures and other controls to ensure the requirements are being met. Oversight is defined
(DOE M 435.1-1, Attachment 2) as:
The responsibility and authority assigned to line management to assess the adequacy of
DOE and contractor performance. Independent Oversight refers to the responsibility and
authority assigned to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health to
independently assess the adequacy of DOE and contractor performance.
The DOE complex has initiated the integrated Safety Management System under Secretarial
policies DOE P 450.4, Safety Management System Policy, DOE P 450.5, Line Environment,
Safety, and Health Oversight, and DOE P 411.1, Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities,
and Authorities Policy. These policies are invoked by DOE M 435.1-1, I.1.E.(17) for the
purposes of emphasis and clarity. DOE P 450.4 provides the overall goals and objectives of the
DOE integrated Safety Management System. Core function No. 5, "Provide Feedback and
Continuous Improvement," calls for a system of evaluations and reporting in order to
continuously improve in achieving the goals and requirements for safety and protection of the
environment. DOE P 450.5 explains that line management has the responsibility for oversight of
DOE facilities, operations, and activities, including those involving management of radioactive
waste.
It is expected that the revised requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 will be
incorporated into contractor self-assessments established under the integrated Safety
Management System, and incorporated into the Field Office oversight of the contractor
programs, as appropriate. Similarly, under the Safety Management System policies, PSOs have
the responsibility to monitor the Field Office oversight and participate in Field Office oversight
functions, as appropriate. Likewise, under the Safety Management Systems policies, the
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health (EH-1) has the responsibility to assess
the adequacy of Field Office and contractor performance, and it is expected that the revised DOE
O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements will be assimilated into the Assistant Secretary for
Environment, Safety, and Health's programs for independent oversight at his/her discretion.
Example: The Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs (DP-1) has been delegated the
responsibility for waste management at the Kansas City Plant. He has delegated the
authority for this responsibility to DP-24, the Office of Site Operations. DP-24 directs
personnel in his organization to conduct an annual evaluation at the Kansas City Plant
during which they assess the site's implementation of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1.
DP-24 is advised of any non-compliance issues and in turn advises DP-1 of these issues.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by appropriate incorporation of DOE O 435.1
and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements within the functions, responsibilities, authorities, and
requirements explained in the set of Safety Management System directives. This results in
thorough and effective oversight of radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and
activities, and assurance that the public, workers, and the environment are protected from the
hazards associated with management of radioactive waste.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1997. Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities Policy,
DOE P 411.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., January 28, 1997.
2. DOE, 1996. Safety Management System Policy, DOE P 450.4, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., October 15, 1996.
3. DOE, 1997. Line Environment, Safety and Health Oversight, DOE P 450.5, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1997.
4. DOE, 1997. Manual of Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities,
DOE M 411.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 8, 1997.
5. DOE, 1992. Environmental Audit Program Guidance, DOE/EH-0232, U.S. Department
of Energy, Washington, D.C., January 1992.
6. DOE. Performance Objective and Criteria for Conducting DOE Environmental Audits,
DOE/EH-0229, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
I. 2.B. Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management.
The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management is responsible for:
(1) Complex-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Programs. Establishing and
maintaining integrated Complex-Wide Radioactive Waste Management
Programs for high-level, transuranic, low-level, and mixed low-level waste.
These programs shall use a systematic approach to planning, execution, and
evaluation to ensure that waste generation, storage, treatment, and disposal
needs are met and coordinated across the DOE complex.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure development of complex-wide programs that result
in the safe and efficient management of all DOE high-level, transuranic, low-level, and mixed
low-level waste. The programs are to ensure coordination among DOE sites and among
Headquarters program offices. Such programs provide Headquarters and Field personnel a
common basis for carrying out the radioactive waste management programs' missions.
Discussion:
The Department is responsible for managing radioactive waste in a manner that is protective of
the public, workers, and the environment. To accomplish this in the most efficient manner, and
to make the best use of resources, programs for managing the various waste types need to be
coordinated among Headquarters Program Offices and among the DOE sites. Radioactive waste
subject to the Radioactive Waste Management Order (DOE O 435.1) and the Manual (DOE M
435.1-1) is to be managed within one of four waste-type programs in accordance with the
Radioactive Waste Management requirement of the Manual (DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.1.C).
The complex-wide programs must respond to current needs affecting the safe, effective, and
efficient management of waste. The complex-wide programs should provide a vision of the final
disposition of each waste type for the complex, yet need to be responsive to the issues that arise
at individual DOE sites.
The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management is assigned responsibility for
maintaining programs for managing each waste type to ensure that there is a focal point for
managing the wastes and ensuring integration across the complex. Integration across the
complex involves coordinating treatment, storage, and disposal to allow the needs of one site to
be met by capabilities at another site, if practical. To that end, activities at individual DOE sites
should support the complex-wide program by providing data needed for complex-wide planning
(e.g., waste inventories and projections, facility capacities) and by budgeting for and executing
site activities that lead to accomplishing complex-wide program goals. Conversely, the
complex-wide program should also be supportive of the site programs by establishing realistic
goals and resolving complex-wide issues (e.g., disposal configurations, equity issues, certain
issues affecting waste with no path to disposal), and should be developed with cognizance of
individual site constraints (e.g., agreements with State or local governments, compliance orders).
In addition to ensuring integration across the complex, assigning the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management responsibility for program development and maintenance also
provides a focal point for coordination across all Headquarters Program Offices. Thus,
regardless of whether other Headquarters program offices (e.g., Defense Programs, Science) have
responsibility for various waste management activities, the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management is responsible for ensuring that activities are coordinated within the
waste type programs.
The requirement calls for a program for each waste type. This is consistent with the way DOE
manages the radioactive waste types and allows the focus of the program to be on the
characteristics and/or legal and regulatory requirements specific to the waste type. For example,
the regulatory constraints on disposal vary among the waste types. DOE plans to dispose of
high-level waste in a geologic repository so the end point objective of the high-level waste
program is to convert the waste into a form that meets the waste acceptance criteria for the
repository. Federal legislation provides for the disposal of defense transuranic waste in a
geologic repository, separate from the spent nuclear fuel/high-level waste repository. Waste
characteristics and the need to coordinate transportation to the repository provides the common
basis for having a transuranic waste management program. The Department's policy and
regulatory authority for onsite disposal of low-level waste establishes the underlying basis for
addressing this waste within a program; and in part, because of the overlay of external
requirements, mixed low-level waste is addressed within a separate program.
Although individual programs for the waste types are established at the complex-wide level,
separate programs for each waste type are not required at the DOE sites. Rather, the site
programs are to be developed in a manner that the Field Element Manager deems appropriate, as
long as the site programs support the individual complex-wide programs (see guidance for
Site-Wide Waste Management Program).
A systematic approach for managing each waste type should provide all of the organizations
involved in the program with a common framework within which they can discharge their
responsibilities. The program framework should identify the overall mission of the program, the
key program participants, participants roles, and expected accomplishments. The top-level
functions of the program are planning or formulation, execution, and evaluation. The planning
function identifies the organizations or sites responsible for implementing the strategies and
activities directed at accomplishing the program mission. Under the execution function of the
program, each organization performs the work for which it is responsible. For example, site
personnel would perform the activities associated with storing, treating, and disposing of waste
and Headquarters personnel would perform the necessary coordination, data collection and
analysis, and further complex-wide planning. The evaluation function provides the means of
improving the program by learning from the experience gained through execution of the
program. Each of these functions is discussed in more detail below.
Planning. A systematic approach to planning involves identifying and defining those aspects of
the program necessary for the sites to execute their individual responsibilities. The planning
should be consistent with DOE policies, other programs, and controlling or higher level
documents that specify DOE policy or direction.
Example: The waste type programs need to be consistent with the overall plan for clean
up of DOE sites developed under the auspices of the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management. The Assistant Secretary's plan is a higher level document
establishing policy and direction for environmental restoration and waste management
activities in the Department.
The complex-wide program for each waste type should be defined in terms of scope, mission,
goals and objectives, priorities, and interfaces. As used here, the term scope means the
boundaries of the program, such as the waste and the waste management facilities and activities
that are included in the program. The mission, and goals and objectives provide program
participants a common view of what the program is intended to accomplish in the short and long
term. The priorities address the order of importance of the goals, objectives and activities to be
accomplished. A priority may be based on the need to complete a fairly minor activity in order
to support a subsequent activity. The interfaces describe where and how the program
interactions occur, both within the program and with other organizations and facilities outside of
the program. A key interface for each waste type program is the interaction with the other waste
type programs since there are occasions when waste exits one program and enters another
programs (e.g., see guidance on Waste Incidental to Reprocessing).
In order to ensure that waste management needs will be met (e.g., sufficient waste storage
capacity), it is necessary to have data on inventories of waste and estimates of future waste
receipts to compare with current and projected facility capacities. These data provide the basis
for determining the strategy for meeting current and future waste management needs. A strategy
for meeting waste management needs may include constructing new facilities (permanent or
mobile), using commercial facilities or capabilities, coordinating among DOE sites, or
combinations of these and other actions. The Assistant Secretary also needs to ensure that
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses are performed to support policy-making
and configuration decisions.
Lastly, the planning function includes developing and submitting a budget request to implement
the planned program activities. Depending on organizational responsibilities assigned at
Headquarters, the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management may not be responsible for
funding all waste management activities. However, in exercising the responsibility assigned by
this requirement, the Assistant Secretary should be cognizant of the funding for waste
management being requested by other Program Offices to ensure that waste management
activities are integrated. In performing budget planning, it is necessary to plan for events far
enough into the future to allow sufficient lead time for the Federal funding process. Generally,
this requires identifying major expenditures two or three years in advance.
Implementation of the program planning activities may be provided for by existing actions
undertaken by or on behalf of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. To the
extent the planning function is already met by ongoing activities (e.g., the annual budget
submittal, existing waste type program plans), no additional effort is required to fulfill this
responsibility.
Execution. Execution of the waste management programs involves those activities taken to
implement planning. At the complex-wide level, execution will involve performing the studies
and analyses that form the basis for resolving issues and conducting future planning. At the site
level, execution includes the generation, storage, treatment, and disposal of waste. In addition,
program execution includes data collection and documentation associated with waste
management activities, as well as construction and procurement activities necessary to provide
future waste management capabilities.
Evaluation. An important part of a systematic approach to the waste management programs is
evaluating the work accomplished during the execution phase. Progress should be measured
against programmatic goals established during the planning phase. In addition, success should
be measured against parameters established to evaluate protection of the public, workers, and the
environment. The evaluation should include the following elements:
Performance Measures. Metrics should be used in evaluating performance against
program, and environmental, health, and safety goals should be selected and agreed to by
Headquarters and the field;
Performance Data. Performance data should be collected from across the complex to
enable evaluation of performance relative to the measures selected above;
Performance Evaluation and Reporting. Collected data should be reduced into a form
that allows it to be analyzed against the metrics and to allow it to be interpreted and
evaluated for performance and trends; and
Feedback. Information should be provided for use in the planning process and for use by
the sites in improving performance. Feedback should be in the form of recommendations
for potential changes to program policies, goals, priorities, strategies, or interfaces.
Additionally, feedback may include recommendations on methods to improve protection
of the environment, and human health and safety, either through top-level management
actions (e.g., administration of contractor award fees) or working level management
actions (e.g, changes to site operating practices and/or procedures).
The process of planning, execution, and evaluation is iterative. The lessons learned from the
activities undertaken during one fiscal year, or changes in the assumptions on which the program
strategy was based, will require revising the program planning. This in turn will affect the
execution of the program, and therefore the performance measures that will be included in the
evaluation step.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated if complex-wide waste type programs exist
for high-level, transuranic, low-level, and mixed low-level waste. These programs should result
in safe and efficient management of all DOE radioactive waste and ensure coordination among
DOE sites and programs.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1997. Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities Policy,
DOE P 411.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., January 28, 1997.
2. DOE, 1997. Manual of Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities,
DOE M 411.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 8, 1997.
3. DOE, 1996. DOE Low-Level Waste System Description Document, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, September 1996.
I. 2.B.(2) Changes to Regulations and DOE Directives. Ensuring changes to
regulations and DOE directives are reviewed and, when necessary,
incorporated into revisions of this Manual to ensure the basis for safe
radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities is
maintained.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that changes to pertinent regulations and other
DOE directives are evaluated and incorporated into revisions to radioactive waste management
directives to keep current with new information and practices.
Discussion:
The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management is responsible for ensuring changes to
regulations and DOE directives are reviewed and evaluated for their impact on safe radioactive
waste management. The results of the review should be used to assess the need to revise DOE O
435.1, Radioactive Waste Management and the associated Manual and Contractor Requirements
Documents. When warranted, these documents are to be revised to ensure protection of workers,
the public, and the environment.
New information leads to changes in regulations and other DOE directives, and practices used in
the management of radioactive waste. This information and the changes should be evaluated
and, when appropriate, incorporated into revisions of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste
Management, or DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, so that DOE
radioactive waste management requirements and practices are consistent with requirements and
practices within DOE and in commercial radioactive waste management. If the review of a
change in a regulation or directive leads to the potential need for a revision, the determination of
the need and rationale for a revision should be documented. The documentation should be
maintained as an auditable record as long as the directive is in effect.
Example: The DOE directive on environmental and occurrence reporting is revised and
a new version issued. The Order and associated documents are reviewed and primarily
administrative requirements (e.g., the way DOE does business) are changed. A review of
the technical basis document does not reveal any reliance on the administrative
requirements of the revised order for protection of workers, the public, or the
environment. Therefore, the results of the review lead to the conclusion that there is no
need to revise DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. This conclusion is
documented and maintained as a quality assurance record. Additionally, however, a
change to a technical requirement which was relied upon to address a weakness or
condition associated with radioactive waste management is assessed to determine impact
on the protection of workers, the public, and the environment. A significant impact is
identified that warrants a revision to the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1. The method of
effecting the revision (change page, memorandum, order revision, etc.) should be
documented and managed as a quality assurance record.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by the existence of a systematic process of
reviewing new and proposed directives and regulations for their impact on the basis for safe
management of DOE radioactive waste. Documented conclusions from the reviews provide
evidence that the process is being implemented.
Supplemental References: None. I. 2.C. Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health.
The Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health is responsible for
providing an independent overview of DOE radioactive waste management and
decommissioning programs to determine compliance with DOE environment, safety,
and health requirements and applicable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and state regulations, including:
(1) Advising the Secretary of the status of Departmental compliance with the
requirements of DOE O 435.1, this Manual, and applicable provisions of
other DOE Orders.
(2) Conducting independent appraisals and audits of DOE waste management
programs.
(3) Reviewing site Waste Management Plans with regard to compliance with
DOE environment, safety, and health requirements.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that the existing role of the Office of Environment,
Safety and Health for providing independent oversight is maintained and understood.
Discussion:
The role of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health is to conduct independent
oversight of DOE activities, including radioactive waste management. The purpose of this
oversight is to determine compliance of DOE Headquarters and Field Element programs with
DOE Environment, Safety and Health regulations and applicable EPA and state regulations.
During the development of DOE M 435.1-1, it was recognized that explicit inclusion of this
statement within the General Requirements and Responsibilities Chapter would serve to clarify
this role.
The inclusion of this requirement/responsibility is not expected to change any current reporting,
oversight, or compliance arrangements within the Department, rather it further clarifies existing
roles and responsibilities.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1997. Manual of Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities,
DOE M 411.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 8, 1997.
2. DOE, 1988. General Environmental Protection Program, DOE 5400.1, U.S. Department
of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 9, 1988.
3. DOE, 1990. Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, DOE 5400.5, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1990. I. 2.D. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management is responsible for:
(1) Complex-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program Plans. Developing,
implementing, and maintaining integrated Complex-Wide Radioactive Waste
Management Program Plans for high-level, transuranic, low-level, and mixed
low-level waste. Each plan shall, at the DOE complex-wide level, describe
the functional elements, organizations, responsibilities, and activities that
comprise the system needed to store, treat, and dispose of radioactive waste
in a manner that is protective of the public, workers, and the environment.
In addition, the plans shall:
(a) Present a waste management strategy that integrates waste
projections and life-cycle waste management planning into complex-wide facility configuration decisions; and
(b) Describe the approach to research and technology development being
pursued to improve safety and/or efficiency in managing radioactive
waste.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that complex-wide plans provide an overarching
strategy for making and implementing waste management decisions. The overarching strategy
provides site personnel a framework within which they can formulate and execute plans for
managing wastes at the individual sites.
Discussion:
The Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.B.(1), assigns the
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management responsibility for establishing and
maintaining complex-wide management programs for each waste type. This responsibility is
fulfilled through the planning, execution, and evaluation of these programs. The current
requirement assigns the responsibility for a complex-wide program plan for each waste type to
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management. These plans are to provide a clear
picture of the waste type program and its direction, and serve as a mechanism for documenting
most of the planning functions of the programs. Although assigned to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary, the development of these plans is a cooperative and iterative effort with the site
representatives and other affected programs. Whereas the Field Element Managers are to
develop and implement site programs that support the complex-wide plan, the complex-wide
plan should be developed based on the inventory, facility status, constraints, and needs of the
individual sites.
Definition of Waste Management Program. The following topics are to be addressed in the
waste type program plans to define the program in a manner that conveys the extent and intent of
the program.
Mission. The program plans should provide a succinct statement of the overall purpose
of the program. The mission statement should reflect the expectation to safely manage
each waste type throughout all stages of waste management and should reflect disposal of
waste as part of the mission.
Example: The Low-Level Waste Management Program mission statement states - The
mission of the Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Management Program is to
develop, implement, and coordinate a nationally integrated program for low-level waste
treatment, storage, and disposal that uses a combination of Federal and private facilities
to meet the needs of waste generators while fully protecting workers, the public, and the
environment. Safety of operations and timely disposal of waste are high priorities for the
Department.
Goals, Objectives, and Milestones. A key element of the complex-wide waste type
program plans is the identification of program goals, objectives, and major milestones.
Goals to be defined in the program plans may be general and apply to the complex as a
whole, or they may be site-specific goals, based on input from the field, that are major
events for the program (e.g., opening the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant). One of the
complex-wide goals that should be defined in the plans is the expected end-state for the
waste type. That is, the end of the life-cycle for the particular waste type should be one
of the long-term goals of the program. The complex-wide goals should be specific, long-term measures of the waste type program's progress, and the goals should be challenging,
yet achievable. To support the periodic assessment of the program's progress, the goals
should be measurable.
Objectives should be established as interim measures of progress towards meeting the
program goals. The objectives may be established as complex-level objectives, or may
reflect key events at individual sites that are significant to measuring progress in the
program.
Milestones are more specific events, e.g., decision points, completion of specific studies
or analyses, or operation of specific facilities, which have a date of completion associated
with them. Milestones are to be established in support of the goals and/or objectives. As
with the goals and objectives, milestones may be established for activities being
addressed at the complex-wide level, or may represent major activities that are to be
completed at a specific site consistent with site programs (see DOE M 435.1-1, Section
I.2.F.(1)). The following examples shows program goals, supported by objectives, and
specific milestones.
Example 1:
Goal: Convert Environmental Management high-level waste to a form that can be
accepted by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
Objective: Vitrify all of the high-level liquid waste at the Savannah River Site.
Milestone: Produce 250 canisters of vitrified Savannah River Site high-level
waste in conformance with Environmental Management Waste Acceptance
Product Specification during FY 1999.
Example 2:
Goal: Provide for disposal of all transuranic waste.
Objective: Dispose of defense transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Milestone: Begin disposal operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant by
September 1998.
Milestone: Remove all packaged transuranic waste from the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site by December 2XXX.
Priorities. The complex-wide program should establish priorities which are then reflected
in the goals and objectives of the program. The priorities for the program may be
influenced by a number of different factors, including legal commitments or agreements,
predecessor-successor relationships of related program activities, timing of the
availability of a technology or facility, and funding considerations.
Example 1: A prioritization of activities in the high-level waste management program
has resulted in a decision to construct and start operation of vitrification facilities at the
Savannah River Site and the West Valley Demonstration Project, followed by facilities at
Hanford and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. These
priorities are based on availability of funding and the stage of technology development
and readiness at these sites.
Example 2: An example of prioritization for the Transuranic Waste Management
Program would be deciding to open the transportation corridors through New Mexico,
Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho prior to opening corridors through eastern states.
This priority is based on the sites that are expected to ship waste to the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant first.
Boundaries and Interfaces. The program plans should clearly define the boundaries or
scope of the program and describe the internal and external interfaces which must be
managed. The complex-wide plans should define what is within the program boundary,
including a general description of the wastes to be managed. Part of defining the
boundaries or scope in the waste type program plans includes identifying the internal
interfaces. The internal interfaces include the interactions among organizations or
activities that have different funding sources, but are part of the DOE waste management
(e.g., high-level, transuranic, low-level, or mixed low-level waste) programs. Internal
interfaces are defined through the identification of organizations and responsibilities
discussed in a following subsection.
Interfaces external to a waste type program should also be defined in the program plan.
The interfaces exist between waste type programs, with generators, and with external
entities. First, interfaces between waste type programs need to account for transfers of
waste between the programs. Transfer may be necessary to accommodate waste that
changes from one waste type to another (e.g., as a result of assay or a waste incidental to
reprocessing determination), or from generating a waste as a result of managing another
waste type (e.g., high-level waste treatment generates a secondary low-level waste
stream). An important outcome of identifying interfaces with other waste type programs
is ensuring that all waste (subject to DOE O 435.1) under the Department of Energy's
purview is being managed within one of the waste type programs.
Example: Pretreatment of high-level waste at the Savannah River Site results in a
high-volume stream of salt solution. Through application of the waste incidental to
reprocessing process, a determination is made that the salt solution should be managed
as low-level waste. The high-level and low-level waste programs establish an interface
that ensures that the waste is safely managed according to the appropriate set of
requirements.
Second, each of the programs needs to identify interfaces with the generators of each
waste type. The program plan should document the sources of waste that the program
will manage. Whereas some waste is generated by activities within the program, waste is
also generated by the Environmental Restoration Program, Defense Programs, Science
Programs, and Nuclear Energy Programs.
Third, the program plan should document interfaces with organizations external to the
Department of Energy. This could include external regulatory agencies (Federal or State)
as well as commercial facilities.
Constraints. The program plans should discuss significant constraints on the planning
and execution of each waste type program. As used here, the term constraints has a broad
meaning including program assumptions, Departmental policies which direct or restrict
certain waste management actions, external regulations, etc. Key assumptions that may
impact planning at the complex-wide level include major policies, current and out-year
program funding, expected programmatic or activity decisions, and expected contract
awards.
Example: A key assumption affecting the management of low-level waste is that the six
currently operating low-level waste disposal facilities will continue to operate for the
next two years. Therefore, there would be no significant changes to existing generator-disposal facility relationships.
Organization and Responsibilities. The organizational and functional responsibilities of the
participants in the complex-wide waste type programs, and their interrelationships, should be
described in the program plans. This description should include the identification of the
organizations within both the Headquarters and Field organizations, and a discussion of their
respective roles in formulating, executing, and evaluating the waste type programs. The plan
should include organization and interface charts that define the roles, responsibilities, and
authorities for each of the major program participants, as well as required lines of
communication.
Example: For the Low-Level Waste Management Program, the Program Plan identifies
the entity responsible for supporting the Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste
Management and Environmental Restoration in the review and evaluation of disposal
facility performance assessments and composite analyses.
Integrated Program Strategy. The program plan provides a description and basis for the strategy
being pursued to fulfill the program mission and meet the program goals. The strategy addresses
the life-cycle management of waste from generation and generation reduction through the plans
and approaches for effecting disposal of waste. The strategy also needs to recognize that part of
the life-cycle management of the waste may include continued safe storage of legacy waste
pending the ability to dispose of it. The strategy needs to be consistent with the assumptions
described earlier and should be developed considering the following elements:
Technical and programmatic issues;
Waste projections;
Life-cycle waste management planning;
Waste minimization and pollution prevention;
Research and development; and
Implementation of DOE O 435.1.
Technical and Programmatic Issues. Major issues that impact the safe management of
waste, including regulatory issues; expected changes in Federal, State or local statutes;
and major technical issues should be discussed in the plan. Among the issues included in
the plan should be problems identified by the sites that would best be addressed at a
complex-wide level (e.g., resolving certain issues that result in waste with no path to
disposal). Examples of these types of problems are issues that need to be negotiated at
the Federal level (with Headquarters of another Federal agency or Congress) or issues
that occur at multiple sites that would benefit by a common resolution. In addition to
identifying the issues, the plan should describe proposed solutions or steps towards
resolving them (e.g., obtaining data, completing studies).
Example 1: A major issue that should be addressed at the complex-wide level for
transuranic waste management is the disposition of non-defense transuranic waste.
There is currently no path to disposal for non-defense transuranic waste. The plan
should address the development of information and other steps necessary to support
resolution of the issue.
Example 2: In the high-level waste management program, a key technical and regulatory
issue is the high-level waste tank closure process. The plan identifies technical issues
that need to be resolved, such as appropriate methods to solidify and stabilize residues
that remain in the tank, and regulatory issues such as the waste categorization of the
tanks. The activities and schedule for resolving these issues is identified in the plan.
Waste Projections. The waste projections element of the programs plans should identify
the minimum data requirements that must be included in waste projections, a consistent
projections methodology, data quality objectives, and evaluation of data uncertainties,
maintenance of data quality, and a periodic review and assessment of waste projections
data quality. The collection of waste projections data should be focused on promoting the
safe and efficient life-cycle management of waste. Therefore, data collection is an
element in ensuring that sufficient storage, treatment, and disposal capacity will be
available to handle current and future wastes.
Example: Projections of low-level waste volumes are necessary to ensure that sufficient
disposal capacity will be available, either within DOE and/or at commercially-operated
facilities. Therefore, the types of information that would be needed include the volumes
of waste that would be generated in different time periods, and the inventories and/or
concentrations of key radionuclides. Through a cooperative effort among personnel from
the complex-wide program, the generating sites, and DOE disposal sites, a determination
is made as to what actions are necessary to ensure adequate waste disposal capacity.
Life-cycle Waste Management Planning. At the complex-wide level, personnel working
on the program plan should consider the management needs for all of the waste included
in the program when mapping out a strategy. In so doing, personnel developing the
strategy should consider the volumes and characteristics of waste in storage and those
projected to be generated. The availability of waste management facilities to safely and
expeditiously manage the types and amounts of waste should be considered in developing
the program strategy. For much of the waste, management through its entire life cycle
will be possible using existing or planned facilities. The strategy for these types of waste
should then focus on actions to improve efficiency and safety in effecting disposal. If
appropriate, the strategy should consider the use of non-DOE facilities for meeting waste
management needs.
Example 1: In the Transuranic Waste Management Program, a strategy is developed
that calls for the use of mobile equipment for certifying waste at small generator sites.
Use of the equipment results in program cost savings by avoiding the construction of
facilities for waste certification at multiple sites. Program efficiency is also achieved by
being able to coordinate the schedule for the mobile equipment with the schedule for
shipping waste to WIPP.
Example 2: Use of non-DOE facilities to help meet waste management needs occurs in
the management of mixed low-level waste for disposal where DOE capabilities do not
currently exist. A commercial facility that has the necessary radioactive materials
license and RCRA permit provides disposal of mixed low-level waste which cannot
currently be transferred to a DOE site for disposal. The use of the commercial facility is
determined to be in the best interest of DOE and an exemption has been approved. The
DOE strategy to allow disposal of small volumes of mixed low-level waste at a
commercial facility promotes compliance with agreements and external regulations at the
individual DOE sites, and reduces the costs and risks associated with storage.
The strategy should also account for managing the wastes that do not have an apparent
path to disposal. The complex-wide plan should provide sufficient information that site
personnel can use to determine whether activities being taken at the complex-wide level
address the issues that prevent disposal or whether the site should take individual actions
to resolve the issues.
Example: For transuranic waste that currently cannot be disposed at WIPP, a strategy
might be to address the issues preventing disposal of the waste. In this case, personnel
with non-defense wastes that could otherwise meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria
would rely on the efforts being taken by Headquarters to resolve the issue.
Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention. The complex-wide plan should
acknowledge the role that waste minimization and pollution prevention play in the
management of radioactive waste. The plan should reference any applicable pollution
prevention program plans which address commitments concerning the particular waste
type.
Example: The program plan for low-level waste or mixed low-level waste references the
Pollution Prevention Program Plan that documents a Secretarial commitment to reduce
the generation rates for the waste types by 50 percent by the end of 1999 (compared to
the 1993 generation rates). This commitment is then translated into a program goal for
the low-level waste and mixed low-level waste programs.
Research and Development (R&D) Activities. The complex-wide plan should address
the research and development being done to address multi-site issues related to disposal
and other waste management issues. This provides a basis for the sites to determine what
issues need to be addressed at the site level.
Example: In the Transuranic Waste Management Program, research is being performed
to re-evaluate the potential for generation of explosive gases in transuranic waste
containers. If the research concludes that gases are not generated in closed transuranic
waste containers, the need for sampling and/or venting prior to placement into the
TRUPACT II could be eliminated for transportation. This research being undertaken by
a central organization may benefit all shippers of transuranic waste.
Implementation of DOE O 435.1. The program plan should consider the time and cost of
implementing the Radioactive Waste Management Order, DOE O 435.1 and the
supporting Manual, DOE M 435.1-1 when establishing program goals and objectives. In
the near term, the complex-wide strategy must include attaining compliance with the
Order as one of its goals. Individual objectives may address significant facilities at
individual sites.
Example: Completion of a performance assessment and composite analysis for low-level
waste disposal facilities, and issuance of a Disposal Authorization Statements, are
appropriate key objectives for inclusion in the Low-Level Waste Management Program
Plan. These are required to comply with DOE M 435.1-1 and are significant to the
overall low-level waste management program.
The program plan also provides a mechanism for documenting means by which the program
progress and compliance can be evaluated. The plan should indicate the types of evaluations that
are going to take place and at what level in the organizational structure they will occur. The
evaluation and oversight responsibilities should include a clear delineation between the roles of
Headquarters, Field, and contractor organizations. Periodic evaluations of program activities will
provide the basis for determining progress toward achieving the program goals and provide the
feedback necessary to improve performance of the waste-type programs.
Examples of evaluation and oversight activities include:
Contractor self-assessments;
Field oversight assessments;
Progress Tracking System reporting; and
Quarterly Management Reviews.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated if a program plan is developed for each of the
waste types specified in DOE M 435.1-1. The program plans should convey the overall purpose
(end-point) of the program, the responsibilities for accomplishing different program activities,
and a strategy that reflects the uncertainties and constraints that affect management of the
specific waste type.
Supplemental References:
1. CAO, 1997. The National TRU Waste Management Plan, Revision 1, DOE/NTP-96-1204, U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office, Carlsbad, NM, December 18,
1997.
2. DOE, 1997. DOE Low-Level Waste Program Management Plan, Revision 0,
DOE/LLW/PMP-001, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., March 1997. I. 2.D. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management is responsible for:
(2) Waste Management Data System. Establishing and maintaining a system to
compile waste generation projection data and other information concerning
radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities across the
complex.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure information and data concerning the management
of radioactive waste is collected and compiled at the DOE complex level. Compilation of waste
management information promotes safe management of radioactive waste by supporting the
integration and optimization activities, and life-cycle waste management planning across the
DOE complex.
Discussion:
To effectively manage radioactive waste, the Department is dependent on information and data
which describe its waste, both previously generated and projected, as well as the facilities and
systems used to manage the waste. In the development of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1,
collecting and managing this information was determined to be an important function for the safe
and effective management of radioactive waste. The information and data are generated and
developed as a result of site-specific compliance with various requirements including DOE M
435.1-1.
The "waste management data system" is a general description used to describe systems and
processes needed to collect, compile, and report information in a uniform and consistent manner.
The specific mechanisms for collecting the data and information will vary based on changes in
management approach and implementation methodology. However, the information and data
that are to be managed originate from many diverse sources so consistent reporting is important.
The data must be collected and reported in a manner that makes them useful to the complex-wide
waste-type programs and plans required by DOE M 435.1-1, Sections I.2.B and I.2.D. For
instance, information on waste with no path to disposal needs to be included in the data system to
allow evaluations which could lead to common solutions that would benefit multiple sites. Also,
data need to be collected to support the evaluation phase of waste management by depicting
progress made in the program.
The development and documentation of data requirements are to be completed for all
information to be collected from the field. Use of data requirements ensures consistency and
provides a basis for accurate reporting. Data requirements describe the information requested,
why it's requested, and how to report it. Information and data will generally be collected for each
DOE site in the complex. Typically, the following information and data for high-level waste,
transuranic waste, low-level waste, and mixed low-level waste are to be included in the waste
management data system:
Quantities of past, current, and projected waste, by waste type and year;
Waste characteristics;
Waste management life-cycle plans, including final disposition and no path to
disposal information;
Facility and operational information including capacities; and
Barriers to disposition and technology needs.
Example: Information on DOE field waste management activities is provided to DOE-HQ through the "Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure" reporting process using
various systems and tools. The information is used to generate a DOE report that
includes disposition maps used to help depict the waste management life cycle and any
barriers that may exist for final waste stream disposition.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by the existence of systems and processes for
the collection and management of complex-wide information about DOE radioactive waste. The
data systems should be updated on a routine basis, and support capacity and facility planning,
resource and budget planning, integration and efficiency efforts, and lessons learned.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1998. Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure, DOE/EM-0362, U.S. Department
of Energy, Washington, D.C., June 1998.
2. DOE, 1996. Low-Level Waste Projection Program Guide, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C., December 18, 1996.
I. 2.E. Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste Management and Environmental
Restoration.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management and the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Restoration are responsible for:
(1) Disposal. Reviewing and approving, along with EH-1, transuranic waste
disposal facility performance assessments and other disposal documents as
required in waste specific chapters for which DOE is responsible for making
compliance determinations. Reviewing and approving performance
assessments and composite analyses, or appropriate CERCLA
documentation, for low-level waste disposal facilities, and issuing disposal
authorization statements.
(a) The Deputy Assistant Secretaries shall establish a review panel
consisting of DOE personnel to review low-level waste disposal facility
performance assessments and composite analyses, review appropriate
CERCLA documentation, recommend low-level waste disposal facility
compliance determinations to the Deputy Assistant Secretaries, and
develop disposal authorization statements.
(b) The Deputy Assistant Secretaries shall issue disposal authorization
statements containing conditions that low-level waste disposal
facilities must meet in order to operate with an approved radioactive
waste management basis.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that the evaluations conducted in the performance
assessment for a transuranic waste disposal facility, and in the performance assessment (or
appropriate CERCLA documentation) and composite analysis (or appropriate CERCLA
documentation) for a low-level waste disposal facility, are found by DOE to be technically
adequate, logical, complete, and defensible for establishing the controls on disposal of waste for
protection of the public and the environment into the future. The evaluations and controls should
result in a reasonable expectation that the standards of 40 CFR Part 191 will be met at the
transuranic waste disposal facility or in a reasonable expectation that the performance objectives
of Chapter IV of DOE M 435.1-1 will be met at the low-level waste disposal facility.
Discussion:
During the development of the requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, the safety
and hazard analyses indicated that disposal is a critical activity requiring controls. Disposal is
the final waste management function performed, yet the potential hazards from disposed
radioactive waste will continue far into the future. Thus, there are specific requirements for the
protection of the public, workers, and environment that are critical to maintaining safe and
effective disposal of radioactive waste. Analyses conducted in a performance assessment for a
transuranic and a low-level waste disposal facility (or appropriate CERCLA documentation for a
low-level waste disposal facility), and the composite analysis (or appropriate CERCLA
documentation) for a low-level waste disposal facility, are critical in determining the nature and
extent of the controls that need to be put in place at the facility being evaluated. The review and
approval of these evaluations is extremely important for management of transuranic and low-level waste to ensure it is being conducted safely and effectively. Therefore, the review and
approval of these evaluations are assigned as the responsibility of senior management within the
Office of Environmental Management.
The requirement states that it is the responsibility of the Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste
Management and Environmental Restoration, within their respective programs, to review and
approve certain radiological assessments for transuranic and low-level waste disposal facilities
and to issue the disposal authorization statement based on the reviews. The discussions that
follow provide guidance on the requirement for review and approval of the documents and
issuance of the disposal authorization statement. The discussion begins with an explanation for
excluding certain waste disposal from the DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.E.
Disposal of Transuranic Waste at WIPP and High-Level Waste. Requirement 4.d of
DOE O 435.1 identifies WIPP and facilities and operations licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) or an Agreement State as having special requirements that supplement, or in
many cases, replace requirements in DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1. Requirement 4.d of the
Order effectively ties the protection of the public, workers, and the environment--the major
objective of DOE O 435.1--to key external legal drivers and regulations that achieve these goals
at certain facilities managing DOE radioactive waste. Key among the facilities currently under
external regulation for public, worker, and environmental protection are WIPP (certified by
EPA), the proposed high-level waste repository (regulated by the NRC), and commercial waste
treatment and disposal facilities utilized by DOE (regulated by the NRC or Agreement States) for
treatment and disposal of low-level and mixed low-level waste. A DOE facility for the disposal
of commercial (NRC licensed) Greater-than-class C (GTCC) low-level waste will also be
regulated by the NRC, as specified in 10 CFR Part 61, Section 61.55 (a)(2)(IV) (see additional
discussion on commercial (NRC licensed) GTCC in the guidance on the Complex-Wide Low-Level Waste Management Program (DOE G 435.1-1, Section IV.C)).
One effect of this requirement is that the design, construction, operation, closure, analysis of,
licensing, permitting, and regulation of disposal of DOE transuranic waste at WIPP, and
high-level waste at a proposed geologic repository, are evaluated and controlled by regulations
and requirements outside of the DOE directives system. Based on the safety and hazard and
requirements analyses conducted in the development of DOE O 435.1, and the review and
approval of permitting and licensing documentation by other government organizations, it was
concluded that there is no need to repeat any specific requirements from these external
regulations within DOE M 435.1-1, or to define new requirements for disposal.
Example: The NRC requirements for siting, design, facility performance, package
design, quality assurance, and training and certification of operators for a high-level
waste disposal repository are found in 10 CFR Part 60, Disposal of High-Level
Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories. No additional disposal requirements were
determined to be necessary for inclusion in Chapter II of DOE M 435.1-1.
The only requirements for disposal found in DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter II, High-Level Waste
Requirements, and DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter III, Transuranic Waste Requirements, for disposal
at WIPP, reference the regulatory drivers that have created the external requirements for disposal
of these wastes. Guidance for Chapters II and III contains additional discussions concerning
these drivers, and the disposal of high-level waste and transuranic waste.
Disposal of Transuranic Waste (not at WIPP). In cases where the Department disposes of
transuranic waste in a facility other than WIPP (e.g., Greater Confinement Disposal at the
Nevada Test Site), the Department is responsible for determining compliance with 40 CFR Part
191 and issuing a disposal authorization statement. Therefore, the requirement includes the
responsibility for reviewing and approving performance assessments for a transuranic waste
disposal facility for which DOE must make a compliance determination (i.e., other than WIPP).
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Restoration, along with EH-1, are responsible for reviewing and approving
performance assessments for transuranic disposal facilities other than WIPP. A process similar
to that described below for reviewing and approving low-level waste disposal facility
performance assessments will be required. In developing the review criteria, DOE staff should
evaluate the following:
General provisions including purpose, scope, definitions, conditions of approval,
and alternative provisions;
Compliance certification including completeness and accuracy of submissions and
reference materials;
General requirements addressing inspections, quality assurance, models and
computer codes, waste characterization, future state assumptions, expert
judgment, and peer review;
Containment requirements considering application of release limits, scope of
performance assessments, consideration of drilling events in performance
assessments, and results of performance assessments;
Assurance requirements including active and passive institutional controls,
monitoring, engineered barriers, and consideration of natural resources; and
Individual and groundwater protection requirements considering the protected
individual, exposure pathways, underground sources of drinking water, and the
scope and results of the performance assessment.
Example: The Field Element Manager of a site with a small amount of transuranic waste
that cannot be accepted for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant confers with
Headquarters and decides to construct a small transuranic waste disposal facility. The
Manager directs the preparation of a performance assessment that provides a reasonable
expectation of meeting the performance measures in 40 CFR Part 191 for the onsite
facility. Since the facility is not WIPP, following approval at the site, the performance
assessment is submitted to Headquarters for approval. The Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Waste Management assigns the task of establishing criteria and conducting a review
to a staff member. The staff member assembles a review team of technically qualified
DOE and contractor staff. The team develops criteria for the review based on the
Department's criteria for review of low-level waste disposal facility performance
assessments. Upon completing its review, the team provides a recommendation to the
Deputy Assistant Secretary who makes a final determination and documents it in a
memorandum to the Field Element Manager.
Since 40 CFR Part 191 defines performance assessment, the contents of a performance
assessment, and requirements for compliance, the transuranic waste chapter only contains
reference to the 40 CFR Part 191 standards. Guidance on the transuranic waste disposal
requirements in Section III.P of this document should be consulted for additional discussion.
Disposal of Low-Level Waste. Although some of DOE's low-level waste is disposed at
commercial facilities, much of it is still disposed at DOE-owned and operated low-level waste
disposal facilities. The Department meets its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, by providing the requirements for protection of the public, workers, and the
environment for its low-level waste disposal facilities in DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1.
Meeting the low-level waste disposal requirements remains a responsibility of DOE managers at
Headquarters and in the Field. DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter IV, Low-Level Waste Requirements,
includes the detailed low-level waste disposal requirements. At the Headquarters level, the
Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste Management and Environmental Restoration are
responsible for reviewing and approving the performance assessments and composite analyses
(or reviewing appropriate CERCLA documentation) for low-level waste disposal facilities and
for issuing disposal authorization statements. For purposes of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, the term "appropriate CERCLA documentation" means the written materials prepared to
demonstrate compliance with the substantive requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 for low-level
waste disposal facilities managed under CERCLA. Specifically included in such written
materials are crosswalks between CERCLA requirements and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements
which are used as the basis for issuance of a disposal authorization by the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Restoration.
Low-Level Waste Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis Reviews. Performance
assessments are conducted to demonstrate that there is a reasonable expectation that low-level
waste disposed of at a DOE facility will not result in exceeding low-level waste disposal facility
performance objectives contained in DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter IV, Low-Level Waste
Requirements, and related performance measures associated with protection of the public from
disposed low-level waste. Composite analyses are conducted as a planning tool to analyze the
interaction of other radioactive source terms at a site along with the low-level waste disposal
facility to minimize the likelihood that current low-level waste disposal activities will result in
the need for future corrective or remedial actions, and to protect the public and environment,
consistent with Departmental limits on total allowable public doses of radiation from all sources.
Performance assessments and composite analyses are reviewed to determine that they are
complete, comprehensive, reflective of site- and facility-specific conditions, are supported by
appropriate rationale, and therefore, are defensible. These reviews are performed to provide the
information to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management or the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Restoration to conclude there is a reasonable expectation that the
disposal performance objectives of Chapter IV will be met and will continue to be met.
Review Panel. The Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste Management and Environmental
Restoration must formally establish a panel or group to review performance assessments and
composite analyses. At the time of issuance of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group was established by the Deputy Assistant
Secretaries for Waste Management and Environmental Restoration to manage the reviews of
low-level waste disposal facilities prepared in accordance with DOE 5820.2A and DNFSB 94-2
commitments and make recommendations regarding performance assessment and composite
analysis approvals and issuance of disposal authorization statements. The Low-Level Waste
Disposal Facility Federal Review Group has been guided by the Department of Energy LLW
Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis
Review Guidance Manual, Revision 0. Following issuance of DOE O 435.1, Revision 0 of the
Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Manual will be revised to reflect any
new guidance for reviews and approvals of performance assessments and composite analyses in
accordance with DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 and will be issued as a DOE G 435.1-1
guide. The Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group reports its findings on
performance assessment and composite analysis reviews directly to the Deputy Assistant
Secretaries.
Example: The Brown Site Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Composite Analysis is
submitted to Headquarters by the Field Element Manager for review. The Deputy
Assistant Secretaries for Waste Management and Environmental Restoration convene the
Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group, who in turn selects a Team
Leader to form the Brown Site Review Team to evaluate the Brown Site composite
analysis against the Review Guide. The Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal
Review Group prepares a report based on the Brown Site Team review and submits their
findings to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Waste Management. Based on the
Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group's findings, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary makes a decision on approval of the composite analysis.
Performance Assessments and Composite Analysis Approvals & Issuance of Disposal
Authorization Statement. A review of a performance assessment and/or composite analysis
performed by the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group or a similar review
panel produces a report in the form of a compliance evaluation that is transmitted to the
appropriate Deputy Assistant Secretary. The report recommends whether the disposal facility
operations are to be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. The Review Guide
contains detailed guidance on the compliance evaluation and approval recommendation.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary is responsible for issuing a disposal authorization statement in
accordance with DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.P.(5). The disposal authorization statement
provides Headquarters approval of the performance assessment and/or composite analysis, and
includes conditions deemed necessary for long-term protection of the public and the environment
from the low-level waste disposal facility. In this fashion, the disposal authorization statement
should be viewed as analogous to a license for a low-level waste disposal facility that would be
issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or an Agreement State. The disposal
authorization statement will be issued to the Field Element Manager responsible for the disposal
facility. The Field Element Manager must consider any conditions in the disposal authorization
statement that are to be incorporated into the radioactive waste management basis (see DOE M
435.1-1, Section IV.D.(4)) for the facility. Additional detailed guidance on disposal
authorization statements can be found in the guidance on DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter IV, Low-Level Waste Requirements.
Example: The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management and the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration jointly issue the Disposal
Authorization Statement Concerning Operation of the Brown Site Low-Level Waste
Disposal Facility to the Field Element Manager. The Statement refers to the compliance
evaluation prepared by the Brown Site Composite Analysis Review Team, which contains
six conditions that must be implemented at the facility in order for operations to continue
safely in accordance with the performance objectives. The compliance evaluation was
reviewed by the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group, which
transmitted its recommendation for approval with conditions, those conditions and a
draft disposal authorization statement to the Deputy Assistant Secretaries.
CERCLA Documentation. As discussed in guidance for DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(5),
Environmental Restoration, Decommissioning and Other Cleanup Waste, environmental
restoration remedies involving the development and management of radioactive waste disposal
facilities under the CERCLA process are to meet the substantive requirements of DOE O 435.1.
The original guidance on this topic was articulated in: 1) Policy for Demonstrating Compliance
with DOE 5820.2A for Onsite Management and Disposal of Environmental Restoration Low-Level Waste under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, May 31, 1996 (DOE, 1996); and 2) Guidance for Complying With DOE 5820.2A,
Radioactive Waste Management, for Onsite Management and Disposal of Low-Level Waste
(LLW) from Environmental Restoration Activities (Alm, 1997). The major concepts of these
policies are:
The CERCLA requirements and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements include significant
overlap in their substantive requirements given both are designed to ensure safe
management and disposal of waste;
The CERCLA process is to be used to comply with the requirements of DOE
M 435.1-1 for environmental restoration actions;
The substantive requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 should be directly incorporated
into the CERCLA process to the extent practical and consistent with site-specific
technical and regulatory issues; and
The Department must demonstrate compliance with the substantive requirements
of DOE M 435.1-1 to fulfill its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended.
When a proposed environmental restoration response at DOE sites on the National Priorities List
(NPL) involves the development and management of a radioactive waste management facility,
the CERCLA process will be used to assess the performance of the disposal facility. Subject to
final regulatory approval, the CERCLA process is expected to incorporate the substantive
requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 as described in this section. For sites not on the NPL, DOE
may initiate a response action in accordance with CERCLA under the authority assigned by
Executive Order 12580, Superfund Implementation. In this case, if the remedy under
consideration involves the development and management of a radioactive waste disposal facility,
then the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 are to be incorporated into the CERCLA
documentation as described in this section, as appropriate, subject to final regulatory approval.
There may be situations at non-NPL sites where DOE chooses to implement a remedy using its
authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in which case the procedural
requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 would also apply.
When consideration is being given to a cleanup response that requires development and
management of a radioactive waste disposal facility under CERCLA, in most cases an analysis
satisfying the requirement for a performance assessment will be prepared as part of the project-specific CERCLA document. The analysis is often contained in the Feasibility Study and is
prepared in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300). In some cases,
an analysis will be performed which includes an evaluation of all interactive sources near the
proposed disposal facility, as suggested in EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final. This analysis would essentially be
equivalent to a composite analysis. If the CERCLA analysis does not include evaluation of all
interactive sources at the proposed radioactive waste disposal facility, then a separate composite
analysis is to be prepared. This separate analysis may be incorporated into the CERCLA
process, including review by the regulatory agencies and stakeholders, or it may be handled as a
document that is reviewed by the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group
(LFRG) established under the authority of DOE M 435.1-1.
To fulfill DOE's responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the
Department must demonstrate compliance with the substantive requirements of DOE M 435.1-1
for low-level waste disposal facilities managed under CERCLA. A crosswalk between the
CERCLA and the DOE M 435.1-1 requirements needs to be prepared and reviewed as described
below when the cleanup action involves development and management of a radioactive waste
disposal facility. It is not necessary to prepare a crosswalk to demonstrate compliance with DOE
M 435.1-1 requirements for environmental restoration activities that do not involve development
and management of a radioactive waste disposal facility.
The appropriate CERCLA documentation is to be submitted by the Field Element Manager to the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration. For purposes of DOE O 435.1 and
DOE M 435.1-1, the term "appropriate CERCLA documentation" means the written materials
prepared to demonstrate compliance with the substantive requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 for
low-level waste disposal facilities managed under CERCLA. Specifically included in such
written materials are crosswalks between CERCLA requirements and DOE M 435.1-1
requirements which are used as the basis for issuance of a disposal authorization by the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration. Based on the appropriate CERCLA
documentation, the Field Element Manager certifies that compliance with the substantive
requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 has been achieved through application of the CERCLA process.
Any other analyses that have not been incorporated into the CERCLA process require a separate
review. The Deputy Assistant Secretary may assign the LFRG the task of reviewing the
information submitted by the Field Element Manager. In this instance, the documents would be
reviewed against the criteria set forth in the guidance entitled Department of Energy LLW
Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis
Review Guidance Manual (the Review Guide). Based on the content of the crosswalk, the LFRG
will determine whether it needs to review the detailed analysis. The Low-Level Waste Disposal
Facility Federal Review Group will report its conclusions from this review to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Restoration will use this information as the basis for deciding whether to issue a
disposal authorization based on DOE's responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended.
The disposal authorization statement does not impact the decision documented in the CERCLA
Record of Decision on whether to build a facility because this decision is made through the
CERCLA process. The disposal authorization statement specifies the limits and conditions on
design, construction, operation, and closure of the radioactive waste disposal facility. The
disposal authorization statement could be included as part of the Record of Decision. If this is
the case, then the guidance on disposal authorization (Chapter IV) should be followed during the
development of the ROD on CERCLA radioactive waste disposal facilities, to the extent
practical. However, it should be understood that compliance with requirements of a law (e.g.,
CERCLA) does not release DOE of compliance with another law (e.g., Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended). DOE must determine that whatever actions are taken, Atomic Energy Act
requirements are met.
Example: The remedial action on Operable Unit 34 at Site Q considers construction and
operation of a facility for onsite low-level waste disposal. The CERCLA RI/FS contains
analyses equivalent to the performance assessment and composite analysis required in
DOE M 435.1-1. The site prepares a crosswalk between the CERCLA NCP and DOE M
435.1-1 requirements that demonstrates that the RI/FS documents contain the substantive
requirements of DOE M 435.1-1. The Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal
Review Group evaluates the crosswalk and, if necessary, selected supporting
documentation against the guidance and criteria in the Review Guide, and presents their
conclusions to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration. Based on
the evaluation and conclusions, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Restoration decides whether to issue a Disposal Authorization.
Demonstrating Compliance. Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by:
Establishment of qualified panels to conduct reviews of performance assessments,
composite analyses, and, as requested, appropriate CERCLA documentation for
environmental restoration activities involving the development and management
of a radioactive waste disposal facility;
Performance of the reviews by the panels and use of the results that leads to a
decision on operations and long-term protectiveness of a low-level waste disposal
facility, or compliance with 40 CFR Part 191 for a transuranic waste disposal
facility; and
Documentation of such decisions for low-level waste disposal facilities in a
disposal authorization statement issued by the appropriate Deputy Assistant
Secretary (for Waste Management or for Environmental Restoration) to the
cognizant Field Element Manager. The disposal authorization statement contains
conditions that the disposal facility must meet in order to operate under an
approved radioactive waste management basis. For environmental restoration
activities, if the CERCLA Record of Decision is to serve as the disposal
authorization statement, it must include the same information as stated above, or
the disposal authorization statement can be issued separately.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1999. Format and Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste
Disposal Facility Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses (in preparation),
DOE G 435.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1999.
2. DOE, 1999. Review Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal
Facility Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses (in preparation), DOE G
435.1-2, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1999.
3. DOE, 1999. Maintenance Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste
Disposal Facility Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses. (in preparation),
DOE G 435.1-3, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1999.
4. EPA, 1985. "Final Rule; Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of
Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes," Federal Register,
Vol. 50, No. 182, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., September
19, 1985.
5. EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. 1, Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A), Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/002, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., December 1989.
6. EPA, 1993. "Final Rule; Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the
Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic
Radioactive Wastes," Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 242, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., December 20, 1993.
7. DOE 1996. Interim Format and Content Guide, and Standard Review Plan for U.S.
Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessments,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 1996.
8. DOE 1996. Interim Review Process and Criteria for Department of Energy Low-Level
Waste Disposal Facilities Composite Analyses, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
D.C., November 1, 1996.
9. DOE, 1996. Interim Guidance for a Composite Analysis of the Impact of Interacting
Source Terms on the Radiological Protection of the Public from Department of Energy
Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.,
October 1996.
10. DOE, 1998. Department of Energy LLW Disposal Facility Federal Review Group,
Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis Review Guidance Manual, Revision 0,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 1998.
I.2.E.(2) Site Closure Plans. Reviewing and approving closure plans and other
closure documentation for deactivated high-level waste facilities/sites
and issuing authorization for closure activities to proceed.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that closure activities for deactivated high-level
waste facilities/sites do not proceed prior to the review/approval of the site closure plans .
Discussion:
The scope of the requirement, and this guidance, applies only to deactivated high-level waste
closure plans, and other closure documents, e.g., CERCLA documentation, developed in
accordance with the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1, Chapter II.U., Closure. The requirement
does not apply to the Decommissioning path documentation required by Section II.U. The
documentation and review/approval requirements for this path are defined in DOE O 430.1A and
DOE 5400.5 and are not repeated in this guidance.
This requirement is to be implemented by the Offices of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Waste Management and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration, and their
staff. However, since the requirement requires prior review and approval by the submitting Field
Element Manager, guidance for Section I.2.F.(8), Closure Plans, should be consulted in
implementing this requirement.
During the development of the requirements for DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, one
high-level waste site was in the process of initiating closure activities for storage tanks.
Additionally, DOE was in the process of responding to DNFSB Recommendation 94-2 related to
the performance of low-level waste disposal facilities. These two activities required consistency
in implementation, and influenced the final requirements. Closure is the final waste management
function performed, yet the potential hazards from residual radioactive material within the
facility or at the site must be assessed to determine their suitability for unrestricted use of the
facility/site; or, if not suitable for unrestricted access, to determine the activities necessary to be
incorporated into the site closure plan to protect members of the public, workers, and the
environment. The development, review and approval, and implementation of high-level waste
facility/site closure plans and other closure documentation are crucial functions in assuring that
closure will be, and is being, conducted safely and effectively, and that the closed facilities/sites
will remain safe.
Objectives of the DOE Headquarters Review and Approval. Closure of deactivated high-level
waste facilities can be executed under three paths, as explained in the requirement and guidance
for closure in DOE M 435.1-1, Section II.U. Closure conducted by the first path,
Decommissioning, performed under the provisions of DOE O 430.1A and DOE 5400.5, is not
discussed in this guidance. Refer to these Orders, and guidance, for details on documentation
requirements and review/approval requirements. For the remaining two closure paths, CERCLA
(Section II.U.(2)) and Closure Plans (Section II.U.(3)), the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste
Management or the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration, as appropriate,
must review and approve the appropriate closure documentation and issue an authorization to
proceed with closure activities. This authorization is required prior to the commencement of
remedial actions or activities that cannot be reversed without expending significant resources.
Such activities include, for example, remedial actions such as decontamination activities or the
placing of immobilization materials in a deactivated high-level waste tank. Excluded are such
activities as design and field survey work which are needed to support the development of a
closure plan or other documentation.
As discussed in the guidance to Section II.U, closure plans are expected to be two-tier
documents, i.e., their development and review/approval are expected to be conducted in two
phases. This multi-phase process is considered necessary because much of the data needed may
not be available initially, but becomes available as engineering data and/or other
documents/permits are developed. Headquarters review and approval is primarily focused on the
first tier plans, from which subsequent plans are developed.
The first tier plan, which is to be approved by the Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste
Management and/or Environmental Restoration (Section I.2.E.(2)), is intended to define and
bound the parameters of a closure action(s). This level of closure plan should include, at a
minimum the following:
closure methodology;
schedules and assumptions
site or individual closure standards/performance objectives;
allocation of closure standard/performance objective budgets to individual
facilities/sites;
assessment (preliminary) of the projected performance of each unit to be closed
relative to the allocated performance objectives;
assessment (preliminary) of the projected composite performance of all units to be
closed at the site;
alternatives (if any);
waste characterization data;
closure controls plans; and
stakeholder concerns.
While the availability of some of the above information may be limited and therefore
preliminary, it is necessary to ensure that a credible, bounding review can be conducted by DOE
Headquarters. The Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste Management and/or Environmental
Restoration are responsible for issuing an authorization to proceed with closure activities to the
responsible Field Element Manager. This authorization to proceed with closure activities
represents DOE Headquarters approval of the first tier site closure plan, or other closure
documentation, as adequately representing and assessing the closure action planned. In addition,
the authorization to proceed with closure activities contains any conditions on which the
approval of the plan or documentation is based.
As discussed in the guidance to Section II.U., once approved it is expected that closure plans will
be updated periodically, as determined by the Field Element Manager, to reflect revised analysis
and the status of individual facility closure actions that are part of a site closure. However, once
DOE Office of Environmental Management review/approval is gained on the first tier
documentation and an authorization to proceed is issued, additional DOE Office of
Environmental Management approvals are not required provided the bounding conditions
defined in the DOE Office of Environmental Management-approved first their plan(s) are not
exceeded. (See the guidance for Section II.U for an example.)
The assessments of the projected performance of each unit to be closed and the assessment of the
projected composite performance of all units to be closed are critical to deactivated high-level
waste facility closure activities. Therefore, the DOE Headquarters technical review includes the
determination of the adequacy of these analyses to establish the expected performance of the
closed facility/site, the potential hazards, and the activities necessary to protect members of the
public, workers and the environment. The review and approval of the assessment/analysis is
extremely important to ensure that the assumptions regarding source term, leach rates, transport
mechanisms, analytical transport models, hydrologic and other critical aspects of the site,
effectiveness of any barriers to migration of radionuclides on which performance is based, and
other key assumptions are supported by the available data. Furthermore, uncertainties associated
with the key assumptions and are data addressed through identification of compensatory
measures, through combinations of conservatism in the estimates, defense-in-depth, or other
appropriate measures. The review specifically examines and documents the conclusions of the
review with respect to the adequacy of each of these key assumptions.
The reviews of the assessment of performance or composite analysis documentation provide the
basis for approving/disapproving the evaluations contained within them. The Deputy Assistant
Secretary with authority over the facility/site is responsible for issuing an authorization to
proceed with closure activities to the responsible Field Element Manager. The authorization to
proceed with closure activities represents DOE Headquarters approval of the site closure plan,
and other closure documents as adequately representing and assessing the closure action planned.
This includes the acceptance of the assessment of performance and composite analysis, the
identification of long-term hazards, and establishment of the necessary closure activities to
ensure the protection of the public and the environment. In addition, the authorization to proceed
with closure activities contains the conditions on which the approval of the plan or
documentation is based.
Example: The authorization to proceed with closure activities for deactivated high-level
waste Tank XYZ at Site A specifically lists the key assumptions on which the performance
is based (e.g., source term for the specific tank and for other contributors, leach rates,
transport mechanisms, transport models, hydrologic and other critical aspects of the site,
assigned effectiveness of barriers to retard the migration of radionuclides, the
uncertainties in the available data and the measures incorporated in the plan to account
for uncertainties), and the controls (e.g.,the boundary for institutional controls to restrict
access, and the time period for the restriction) necessary for the long term protection of
the public, workers, and the environment both during and after closure.
Process for Review and Approval of Site Closure Plans and Other Closure Documents. The
Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste Management and Environmental Restoration should
establish a cohesive and systematic process to evaluate the technical adequacy of the submitted
closure plans and other closure documents including the assessments of performance or
composite analysis, and to formulate recommendations to the Deputy Assistant Secretaries
regarding approval/disapproval of the plan, and the potential issuance of authorization for the
closure activities to proceed. This process should include the following elements:
1. Acceptance Review--Determine that the closure plan is acceptable detailed
technical evaluation by determining that all the essential elements of the plan as
outlined in the requirement in DOE M 435.1-1, Section II.U, and the associated
guidance, are contained in the plan.
2. Review Team--A review team is established whose members include subject
matter experts from Headquarters or the field who do not, by virtue of their
current or past alignments, have a conflict of interest that would prevent an
objective and effective review.
3. Review Team Responsibilities--The responsibilities of the team members are
established as well as the administrative procedures, to include quality assurance,
by which the review will be conducted and documented.
4. Site Visits--The process for conducting site visits is established, whenever it is
determined by the team members to be prudent for such visits in order to acquaint
the team members with the actual circumstances of the facility/site and thus
prepare them to conduct the evaluation of the documentation.
5. Technical Reviews--A overall strategy for evaluating the assessment of
performance and composite analysis and other closure technical documentation is
established, and includes the specific criteria on which the team is to render its
findings. A detailed plan to conduct the review is prepared and assignments made
to team members based on their expertise and experience.
6. Reporting--An outline of the report is established which contains the findings of
the review team with respect to each criterion, a recommendation on the adequacy
of the closure plan and a recommendation relative to issuance of an authorization
to proceed with closure activities. The report contains any other essential
elements that the Deputy Assistant Secretaries may require on which to base their
decision.
The Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Manual provides a systematic
process that can be tailored to provide a documented process for review of site closure plans, and
other closure documents, for deactivated high-level waste facilities/sites and the issuance of an
authorization to proceed with closure activities. The process should be interactive, involving the
subject matter experts and the field site personnel to obtain clarifications and additional data as
required to support the review and approval activities.
Analysis conducted during the performance assessment and composite analysis needs to be
integrated into closure planning. Conversely, any information that becomes available during the
closure operations, or any changes made to closure of the facility, that impact the analysis in the
assessment of performance and composite analysis needs to be incorporated into these
evaluations in a reasonable period of time to determine the extent of their impact. When major
impacts are identified or when major changes are required to the closure plan that affect the
conditions or the controls as contained in the authorization to proceed with closure activities, it is
the Field Element Manager's responsibility to conduct a review and re-approve the revised
analysis. In addition, it is the Field Element Manager's responsibility to inform the appropriate
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the changes. Upon receipt of such notification, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary reviews the changes and determines what action, if any, is required. At a
minimum, the revised closure plan or analysis is distributed to organizations that have an interest
in it.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by:
The authorization to proceed with closure activities at the facilities/sites contains
the conditions for authorization, and the controls necessary to protect the public,
workers, and the environment during and after closure;
Physical closure activities for high-level waste deactivated facilities/sites do not
proceed prior to the review and approval of closure plans by the appropriate
Deputy Assistant Secretary (based on a formal documented review process) and
the issuance of an authorization(s) to proceed with closure activities at the
facilities/sites;
Closure operations are actively monitored by the Field Element Manager to
ascertain compliance with the conditions and controls as contained in the
authorization, and to ensure that whenever any information that becomes available
during the closure operations, or any changes made to closure of the facility that
impact the analysis in the assessment of performance and composite analysis are
incorporated into these evaluations to determine the extent of their impact; and
The appropriate Deputy Assistant Secretary requires site closure plans and other
closure documents to be re-submitted for review and approval when analysis
indicates the bounding conditions within the first tier plans or documents may be
exceeded.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1998. Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Manual,
Revision 0, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 1998. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(1) Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Programs. Developing,
documenting, implementing, and maintaining a Site-Wide Radioactive Waste
Management Program. The Program shall use a systematic approach for
planning, executing, and evaluating the site-wide management of radioactive
waste in a manner that supports the Complex-Wide Radioactive Waste
Management Programs and ensures that the requirements of DOE O 435.1,
Radioactive Waste Management, and this Manual are met.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that radioactive waste is managed in a safe,
effective, and efficient manner; radioactive waste management activities are integrated,
coordinated, and support site-wide and complex-wide goals and objectives; and progress towards
goals and objectives are measured and evaluated, and feedback is provided for continued
improvement of the management of radioactive waste. Additionally, the requirement is to ensure
there are mechanisms in place for providing input to and receiving direction from the
complex-wide programs.
Discussion:
Sites with radioactive waste shall develop and document a Site-Wide Radioactive Waste
Management Program. To the extent practical, the site-wide program and documentation
requirement may be met by existing site programs and documents. Multiple programs or
documents can be used or existing programs or documents can be supplemented to meet this
requirement. While the use of existing programs or documents to meet this requirement is
encouraged, what constitutes the site-wide program and its associated documentation is to be
clearly defined and maintained so that ambiguity is avoided. Implementing and maintaining the
Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program should be addressed in site-specific
procedures. These procedures should require periodic review of the Site-Wide Radioactive
Waste Management Program, and review whenever there is a change to complex-wide programs
or plans, site-specific radioactive waste management activities, or DOE policy or directives
regarding the management of radioactive waste. These reviews should evaluate the status of the
Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program and its associated documentation and the
program's continued validity over time or under the changed circumstances.
The site-wide program addresses all of the site's radioactive waste, including any off-site
radioactive wastes managed by the site. Additionally, all radioactive waste is to be categorized
and managed as high-level, transuranic, low-level, or mixed low-level waste to facilitate
consistent, efficient, and effective management of radioactive waste among sites. Guidance on
the categorization and management of radioactive waste can be found in Section I.1.C.
The site-wide program provides for the systematic planning, execution, and evaluation of site
radioactive waste management activities in a manner that supports the Complex-Wide
Radioactive Waste Management Programs. The site-wide program incorporates the direction of
the complex-wide programs into site-level planning, execution, and evaluation activities as
appropriate. The site-wide program reflects complex-wide direction and also includes
site-specific activities necessary to accomplish site missions and result in the safe, effective, and
efficient management of radioactive waste in a proactive manner. The site-wide program
includes mechanisms for providing input into the complex-wide programs (such as radioactive
waste inventories and projections and the identification of technical and programmatic issues and
other constraints). The complex-wide and site-wide programs are to be integrated and provide
input in both directions. The Complex-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Programs and
program plans guidance can be found in Sections I.2.B and I.2.D.
The site-wide program provides personnel with an understanding of the site's radioactive waste
management needs and the strategy for meeting those needs; identifies the organizational
responsibilities and the facilities and methods that will be used by the site to meet those needs;
and establishes evaluation and feedback programs to facilitate continuous improvement of the
site-wide program. The program should implement the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 and
other directives and regulations such as those listed in DOE M 435.1-1, Section VI.1.D (e.g.,
radiation protection requirements of DOE 5400.5 and 10 CFR Part 835, quality assurance
requirements of DOE O 414.1 and 10 CFR 830.120) for waste management activities.
The Field Element Manager is assigned the responsibility for the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste
Management Program. This establishes a clear management responsibility for radioactive waste
management activities at a site. It is the Field Element Manager's responsibility to decide how to
meet this requirement. A site may have separate programs for each waste type at the site or one
program that addresses all waste types at the site, however, it is not important that each site have
one single program.
Example: At a site that manages mostly transuranic waste, but also small amounts of
low-level and mixed low-level waste, the Field Element Manager has one program that
addresses all three waste types. At another site where large amounts of high-level and
low-level waste are managed by different organizations, the Field Element Manager has
two separate programs. In this situation, the interface between the programs (with
respect to the generation of low-level waste, including waste incidental to reprocessing,
under the high-level waste program and its transfer to the low-level waste program)
should be addressed.
Additionally, each site may have a Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program or
several sites may be covered under one program.
Example: A Field Element Manager is responsible for the management of DOE
radioactive waste at a DOE site and three off-site locations. Based on the types of waste
being managed and the organizations involved, the Field Element Manager develops and
supports two programs. One program covers the radioactive waste at the primary DOE
site and a separate program covers the radioactive waste at the three off-site locations.
The rationale for this approach is included in the documentation for each program.
In addition to its role defining the radioactive waste program at a site, the documented Site-Wide
Radioactive Waste Management Program may also serve as the site's end-state description for
radioactive waste at that site, or as a primary reference document for such a plan. A well-documented Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program could significantly facilitate
development of radioactive waste end-state documents at individual sites.
Systematic Approach. Applying a systematic approach for planning, executing, and evaluating
the site-wide management of radioactive waste facilitates the integration and coordination of
radioactive waste management activities across both the site and the DOE complex. In addition,
it provides a framework within which the site can identify and communicate a logical approach
for effecting waste management activities (planning), manage waste in a manner that is
protective of worker, the public, and the environment (executing), and provide measures of
progress towards completing site and complex-wide goals, as well as generating feedback to
support continuous improvement of the radioactive waste management program (evaluating).
The following sections describe components that are part of a systematic approach to waste
management. Whereas there are various methods of implementing a systematic approach, each
will generally include some common elements. The most basic element is defining the mission
or what the program intends to accomplish. Another common element is the identification of the
functions or what needs to be done to accomplish the mission. At the top level, these functions
are the program planning, execution, and evaluation. Within the execution function are the
functions necessary for management of the waste, generally identified as generation, storage,
treatment, and disposal. Another key element is the identification and implementation of
requirements and constraints. These include regulatory requirements, commitments or
agreements with regulatory or oversight bodies, programmatic requirements, and technical or
process requirements.
Planning. Applying a systematic approach to planning results in a process which can be
used to support decision-making related to radioactive waste management activities and
should involve consideration of the following topics which are discussed below in more
detail:
Establishing goals, objectives, and milestones;
Establishing priorities and prioritizing the goals, objectives, and milestones;
Describing the radioactive waste management boundaries and interfaces;
Waste projections;
Identifying the constraints and assumptions;
Establishing the integrated site strategy;
Performing life-cycle radioactive waste management planning;
Defining the schedule; and
Identifying funding needs.
Goals, Objectives, and Milestones. Long-range goals, interim objectives, and specific
milestones, meaningful to the program are to be established. The site-wide program
goals should reflect complex-wide direction as well as site-specific goals. The site-wide
program should also include site-specific activities necessary to accomplish site missions
and result in the safe, effective, and efficient management of radioactive waste in a
proactive manner and support the complex-wide established goals, objectives, and
milestones as appropriate. Goals, which are long-range in nature, should include
descriptions of end-state conditions for facilities, operations, activities, or waste
categories, and should be challenging yet achievable. Interim objectives and specific
milestones should be established to provide measurements of progress towards goals.
Example 1:
Complex-wide goal: close high-level waste storage tanks.
Supporting site-wide goal: complete closure of all high-level waste storage tanks
at the site.
Objective: complete closure of all high-level waste storage tanks in Area 1 by
December 2010.
Specific milestones:
- Complete negotiations with State regulators on criteria for tank
closures August 1999.
- Gain acceptance by DOE Headquarters and technical assistance from NRC
on guidelines for determining residual tank waste is incidental to
reprocessing February 2000.
- Complete partial closure of Tank 1A September 2002.
- Complete partial closure of Tank 1B June 2003.
- Complete partial closure of Tank 1C October 2005.
Example 2:
Complex-wide goal: dispose of all defense transuranic waste at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant.
Supporting site-wide goal: ship all defense transuranic waste stored at the site to
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Objective: begin shipping transuranic waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP) by May 2008.
Specific milestones:
- Develop and get WIPP approval of waste certification program-June 1999.
- Initiate retrieval of waste from bermed storage-January 2001.
- Complete preparation and authorization of TRUPACT-II loading facility-March 2003.
- Complete retrieval of waste from bermed storage-September 2005.
- Ship 2000 cubic meters of waste to WIPP-May 2008.
Example 3:
Complex-wide goal: dispose of all low-level waste placed in storage prior to
1998.
Site-wide goal: eliminate waste placed in storage at the site prior to 1998.
Objective: reduce volume of legacy waste in storage by 50 percent by December
2000.
Specific milestones:
- Obtain authorization to ship low-level waste to Nevada Test Site-June 1998.
- Begin monthly shipments of 50 drums from Building 300-August 1998.
Priorities and Prioritizing the Goals, Objectives, and Milestones. Site-wide priorities
should be established and then be used to prioritize the site-wide goals, objectives, and
milestones. The site-wide priorities should reflect complex-wide policy and integration
efforts and should also include priorities which reflect site-specific conditions and needs
that will result in the safe, effective, and efficient management of radioactive waste in a
proactive manner. Establishing priorities should involve consideration of providing
protection to workers, the public, and the environment; meeting regulatory requirements,
legal commitments, or agreements; availability of technologies, facilities, and capacities;
and available funding.
Example:
1) Ensure continued safe storage of site radioactive waste inventories.
2) Reduce radiation exposures to workers.
3) Acquire necessary characterization technology, including assay capabilities.
4) Obtain approval of waste certification programs for all generating facilities
at the site.
5) Reduce storage inventories of radioactive waste at the site.
Boundaries and Interfaces. The site-wide radioactive waste management program is to be
clearly defined and described, including: organization and responsibilities; facility,
operation, and activity descriptions; existing and projected radioactive waste inventories;
and storage, treatment, and disposal capacities.
The organizational and functional responsibilities of participants in the site-wide program
and their interrelationships are to be identified and described. In addition to site
organizations, interfaces with both Headquarters and other Field organizations are also
identified and described, as appropriate, including a discussion of their respective roles
and interactions in planning, executing, and evaluating site-wide radioactive waste
management program activities.
Program documentation should include a brief description of the facilities, operations,
and activities that constitute the site-wide radioactive waste management program and the
interfaces between the site facilities, operations, and activities and other site facilities,
operations, and activities, as well as other programs (e.g., Environmental Restoration or
Defense Programs). A brief discussion of new facilities that have been identified as
necessary to implement the radioactive waste management program, and the plans for
funding, constructing, and obtaining authorization to operate these facilities is included at
appropriate.
An accounting of the current radioactive waste inventories and treatment, storage, and
disposal capacities by facility and expected waste generation and receipt projections
should also be included. Site personnel should be made cognizant of the need for
accurate inventory and projection data to support the planning, execution, and evaluation
of site-wide radioactive waste management activities, as well as, the complex-wide
programs. The purpose is to ensure that all radioactive wastes the site is expected to
manage and site capacities are considered in planning, executing, and evaluating site-wide radioactive waste management activities.
Example: A site develops a document which is the compilation of the information
provided to Headquarters for the "Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure"
report. This site specific report represents a summary of the site baseline and
includes disposition maps to aid in visualizing the system.
Waste Projections. A primary element in the Complex-Wide Radioactive Waste
Management Program, waste projections should be implemented by the Site-Wide
Programs, where data collection can be made most efficiently.
The methodology used for projecting waste data is to be documented. The major
assumptions used in developing the estimates, the known activities and operations being
undertaken at the facilities included in the projections, and the steps (treatment, storage,
disposal) required for managing the radioactive waste should be included in the
documentation. The estimation techniques used are to rely on documented information
wherever possible, such as Remedial Investigation studies for cleanup projects and
shipment manifests for operational radioactive waste. The information is to be consistent
in detail and content with that being used to characterize ongoing waste generation.
The projections data developed through site-wide program should be collected, formatted,
and reported so that they are easily integrated into the Data Management System that is
established under the DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.D.(2), Waste Management Data
System. The projections data should also be consistent and collected so that they can be
easily integrated into life-cycle planning; complex-wide configuration of radioactive
waste management facilities; and evaluations of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
capacities.
Example: As part of the update to the "Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure"
report, a site revises and updates its waste projection data. The data are input
into a complex-wide standardized system and reports are generated.
Constraints and Assumptions. The site radioactive waste management program should
document the significant constraints which affect planning, execution, and evaluation.
These are generally those pre-existing conditions, commitments, or other factors that
affect activities that can be performed or must be performed, or that otherwise limit the
flexibility of the site-wide program. The constraints and assumptions should include
basic tenets and policies adopted by DOE and the site, assumptions made by the site,
interagency agreements, regulatory requirements or commitments (e.g, compliance
orders), records of decision from National Environmental Policy Act evaluations,
physical capacity constraints (space or through-put limits of facilities), and other resource
constraints (e.g., capacity, resources, funding), and direction in the Complex-Wide
Radioactive Waste Management Programs. Uncertainties should be identified along with
the assumptions which provide a basis for proceeding.
Example 1: Complex-wide basic tenet: disposal of high-level radioactive waste
shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 191.
Example 2: Complex-wide assumption: it is assumed that under current
legislative constraints, non-defense transuranic waste will not be disposed of at
WIPP.
Example 3: Site-wide constraint: funds for shipping stored waste to a disposal
facility are limited and will result in only being able to ship 45 percent of the
waste that is ready for shipment.
Example 4: Site-wide assumption: the Q Area disposal facility for non-mixed
low-level waste will continue to operate for the indefinite future.
Integrated Site Strategy. The program is to document the strategy that will be used and
the associated rationale to accomplish the site-wide program goals, objectives, and
milestones. This strategy should address the allocation of funds and resources, consider
the configuration of existing and the need for new physical assets, be based on current
and projected inventories of radioactive waste (including current waste streams, stored
waste with a path to disposal, and stored waste without a path to disposal), support the
site goals, objectives, and priorities, consider land-use (present and future), and respond
to stakeholder input. Incorporation of waste minimization and pollution prevention
philosophies into site-wide radioactive waste management activities, and research and
development needs and activities also are to be addressed in the strategy.
Example 1: A site needs to increase its current high-level waste evaporation
capacity to meet the requirements of an agreement with the State regulator. One
option is to enhance the current capacity by upgrading it, however, this may pose
risks to operating personnel in terms of radiation exposure, as well as reduced
evaporator availability and long-term reliability. Another option is to replace the
existing evaporator(s) with a new one, however, this option will require time (e.g.,
Congressional support, State acceptance) to gain project line-item funding. The
selection of the option to upgrade is documented to be consistent with the site-wide and complex-wide program goals, objectives, and milestones; stakeholder
input; schedule commitments; and expected funding.
Example 2: A site needs transuranic waste assay capability. One option is to
plan for and indicate the activities and schedule for using a portable assay
facility. A second option is to build a new assay facility at the site. The selection
of the option to build a new facility is documented to be consistent with site-wide
program goals, objectives, and milestones; stakeholder input; and schedule
commitments. The plans for the funding, constructing, and obtaining
authorization to operate the facilities are also documented. The strategy was also
documented to be consistent with complex-wide goals, objectives, and milestones
for making WIPP shipments from the site.
Life-cycle Radioactive Waste Management Planning. It is the intent of the requirement
for life-cycle planning that disposition for all radioactive waste at a site is addressed. By
evaluating all phases in the life-cycle of the waste, adequate capabilities can be provided
and ensured for handling the radioactive waste and identifying any potential issues that
need to be resolved. Life-cycle waste management planning is to address current waste
streams (also see guidance on Waste Generation Planning in Sections II.K, III.H, and
IV.H), stored waste with a path to disposal, and stored waste without a path to disposal.
The following are elements that are to be included in the life-cycle waste management
planning process for a waste stream:
Waste identification - waste is identified in terms of its source (what facilities and
what activities are the sources of the waste), and its characteristics. The waste
characteristics should include radiological, chemical, and physical characteristics
that need to be considered in determining the disposition of waste.
Waste management steps and locations - the steps necessary for managing the
waste are described along with an identification of the specific means for
accomplishing the steps. This should include:
Characterization/certification;
Storage;
Treatment/pre-treatment/immobilization;
Transportation; and
Disposal.
Example 1: Site Z generates low-level waste streams which are collected
once a month from three buildings by central waste management. Central
Waste Management certifies it in accordance with an existing certification
program and ships it to the Nevada Test Site for disposal on an arranged
schedule. The life-cycle waste management planning documentation simply
includes that the waste will be characterized in Laboratory L, collected
weekly by the Waste Management Organization and staged in Storage
Building S, certified in accordance with an existing program, and transferred
for disposal at Nevada Test Site Area 5 when sufficient waste to justify a
shipment is available (every 6-8 months).
Example 2: Scheduling waste shipments to the WIPP facility is highly
complex, requiring the scheduling of TRUPACT-II shipping containers and
their associated tractor-trailer units, and the opening and closing of
transportation corridors from each DOE transuranic waste management site
to the WIPP. A site managing transuranic waste would plan site waste
management activities and transportation preparations so that waste is ready
to ship on the schedules identified in the National Transuranic Waste
Management Plan (CAO, 1996b).
Scheduling. A schedule of activities necessary to implement the site-wide program is to
be developed. The schedule should address developing and maintaining the infrastructure
for managing waste and the management of current waste streams, stored waste with a
path to disposal, stored waste without a path to disposal, and projected wastes.
Funding. The site program documentation is to include cost estimates, as appropriate, for
addressing the site-wide management of radioactive waste. These cost profiles should be
consistent with the integrated site strategy and anticipated funding levels. Cost and
budget information should be provided in sufficient detail, by fiscal year, to identify key
programs, activities, and projects. Proposed privatization efforts, planned productivity
improvements, and other efforts of interest should be identified separately.
Execution. The systematic execution of the site waste management program is the
actions taken to manage the waste and develop the attendant documentation. The
documentation is prepared consistent with the site's management of radioactive waste,
operating procedures, radioactive waste generator requirements (waste characterization,
waste certification, and waste transfer), radioactive waste acceptance requirements,
closure plans, etc.
Example: Documentation of the execution of the waste management activities for a
storage facility include:
- personnel training records,
- safety documentation governing the facility,
- facility waste acceptance criteria and procedures,
- certification program description,
- receipt records,
- certification records,
- waste transfer records,
- monitoring program/procedures,
- monitoring records, and
- corrective action records.
Evaluation. An important part of any program is evaluating progress in the program.
Progress should be measured and compared with programmatic goals as well as
environmental, health, and safety parameters. A systematic evaluation should include the
following elements:
Performance Measures - metrics to be used in evaluating performance against
program, environment, health, and safety goals;
Performance Data - collection of performance data to support the evaluations;
Performance Evaluation and Reporting - reduction of data interpretation and
evaluation; and
Feedback - identifying and recommending potential changes in program policies,
strategies, goals, priorities, or interfaces.
Example: A site has the goal of eliminating waste placed in storage at the site prior to
the year 2000. The Site's objective is to reduce volume of waste in storage by 50 percent
by December 2002. A milestone for this goal and objective is obtaining permission to
ship waste in storage to the Nevada Test Site by June 2000, beginning monthly shipments
of 50 drums from Building 300 by August 2000. Performance measures were identified
which would evaluate performance against both the interim objective and specific
milestones since both provide measurable progress towards meeting the goal. For the
objective, the volume of waste in storage was determined and verified. The reduction in
volume of this waste was used to measure progress towards meeting the objective. For
the milestone to obtain permission to ship waste to the Nevada Test Site, the steps were
identified and a schedule developed which ended with receiving permission in June 2000.
This schedule was then used to measure progress towards meeting this milestone. The
performance measures for the monthly shipments were identified assuming shipments
were able to begin in August 2000 and continue through December 2002. The number of
shipments per month and drums per shipment, and the total number of shipments and
drums shipped to date were used as performance measures. The performance data were
collected monthly and compared to the reference data and performance evaluated and
reported. Evaluation indicated that progress towards meeting the specific milestone was
on track to successful completion.
The process of planning, execution, and evaluation is an iterative process. The lessons learned
from the activities undertaken during one fiscal year, or changes in the assumptions on which the
program strategy was originally based will require revising the program planning.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated if a site-wide program plan(s) is developed for
each of the waste types specified in DOE M 435.1-1. The site-wide plan(s) should support the
complex-wide plans by incorporating the direction of the complex-wide plan into site-level
planning, execution, and evaluation activities.
Supplemental References:
1. CAO, 1996a. Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Revision 5,
DOE/WIPP-069, U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office, Carlsbad, NM,
April, 1996.
2. CAO, 1997. The National Transuranic Waste Management Program, Revision 1,
DOE/NTP-96-1204, U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office, Carlsbad, NM,
December 18, 1997.
3. CAO, 1997. Generator Site Certification Guide, Revision 1, DOE/CAO-95-2119, U.S.
Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office, Carlsbad, NM, August 1997. (users should
refer to the current version).
4. DOE, 1996. Low-Level Waste Projection Program Guide, U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Waste Management, December 18, 1996.
5. DOE, 1990. Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, DOE 5400.5, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1990.
6. DOE, 1998. Quality Assurance, DOE O 414.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
D.C., November 24, 1998.
7. DOE. Occupational Radiation Protection, 10 CFR Part 835, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C.
8. DOE. Quality Assurance Requirements and Responsibilities, 10 CFR Part 120,
Washington, D.C. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(2) Radioactive Waste Management Basis. Ensuring a radioactive waste
management basis is developed and maintained for each DOE radioactive
waste management facility, operation, and activity; and ensuring review and
approval of the basis before operations begin. The Radioactive Waste
Management Basis shall:
(a) Reference or define the conditions under which the facility may operate
based on the radioactive waste management documentation;
(b) Include the applicable elements identified in the specific waste-type
chapters of this Manual; and
(c) Be developed using the graded approach process.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that the hazards associated with radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, and activities have been identified, their potential impacts
analyzed, and appropriate controls documented, implemented, and maintained for the protection
of workers, the public, and the environment.
Discussion:
DOE M 435.1-1 states that it is the responsibility of the Field Element Manager to ensure
development and approval of a radioactive waste management basis for a radioactive waste
management facility. Guidance on the requirement is provided below under the headings
entitled, Facilities with an Authorization Basis, Review and Approval of the Radioactive Waste
Management Basis, Timing of the Radioactive Waste Management Basis, and Maintaining the
Radioactive Waste Management Basis. Subrequirement (a) is discussed under the heading
Documentation of the Radioactive Waste Management Basis. Subrequirement (b) is discussed
under Elements in the Waste Type Chapters. Subrequirement (c) is discussed under the heading
Graded Approach. Also, at the end of the guidance, Radioactive Waste Management Basis
Statement Examples are presented for some of the hypothetical situations discussed throughout
this guidance.
The requirements in DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 were developed following a systematic
analysis of the hazards associated with management of radioactive waste and the conditions and
weaknesses that need to be controlled to prevent or minimize the risks due to these hazards. A
principal concept in this analysis is that a significant amount of the waste will present hazards for
a long time. Therefore, in addition to hazards that need to be controlled during operations and
other near-term activities, there are many conditions and weaknesses inherent in managing
radioactive waste that are required to be controlled leading up to disposal and after disposal to
protect future generations from the continuing hazard of the waste.
Example: A liquid waste stream containing high concentrations of long-lived
radionuclides requires stabilization to be disposed at the Site Y disposal facility in order
to provide for site stability and to retard the migration of the long-lived radionuclides for
a long period of time. An incorrectly processed batch of this waste form degrades
prematurely and causes instability in the Site Y disposal facility and leads to significant
migration of radioactivity. As a consequence, the site Y disposal facility must be
remediated.
The hazards analysis used to develop the requirements indicated that many weaknesses and
conditions that could result in consequences in the near-term for workers, the public, and the
environment from radioactive waste management are sufficiently addressed through
requirements, processes, procedures, documentation, and evaluations required by existing
regulations and requirements, particularly those for occupational and nuclear safety. DOE M
435.1-1 identifies many of these in Section I.1.E, Requirements of Other Regulations and DOE
Directives. Key directives that address many of the significant risks from operations and other
near-term management of radioactive waste are DOE 5480.21, Unreviewed Safety Question, and
DOE 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports. As a result, the requirements in DOE M 435.1-1
principally address weaknesses and conditions that are not addressed in these other directives or
address weaknesses associated with radioactive waste management activities. Requirements also
address weaknesses associated with particularly vulnerable radioactive waste management steps,
such as waste transfer, or address the weaknesses and conditions associated with the long times
that management of radioactive waste is required.
The requirements in DOE M 435.1-1 are framed primarily as performance-oriented requirements,
and are implemented through documented processes, programs, and procedures on a facility-,
operation-, or activity-specific basis. The oversight of performance-oriented requirements such
as these involves a decision by a DOE authority (e.g., the Field Element Manager) that there is a
basis for a facility to operate. The basis is demonstrated through a review and analysis of the
procedures that concludes that the necessary controls to meet the requirements and operate safely
are in place. DOE 5480.21 contains some performance-oriented requirements, and its
implementation involves development of an Authorization Basis for a facility to safely operate.
During the development of the DOE M 435.1-1 requirements, it was recognized that a basis was
needed similar to the authorization basis that ensured that the potential hazards from
management of radioactive waste were being sufficiently evaluated and that adequate controls
were in place to provide assurance that the public, workers, and the environment were being
protected. As discussed above, for some aspects of radioactive waste management (e.g.,
preparation of waste for disposal), these assurances include consideration of potential future
hazards.
Thus, the concept of a radioactive waste management basis was adopted to provide assurances
that controls are developed, documented, in place, and properly implemented for management of
radioactive waste. The term controls used here and elsewhere in the discussion of a radioactive
waste management basis refers to processes, procedures, equipment, instruments, and other items
that are intended to reduce the likelihood of, or the consequences from, a problem that could
arise from managing radioactive waste. Controls include such things as placards, alarms, tools,
shielding, training, checklists, duplication of critical steps, redundant monitoring, analysis,
sampling and testing, etc.
The radioactive waste management basis will involve activities such as characterizing and
certifying waste, establishing constraints on the acceptance of waste consistent with a facility or
operation's characteristics, processing waste, containing waste with or without processing, and
disposing of the waste, including its possible impacts following disposal. Controls will be
implemented on a facility-, operation-, and activity-specific basis consistent with the earlier
discussion about the implementation of performance-oriented requirements.
Facilities with an Authorization Basis. In the case of nuclear facilities with Authorization Basis
documentation, it is likely that most of the controls required for a radioactive waste management
basis are implemented by the Authorization Basis. DOE 5480.21, Unreviewed Safety Question,
defines Authorization Basis as:
"Those aspects of the facility design and operational requirements relied upon by DOE to
authorize operation. These aspects are considered to be important to the safety of facility
operations. The authorization basis is described in documents such as the facility Safety
Analysis Report and other safety analyses; Hazard Classification Documents, the
Technical Safety Requirements, DOE-issued safety evaluation reports, and facility-specific commitments made in order to comply with DOE Orders or policies."
As prescribed in DOE 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports; DOE STD-3009-94,
Preparation Guide for US DOE Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports; and DOE-EM-5502-94, DOE Limited Standard, Hazard Baseline Documentation, an Authorization Basis is
required for all nuclear facilities that have a hazard categorization of Category 1, 2, and 3. While
there are currently no radioactive waste management Category 1 facilities (reserved for nuclear
reactors), some radioactive waste facilities are Category 2 or 3, as defined by the methodology
outlined in DOE-STD-1027-92, Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for
Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports. Thus, these radioactive
waste management facilities have, or are required to have, an approved Authorization Basis. For
these facilities, the radioactive waste management basis requirements are very likely already met
by the implementation of the facility's Authorization Basis. This should be determined through a
review of the Authorization Basis documentation that leads to a determination that adequate
controls are in place to meet the DOE M 435.1-1 requirements (see additional discussion under
Review and Approval).
Example: A review of the Authorization Basis documentation for the Liquid Radioactive
Waste Handling Facilities at the Savannah River Site (includes F and H Area Tank
Farms, the In-Tank Precipitation Process, the Replacement High-Level Waste
Evaporator, and the Effluent Treatment Facility) found that the Authorization Basis
includes the following documents and associated programs:
Safety Analysis Reports (SARs);
Technical Justification for Continued Operation/Basis for Interim
Operation/Design Basis Accident Analysis Report;
Operational Safety Requirements/Technical Safety Requirements;
Technical Standards;
SAR Update Request Packages;
Other Documents Identified by DOE-SR and WSRC as Authorization Basis
Documents (Safety Evaluations, Exemptions, Unreviewed Safety Questions
Evaluation);
DOE Safety Evaluation Reports; and
Listing of documents that are to be subject to configuration management but
are not Authorization Basis Documents.
Included within these documents are what DOE-SR considers to be the complete set of
operational requirements relied upon by the site to ensure that the public, workers, and
the environment are protected from the hazards associated with the management of the
radioactive waste handled in the facilities (e.g., the establishment of limits of fissionable
materials and chemical constituents that can be transferred to the waste tanks by the
generators is included in the SARs. These limits are essentially equivalent to the limits
required to be set by the waste acceptance requirements (II.J) of the high-level waste
chapter of DOE M 435.1-1). The existing Authorization Basis documentation contains
all the information demonstrating that DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 are met. This
is documented in a memorandum from DOE-SR to the contractor organization operating
the facilities.
Other radioactive waste management facilities are covered by similar documentation prepared to
meet the requirements of the above Safety Orders and their implementation, such as an Auditable
Safety Analysis, or a DOE- or contractor-established interim safety basis for facility operation
such as a Basis for Interim Operations (BIO). Facilities operating under one of these may also
have the necessary programs and documentation in place to satisfy the requirements for a
radioactive waste management basis. A review of the existing programs and documentation is to
be conducted for their adequacy in providing the controls needed to meet the DOE M 435.1-1
requirements and determining whether any additional documentation or program is required to
demonstrate that the requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 will be met.
Radioactive waste management operations and activities that take place in facilities which are
radiological (non-nuclear) facilities are likely to not already have an Authorization Basis or
similar safety-related documentation to consider in evaluating whether the radioactive waste
management basis for the facility already exists. However, programs and controls already
implemented at the facility may wholly or partially fulfill the requirements for a radioactive
waste management basis. For these facilities, a thorough review should be conducted that
identifies where additional programs or controls are needed, and includes the critical step of
ensuring that a radioactive waste management basis exists when these programs and controls are
appropriately implemented.
The radioactive waste management basis plays a key role in the self-correcting system employed
by DOE Elements in accordance with DOE P 450.4, Safety Management System Policy. The
radioactive waste management controls forming the basis are evaluated periodically to ensure
they continue to address the hazards of managing the radioactive waste. Adherence to and
compliance with the critical elements of the radioactive waste management basis should become
items measured in accordance with DOE O 210.1, Performance Indicators and Analysis of
Operations Information, and which is reported in accordance with DOE O 232.1A, Occurrence
Reporting and Processing of Operations Information when incidents occur. As such, the critical
elements of the radioactive waste management basis should be considered similar to the
Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) described in DOE 5480.21. The responsibility should be
clear to all personnel involved in implementing radioactive waste management basis controls that
violations and operations inconsistent with the radioactive waste management basis should be
reported, and steps made to correct the situation consistent with the sections of the Manual
entitled Corrective Actions.
Review and Approval of the Radioactive Waste Management Basis. The requirement states that
the Field Element Manager's responsibility is to ensure review and approval of the radioactive
waste management basis for each radioactive waste management facility under his/her authority.
This review should be done by DOE staff. The DOE staff could be supported by staff of a
contractor who has no conflict of interest. However, the Field Element Manager is responsible
and accountable for the radioactive waste management basis approval.
The approval that is required means the facility, operation, or activity has been determined to
have adequate controls to manage radioactive waste in accordance with the requirements of DOE
O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 and is authorized to manage radioactive waste. For new facilities
or major modifications to existing facilities, this approval should be provided prior to the
beginning of the activities that will create waste. The Field Element Manager must determine
how and when to approve radioactive waste management bases for existing and ongoing waste
management facilities, operations, and activities (see additional discussion under Graded
Approach).
In order to approve management of radioactive waste, the requirement calls for review of the
basis. This statement implies review of documents, and in fact, some of the elements identified
as crucial to the radioactive waste management basis for a facility are large documents (e.g., the
composite analysis for a low-level waste disposal facility). While documentation should always
be prepared for all critical activities affecting the management of radioactive waste, it is
recognized that several methods may be employed for meeting requirements in DOE directives
and in documenting compliance with requirements. Thus, the review could include reviewing
documentation, preparation of documentation, the organization assigned the job of document
preparation and its criteria or processes for preparing documentation, or audit results to conclude
the facility, activity, or operation is satisfactorily meeting the DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1
requirements. The review called out in this requirement is not supposed to imply the need for
reviewing ALL documentation that is associated with the requirements or implementation of the
requirements. The review should involve appropriate steps to ensure that DOE O 435.1 and
DOE M 435.1-1 requirements are being met.
Example 1: A large DOE facility has several hundred generators, and a system is
established for centralized certification of wastes for treatment and disposal. Generators
submit waste profiles to the central waste management organization for each of their
waste streams as part of certification. Therefore, there are thousands of waste profiles
managed by the central unit. The review by the Field Element Manager at this facility to
ensure the waste certification element of the radioactive waste management basis is
being implemented appropriately includes a review of the procedure used by the central
waste management organization for certification (which includes minimum information
that must be on profiles and criteria for finding them complete), and an annual program
review that assesses all aspects of the central organizations activities.
Example 2: A DOE facility consisting of many small operations and activities operates
several storage areas. Its central waste management unit develops a generic waste
acceptance requirements document that each storage area must follow, at a minimum,
plus instructions for adding specific technical criteria to the set of generic requirements
for any specific wastes they are handling. Central waste reviews and approves the
specific criteria developed. The Field Element Manager's staff has reviewed the generic
waste acceptance requirements with the instructions and finds this adequately addresses
the DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements for this element of the radioactive
waste management basis. The Field staff does not investigate any of the specific waste
acceptance criteria that have been developed and approved.
Documentation of the Radioactive Waste Management Basis. The radioactive waste
management basis is to be documented for all radioactive waste management facilities, activities,
and operations. The documentation of the radioactive waste management basis consists of
results of reviews and analyses, where appropriate, and a description of radioactive waste
management controls that are in place for protection of the public, workers, and the environment.
The results of the reviews, analyses, and descriptions of the controls that must be in place for the
safe and efficient management of radioactive waste are already prepared, documented, and
implemented by DOE Elements for most radioactive waste management facilities, operations,
and activities. The radioactive waste management basis includes the analysis, programs and their
procedures, and documents that are identified in the waste-type chapters of DOE M 435.1-1,
Radioactive Waste Management Manual.
Example 1: For the Liquid Radioactive Waste Handling Facilities at the Savannah River
Site described in the above section Facilities with an Authorization Basis, of the list of
documents cited in the example, all Safety Analysis Reports, the Safety Evaluation
Report, and the Technical Justification for Continued Operation, plus several Technical
Standards, Technical Safety Requirements, SAR Update Request Packages, several
Exemptions and Unreviewed Safety Question Evaluations, plus many facility procedures,
and several chapters from the Configuration Management list of documents constitute the
radioactive waste management basis documentation.
Example 2: Storage Facility B200 operates under the following procedures and
documents that constitute the radioactive waste management basis: Safety Analysis of
Facility B200; Facility B200 Waste Acceptance Criteria; Procedure B200 - Acceptance
of Waste for Storage, Quality Implementation Procedure (QIP) for Facility B200;
Procedure C200B - Certification of Waste to Disposal, and; Training Module 200W.
Example 3: At Storage Facility B200 in the example above, each of the documents and
procedures listed above is assigned a number [RWMB-xxx], indicating it is a radioactive
waste management basis document, which can easily be found by site personnel who
perform a search for radioactive waste management basis documents in accordance with
the record management system instructions.
The documentation of a radioactive waste management basis includes a documented conclusion
that there is adequate protection from the hazards of management of the radioactive waste as a
result of the Field Element Manager, or his/her designee's review and approval. This
documentation, called a radioactive waste management basis statement in this guidance, is to be
prepared for every radioactive waste management facility, operation, or activity to demonstrate
that a DOE authority has concluded that the hazards associated with management of radioactive
waste have been addressed and that the performance-oriented requirements of DOE O 435.1 and
DOE M 435.1-1 will be met by the implementation of the described controls. The radioactive
waste management basis statement should include, or reference, the documentation used to
provide the conclusion, (e.g., list of facility procedures), or reference to other reports that contain
the key conclusions (the facility's DOE Safety Evaluation Report). This key element of a
complete radioactive waste management basis is not already prepared and documented by DOE
Elements for many radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities.
For facilities with an Authorization Basis, or other safety-related documentation discussed under
Facilities with an Authorization Basis, the radioactive waste management basis statement should
document that the safety-related documents describe the controls required to ensure that
DOE O 435.1 requirements will be met, describe the critical controls that provide compliance
with DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, and provide information on the location of the controls.
If appropriate, the radioactive waste management basis evaluations and conclusions could be
incorporated into the Authorization Basis or other safety-related authorization if desired by the
Field Element Manager.
Example: A radioactive waste management basis statement is prepared for the Savannah
River Site example described under Facilities with an Authorization Basis. It contains a
full list of facilities that are covered by the statement and it has two attachments. The
first attachment is a complete list of the documents referred to in the previous example in
which all radioactive waste management controls that must be in place to meet DOE M
435.1-1 are found (see Example 1 under Documentation of the Radioactive Waste
Management Basis to see this list). The second attachment is a crosswalk of DOE M
435.1-1 requirements showing which documents and where in the documents analysis
and descriptions of controls can be found to meet that requirement. [An example of this
radioactive waste management basis statement is provided as Example A at the end of
this guidance.]
Elements in the Waste Type Chapters. Each of the waste-type specific chapters in DOE M
435.1-1 contains a list of specific programs, processes, and documents that must be included in
the radioactive waste management basis for facilities that manage these waste types. These
programs, processes, and documents represent implementation of critical radioactive waste
management controls which are based primarily or exclusively on DOE M 435.1-1 requirements.
These should not be considered as a complete list of all of the elements that may need to be
included in a radioactive waste management basis.
Many weaknesses and conditions associated with radioactive waste management are controlled
by processes, procedures, and documentation developed and implemented to meet other sets of
requirements, both Federal and State regulations and DOE directives. Many of these are
identified in Section I.1.E, Requirements of Other Regulations and DOE Directives. Controls
based on these other directives and regulations should also be evaluated to ensure that the critical
aspects to radioactive waste management are adequate, and therefore, contribute to a radioactive
waste management basis finding.
Example 1: A small DOE laboratory includes a storage operation for small amounts of
low-level waste. Waste is accumulated over about a nine-month period of time, after
which it is shipped to the Nevada Test Site for disposal. The radioactive waste
management basis for this facility includes the waste acceptance requirements (DOE M
435.1-1), the waste certification program (DOE M 435.1-1), the radioactive waste
management module of the laboratory training program (DOE O 360.1 and DOE
5480.20A), the facility's implementation procedure of the site quality assurance program
plan (10 CFR 830.120), and the document control procedure used for maintaining
records of waste that is in storage (DOE O 200.1 and 10 CFR 830.120).
Example 2: Operation at the storage facility discussed in Example 1 above is modified to
store a small amount of classified waste. The radioactive waste management basis
includes the items above, plus Section 14 of the laboratory's security and safeguard
implementation procedure (DOE O 470.1), which requires appropriate labeling of the
containers of classified waste.
Additional controls are sometimes needed to address situations and conditions that were not
evaluated in the development of requirements and directives, or which are identified through
facility-, process-, or activity-specific hazard analysis. These specific controls also must be
evaluated to ensure the aspects of them that are critical to radioactive waste management are
adequate and contribute to the radioactive waste management basis finding.
Example: The operating procedures for a storage facility containing transuranic waste
includes the items identified in Chapter III; facility-specific procedures implementing two
other DOE directives; and conditions specified in its RCRA storage permit. It also
contains actions from a facility-specific audit conducted by the Carlsbad Area Office in
its radioactive waste management basis to fully cover the hazards associated with the
facility. The radioactive waste management basis statement includes the specific
requirements from the audit report to document the commitments to meet these action
items for safe management of radioactive waste.
The radioactive waste management basis should be limited to only those processes or controls
that are needed based on the hazards that may be present in the facility or operation, the
complexity of activities to manage the waste, and the time that controls are warranted to provide
protection. Controls critical to a radioactive waste management basis at one facility are not
necessarily warranted to be included at all facilities within a site, for example. Thus, a standard
listing of radioactive waste management basis documents cannot be developed.
Graded Approach. The scope of Departmental activities leads to a great deal of diversity in what
constitutes the radioactive waste management basis for a given operation, and the documentation
of the basis should reflect the hazards associated with these diverse activities. In general,
generation and treatment of radioactive waste are more dynamic than storage and disposal, so it
would be expected that the radioactive waste management bases for these types of facilities
would be different, i.e., different topics need to be covered, and different levels of detail are
necessary for proposed controls. Similarly, when identical activities (such as storage and
certification to a disposal facility) are being conducted at many facilities on one site, it is
expected that the same radioactive waste management bases may apply to all of these facilities.
For facilities where little hazard exists or where activities are not dynamic, the radioactive waste
management basis statement may be abbreviated, such as a memorandum which references the
appropriate documents. For facilities where many interrelated activities are occurring and/or
where higher hazards are present, a radioactive waste management basis statement could be
prepared that provides the operational conditions of a radioactive waste management facility ,
similar to a license for a facility regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Example 1: An operating low-level waste disposal facility has approved revisions of all
of the following documents (listed in Chapter IV); the waste acceptance requirements,
the performance assessment, the composite analysis, the disposal authorization
statement, and the monitoring plan. The preliminary closure plan reviewed with the
performance assessment has not been approved, pending an extensive update. Several
disposal site procedures are also approved and implemented. The Field Element
Manager determines that the facility may operate while it updates the closure plan. The
Field Element Manager also identifies the Site Radiation Control Manual and the Site
Health and Safety Plan and an additional document requested by the State mixed waste
regulating authority to include as part of the basis to allow operations for management
of radioactive waste. In this case, the radioactive waste management basis statement
prepared incorporates the aforementioned documents by reference, and contains other
conditions that the facility must adhere to for safe disposal of the low-level waste. One of
these added conditions is that the updated closure plan must be submitted within 15
months of the issuance of the radioactive waste management basis to include
consideration of the comments addressing deficiencies in the preliminary closure plan.
[An example of this radioactive waste management basis statement is provided as
Example B at the end of this guidance.]
Example 2: A laboratory facility stores transuranic and low-level waste in four
temporary storage buildings. Following an approved time period, the waste is collected
by a central waste management operation of the laboratory and consolidated in a
permanent storage facility. The transuranic waste is stored there indefinitely, while the
low-level waste is stored until a sufficient amount is accumulated for shipment to a low-level waste disposal facility. The low-level waste is certified to a specific disposal
facility's waste acceptance criteria, while the transuranic waste is certifiable to WIPP
requirements. The radioactive waste management basis statement for all of these
facilities and activities is documented with one radioactive waste management basis
statement. The statement consists of a memorandum that references five laboratory
operating procedures on storage of waste and certification of waste, and the low-level
waste disposal facility and WIPP waste acceptance requirements since the waste is
certified to meet these two disposal facilities' requirements without any changes being
made to the waste. [An example of this radioactive waste management basis statement is
provided as Example C at the end of this guidance.]
Timing of the Radioactive Waste Management Basis. The requirement states that the radioactive
waste management basis is to be reviewed and approved before operations begin. The
requirement is written from the viewpoint of applying the provisions to a new facility, and thus
emphasizes that the basis must be in place prior to the generating of any radioactive waste. For
existing facilities, the Field Element Manager should establish a schedule for approvals of
radioactive waste management bases to bring existing facilities into compliance with this
requirement. It may be appropriate to consider the hazards associated with each facility and the
radioactive waste managed at it when establishing the implementation schedule for approvals of
radioactive waste management bases. Therefore, a facility with a great deal of hazard or
complexity, such as a multi-waste stream treatment facility, may have a bases approved before
facilities that engage in less complicated or hazardous activities. Implementation is to be
consistent with the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 as set forth in paragraph (i) 4.
Maintaining the Radioactive Waste Management Basis. The radioactive waste management
basis should be reviewed periodically and whenever there is a change to the subject facility,
operation, or activity, or the requirements of DOE O 435.1 or DOE M 435.1-1. Appropriate
changes should be made to the documentation of the radioactive waste management basis, if
warranted. These reviews should evaluate the status of the radioactive waste management basis
and its continued validity over time. The review should evaluate whether the existing
documentation still adequately identifies the hazards associated with a radioactive waste
management facility, operation, or activity; the analysis of the potential impacts of those hazards
is still valid; and the controls that are in place for protection of workers, the public, and the
environment address the hazards. Existing processes, programs, or documentation that can
satisfy this guidance should be used to the extent possible. Elements of the radioactive waste
management basis in the self-correcting system employed at the site in accordance with the
integrated Safety Management System employed in accordance with DOE P 450.4 should be
included as an effective way to achieve adequate maintenance of the radioactive waste
management basis.
The requirement for a radioactive waste management basis is successfully met if all radioactive
waste management facilities, operations, and/or activities at each DOE site has a radioactive
waste management basis, which concludes that appropriate controls are documented and
implemented for the protection of workers, the public, and the environment. The conclusion
should be appropriately documented. The documentation should provide, at a minimum, a
complete list of the controls that implement the requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M
435.1-1 for all waste types being managed at the site, and provide evidence that the radioactive
waste management controls are included in the site's implementation of the integrated Safety
Management System.
Additional information on the radioactive waste management basis is contained in Chapter II,
High-Level Waste Requirements; Chapter III, Transuranic Waste Requirements; and Chapter IV,
Low-Level Waste Requirements of this guidance.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1991. Unreviewed Safety Question, DOE 5480.21, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C., December 24, 1991.
2. DOE, 1992. Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, DOE 5480.23, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C., April 10, 1992.
3. DOE, 1994. Preparation Guide for U.S. DOE Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Safety
Analysis Reports, DOE STD-3009-94, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.,
July 1994.
4. DOE, 1994. DOE Limited Standard: Hazard Baseline Documentation, DOE-EM-5502-94, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., December 1994.
5. DOE, 1992. Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance
with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports, DOE-STD-1027-92, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., December 1992.
6. DOE, 1996. Safety Management System Policy, DOE P 450.4, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., October 16, 1996.
7. DOE, 1995. Performance Indicators and Analysis of Operations Information, DOE O
210.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 27, 1995.
8. DOE, 1997. Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations Information, DOE O
232.1A, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., July 21, 1997.
9. DOE, 1999. DOE Radiological Control Standard - Radiological Health and Safety
Policy, Draft, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., April 1999.
Attachments: Example Radioactive Waste Management Basis Statements
MEMORANDUM FOR: Joseph Smith, Field Element Manager, DOE/SR
THRU: Robert Jones, Director, Division of Waste Management, DOE/SR
FROM: Wilburt Littleguy, Operations Manager, SRS Contractor
SUBJECT: RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT BASIS FOR THE
WASTE HANDLING FACILITIES
DATE: June 1, 1999
This memorandum documents the approval of a radioactive waste management basis for the
following facilities, operations, and activities, which are collectively known as the Waste
Handling Facilities at H Area of the Savannah River Plant: F Area Tank Farm, H Area Tank
Farm, In-Tank Precipitation Process, Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator, and the
Effluent Treatment Facility.
The approval of the radioactive waste management basis for the Waste Handling Facilities is
based on a review of the documents on the attached list granting an Authorization Basis to
operate the Waste Handling Facilities under DOE 5480.21. The radioactive waste management
basis review consisted of reviews of targeted chapters and sections of the Authorization Basis
documentation to ensure that the requirements of the revised Order on Radioactive Waste
Management, DOE O 435.1, were being met. The review of the Authorization Basis documents,
and processes and procedures implemented as described, concluded that the requirements of
DOE O 435.1 are being met. A crosswalk is also attached indicating the DOE M 435.1-1
requirements that are being met at the Waste Handling Facilities and the procedure or document
which is the approved implementation of the requirement.
Unless additional review is required due to changes in the facilities or in the DOE 435.1
requirements, the radioactive waste management basis for the Waste Handling Facilities will
remain valid until June 1, 2004.
Original signed by:
W.G. Littleguy
Operations Manager, Waste Handling Facilities
Attachments: As Listed SRS Contractor
Attachment 1
Radioactive Waste Management Basis
Waste Handling Facilities / Savannah River Plant
1. Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) [Report Nos. WHF-WSRC-003, WHF-WSRC-006,
WHF-WSRC 015]
2. Technical Justification for Continued Operation/ Basis for Interim Operation/Design
Basis Accident Analysis Report - [Memorandum dated April 1, 1996 with Attachments].
3. Operational Safety Requirements/Technical Safety Requirements [SRC-J-092, SRC-K-063, SRC-U-012]
4. Technical Standards - [WSRC-WMB-013 and OSHA-TYU-003]
5. SAR Update Request Packages - [Memoranda dated April 30, 1996, August 15, 1996,
January 17, 1997]
6. Safety Evaluation Report - [Report No DOE-SRS-SER-003]
7. WSRC Operating Manual and Procedures:
Waste Acceptance Requirements Implementation - [WSRC-OPSMAN-SC3-03]
Waste Characterization Profiling - [WSRC-OPSMAN-SC4-02]
Certification Process and Approval - [WSRC-OPSMAN-WA-W28]
8. USQ Package - [USQ-WHF-SER-98]
(Example of Attachment 2 not shown) MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert Jones, Operations Manager, Site Y Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility
FROM: Joseph Smith, Deputy Field Element Manager, DOE/FO
SUBJECT: DOE M 435.1-1 RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT BASIS FOR SITE Y LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY.
This memorandum documents the radioactive waste management basis for the Site Y Low-Level Waste Disposal
Facility. The basis is established as a result of reviews and approvals of the Site Y Performance Assessment (DOC-FO-PA-001) and the Site Y Composite Analysis (DOC-FO-CA-002), and the issuance of the EM-30 Disposal
Authorization Statement (HQ-DAS-SITY-1), which is attached. The review and approval of the Performance
Assessment and the Composite Analysis, and the issuance of the Disposal Authorization Statement included a
review of several other documents, including a preliminary closure plan and a preliminary monitoring plan, which
are listed in Appendix F in the April 1998 Low-Level Waste Review Group Team Report on the Site Y
Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis Reviews.
The radioactive waste management basis is predicated on the continued adherence to the current revisions of the
Site Y Radiation Control Manual, the Site Y Health and Safety Plan, and on meeting the commitments made in the
April 27, 1997 letter from Smith, DOE/FO to Johnson, State/EPA for finalizing the monitoring well designs for the
RCRA-regulated Site Y storage facilities plume.
The Disposal Authorization Statement contains twelve conditions that must be met in order for the operations at the
Site Y Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility to continue. In addition to these twelve conditions, the following
condition must also be met:
Condition 13: By August 1999, (15 months) the preliminary closure plan submitted with the performance
assessment and composite analysis must be updated to reflect the designs of the monitoring system
incorporated by reference above, letter Smith, DOE/FO to Jones, State/EPA, and the considerations
documented in page 57 of the April 1998 Low-Level Waste Review Group Team Report on the Site Y
Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis Reviews.
Any questions about this memorandum or the radioactive waste management basis for the Site Y Low-Level Waste
Disposal Facility should be directed to me at my office number.
Original Signed By:
Joseph Smith
Field Element Manager,
DOE/Field Office (FO)
Reference:
Site Y Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Disposal Authorization Statement RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT BASIS STATEMENT
SITE Y CENTRAL WASTE STORAGE OPERATIONS.
This statement documents the radioactive waste management basis for the operations of the Site
Y Central Waste Management Unit for storage of low-level and transuranic waste at all storage
facilities (see list in Appendix A) at Site Y.
The radioactive waste management basis is founded based on the review and approval of the Site
Y laboratory operating procedures on waste acceptance, certification, and storage which were
found to meet the requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 (see list in Appendix B).
The Site procedures on waste acceptance commit to meeting the requirements of the WIPP
Waste Acceptance Criteria (WIPP-WAC-007), and the Nevada Test Site Waste Acceptance
Criteria (NTSWAC) since all waste accepted at the storage facilities must be able to be certified
for disposal at one of these two facilities. Therefore, these two documents, as approved by their
respective Field Elements, are incorporated by reference into the radioactive waste management
basis for storage activities at Site Y.
Appendix A - List of Site Y Storage Facilities
Appendix B - List of Site Y Radioactive Waste Management Basis Procedures I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(3) Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention. Ensuring implementation of
waste minimization and pollution prevention programs.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that emphasis is placed on the Field Element
Manager's responsibility for minimizing the generation of radioactive waste and that waste
minimization programs are implemented at radioactive waste management facilities.
Discussion:
The safety and hazards analysis indicated that an effective mitigating measure in management of
radioactive waste was to avoid potential weaknesses and conditions through minimization of
waste. The requirements analysis indicated that DOE's current programs implementing
Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention
Requirements and Responsibilities, and Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government
through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition, and DOE 5400.1, General
Environmental Protection Program, were adequate in establishing effective waste minimization
programs, especially for generators of waste. These directives are invoked in the General
Requirement on other directives and regulations (DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.1.E.(20)). This
General Requirement is added to emphasize the Field Element Manager's responsibilities in
carrying out the requirements of the Executive Orders and DOE 5400.1 for radioactive waste
management facilities, and ensuring that in the cases where radioactive waste is generated during
the course of its management, for example, when ash is created from the incineration of
radioactive waste, that this waste is also minimized. No additional guidance is needed beyond
the documentation already prepared on the Field Element Manager's responsibilities for waste
minimization and pollution prevention.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated if waste minimization and pollution
prevention principles are incorporated into all radioactive waste management activities where
appropriate.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1992. Waste Minimization Crosscut Plan Implementation, SEN-37-92, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., May 13, 1992.
2. O'Leary, 1994. H. O'Leary to Departmental Elements, memorandum, Departmental
Strategy for Compliance With Executive Order 12856, "Federal Compliance With Right-To-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements," U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C., December 27, 1994.
3. EPA, 1993. Pollution Prevention and Right-to-Know in the Government, E.O. 12856,
EPA 100-K-93-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1993.
4. EPA. Federal Agency Environmental Management Program Planning Guidance, EPA
300-B-95-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
5. EPA. Federal Facility Pollution Prevention Project Analysis, EPA 300-B-95-008, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
6. DOE, 1994. Department of Energy Waste Minimization Reporting Requirements, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 1994.
7. DOE, 1996. Pollution Prevention Program Plan, DOE/S-0118, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., 1996. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(4) Approval of Exemptions for Use of Non-DOE Facilities. DOE radioactive
waste shall be treated, stored, and in the case of low-level waste, disposed of
at the site where the waste is generated, if practical; or at another DOE
facility. If DOE capabilities are not practical or cost effective, exemptions
may be approved to allow use of non-DOE facilities for the storage,
treatment, or disposal of DOE radioactive waste based on the following
requirements:
(a) 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.
(b) Exemptions for the use of non-DOE facilities shall be documented to be
cost effective and in the best interest of DOE, including consideration of
alternatives for on-site disposal, an alternative DOE site, and available
non-DOE facilities; consideration of life-cycle cost and potential liability;
and protection of public health and the environment.
(c) DOE waste shall be sufficiently characterized and certified to meet the
facility's waste acceptance criteria.
(d) Appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review must be
completed. For actions taken under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), it is DOE's policy
to incorporate NEPA values into the CERCLA documentation.
(e) Headquarters shall be notified of any exemption allowing use of a non-DOE facility and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment,
Safety and Health (EH-1) shall be consulted prior to the exemption being
executed.
(f) Host States and State Compacts where non-DOE facilities are located
shall be consulted prior to approval of an exemption to use such facilities
and notified prior to shipments being made.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to indicate a clear preference for use of DOE facilities and to
ensure that when it is determined to be necessary to use non-DOE facilities for the treatment,
storage, and disposal of DOE radioactive waste only when such use is in the best interest of the
Department and protective of the public, workers, and the environment.
Discussion:
It has been the Department's long-standing policy to dispose of low-level waste at the site where
it is generated or at another DOE site if onsite capabilities are not practical. Exemptions to this
policy have been allowed in cases where disposal at a DOE site is not practical and it can be
shown that the action is in compliance with applicable requirements and is protective of the
public, workers, and the environment and that there is a substantial benefit to the Department.
However, use of non-DOE facilities has not been allowed without such justification because of
the potential long-term liabilities and possible negative impacts on DOE-wide or commercial
disposal programs associated with commercial disposal. Additionally, because of the economics
associated with operating onsite disposal facilities, use of non-DOE facilities can result in higher
overall costs for all DOE disposal.
The Department has previously addressed a number of issues related to the use of non-DOE
facilities for the disposal of low-level waste. The Office of Environmental Management, in
consultation with the Office of Environment, Health, and Safety, approved the use of non-DOE
facilities for the disposal of waste originating from remedial activities the Department was
performing at non-DOE sites and for the disposal of small quantities of mixed low-level waste.
Subsequently, Headquarters delegated the authority to make decisions on the use of non-DOE
facilities for disposal of low-level waste to the Heads of Field Elements under certain conditions.
The current requirement and this guidance continue the practice of allowing the Field Element
Managers to grant exemptions for using non-DOE waste management facilities. Exemptions
granted prior to the issuance of DOE O 435.1 remain valid.
During the development of DOE M 435.1-1, it was also recognized that the evaluation performed
to justify use of non-DOE facilities for low-level waste disposal, e.g., determining that the action
is protective and in the best interest of the government, was a best management practice that
should be employed for any use of non-DOE waste management facilities. Therefore, the
requirement was broadened to also address storage and treatment.
This requirement allows the Field Element Manager to approve the use of non-DOE facilities
where use of DOE facilities is not practical after meeting minimum requirements to ensure that
the waste management decision is in the best interest of the government and will not pose an
undue threat to public and worker health and safety, or to the environment.
This requirement does not extend to residues that result from the use of commercial laboratories
to perform analyses on radioactive samples, whether they are waste samples or not. Laboratories
that have the capability to accept radioactive samples for analysis generally have provisions for
disposal of the waste resulting from their activities. This includes excess sample, i.e., sample
that is not used in analyses, as well as sample residue, laboratory equipment, etc. When
contracting for such laboratory services, it is not required that samples be returned to DOE for
disposal if the laboratory has such provisions. The policy for use of non-DOE facilities does not
require or prefer that waste from commercial analysis of samples be returned to the DOE site for
waste management. It is acceptable for the laboratory to dispose of the waste in accordance with
the provisions of their radioactive materials license. However, return of sample waste to the
DOE site is acceptable if it is economically beneficial to DOE.
Use of DOE Capacity. As directed in the current requirement, there is a preference for treatment,
storage, or disposal of DOE radioactive waste to occur at a DOE site. Nevertheless, DOE sites
are explicitly encouraged to seek the most practical disposal option for low-level waste,
especially if there is a lower cost alternative with adequate environment, safety, and health
protection. Prior to using a non-DOE facility, a determination must first be made that the waste
management activity being considered is not practical at the DOE site that generates the waste.
Then a second determination must be made that management of the waste is not practical at
another DOE site. The practicality of performing a waste management function at a particular
site depends on the availability of facilities or capacity, and also the cost associated with
performing the activity. As part of the planning process, a range of waste disposal alternatives
must be considered and documented, including on-site disposal, an alternative DOE disposal site,
and available non-DOE facilities. When evaluating the cost effectiveness of performing a waste
management activity at a DOE versus a non-DOE site, managers should consider the complex-wide implications of this decision, e.g. if many sites choose non-DOE facilities over a particular
DOE facility for a waste management activity, this facility, losing much of its incoming volume,
may become prohibitively expensive per unit of waste it handles or may not be able to continue
operating. This may have a great impact on waste for which with this facility is the only option.
This is particularly true for low-level waste disposal because the Department must maintain the
capability to dispose of low-level waste since the waste acceptance criteria at currently available
commercial facilities do not accommodate significant amounts of the Department's waste.
Therefore, one should not only consider the short term impact of a decision that DOE capacity is
not practical, but also consider the implications across the complex and for the long term.
Acceptable Performance. In making a decision to use a non-DOE facility for managing DOE
radioactive waste, the Field Element Manager must ensure that the decision is protective of the
public and the environment. This responsibility is effected by ensuring that the non-DOE facility
is properly licensed and/or permitted, that the facility complies with applicable regulations, and
that the facility has an acceptable history of operational and regulatory performance. Based on
the characteristics of the waste that is being considered for transfer to the non-DOE facility, a
review should be conducted of the licenses and permits held by the facility to determine if they
provide appropriate coverage for management of the waste. This should be accomplished
through a reading of the licenses and permits and through discussions with the issuing authority
(Federal, State, or local licensing/permitting authority). This review should confirm that the
facility is authorized to receive the radionuclides in the waste to be transferred, and if the waste
contains constituents subject to RCRA or TSCA, that the facility has the appropriate
authorization to receive and manage those constituents. Discussions with regulatory authorities
and reviews of inspection reports should also be used to determine whether the facility has a
history of acceptable operational and regulatory performance. Occasional and minor violations
should not be a basis for deciding not to use a non-DOE facility. Significant violations of
regulations and controls which could lead to releases of material or exposure to workers should
be cause for concern and may be a basis for deciding against use of a particular facility.
Example: A DOE site has a mixed low-level waste stream but lacks treatment capability
for meeting the land disposal restriction treatment standards under RCRA. The site
personnel determine that no other DOE site can treat the waste either. Therefore, the site
personnel look for other options and discover there is a non-DOE facility which will
contract with DOE to treat the waste for treatment standards under RCRA. The site
personnel confirm that the non-DOE facility has the necessary radioactive materials
license, hazardous waste permit, and air permit. The site DOE personnel recommend to
the Field Element Manager that the waste be treated at the non-DOE facility. The Field
Element Manager agrees and directs his employees to make arrangements for
contracting with the treatment facility.
Once a determination has been made by a DOE organization that a non-DOE facility has an
acceptable operational and regulatory history, this determination can be used by other DOE
organizations, e.g., a DOE organization can use the results of a review performed by another
DOE organization or DOE contractor in making a decision on the acceptability of the non-DOE
facility's performance. However, it is the responsibility of a DOE organization using a non-DOE
facility to ensure, on an annual basis, that the facility is maintaining an acceptable performance
record, either through their own review or that conducted by another DOE organization or
contractor. Documentation of the results of the evaluation of regulatory compliance and
acceptable operational history as discussed above is adequate for showing that the use of the
non-DOE facility will be protective of public health and the environment.
Example: Site Z has previously contracted with a non-DOE low-level waste treatment
facility for size reduction, sorting, and compaction services. As part of their effort to
evaluate the regulatory and operational history of the facility, they conducted a thorough
review of the radioactive materials permit of the facility, the waste acceptance criteria,
and the regulatory authority's inspection reports. The Site Z personnel also contacted
the regulatory authority and followed up on some of the items which had been identified
as concerns in the inspection reports. Site Z personnel documented a description of their
review and presented their conclusions in a report to the Field Element Manager. Six
months later when Site A personnel were considering using the non-DOE treatment
facility, they obtained a copy of the report from Site Z personnel. On the basis of the Site
Z report, and after confirming that the waste acceptance criteria also encompass their
waste, the Site A personnel make a determination that the regulatory and operational
performance of the non-DOE facility is acceptable.
Cost Effectiveness. In addition to ensuring that use of a non-DOE facility is protective of the
public health and the environment, use of such a facility is to be evaluated for cost-effectiveness.
The evaluation of cost-effectiveness is to consider the cost of onsite management, if it is
practical, the cost of management at another DOE site, and the cost of management at a non-DOE facility. Cost evaluations consider the cost of the specific management action being
contemplated (usually treatment or disposal), and need to consider collateral management costs
such as transportation and storage, and life-cycle costs. It is appropriate to consider the cost-related complex-wide implications of not using a DOE facility. The evaluation should include
qualitative consideration of the costs associated with safety and liability of the different options
considered. Generally when all costs are considered, the differential between using a DOE
facility and using a commercial or non-DOE facility needs to be significant before a decision to
use the non-DOE facility will be considered cost effective.
Example: A facility has low-level waste which cannot be disposed of on-site due to site
characteristics which prevent safe disposal. The site contacts the other DOE facilities
which could accept and dispose of this waste. The waste characteristics and packaging
do not pose problems and it is determined that several DOE facilities could accept this
waste. In discussing disposal charges with the DOE sites, the generator site determines
that they have insufficient funds to dispose of all of the low-level waste at these DOE
facilities. Discussions with the DOE facilities does not resolve this issue. It is
determined that a non-DOE facility will accept this waste. The non-DOE facility has
lower disposal costs for the specific waste stream, which will allow the generator site to
dispose all of the radioactive waste. (The non-DOE facility has also been determined by
a DOE organization to have an acceptable operational and regulatory history.) A
justification statement supporting the decision to use the non-DOE facility is written and
accompanies the approval request to the Field Element Manager or designee. The Field
Element Manager reviews the request to authorize use of a non-DOE facility for disposal
of the waste. Following discussions with his staff and managers at another DOE site
which could dispose the waste, the Field Element Managers decides to keep as much
waste as current storage capacity allows and dispose of the rest at the non-DOE facility.
The waste placed in storage is sent to another DOE site for disposal following receipt of
the next fiscal year budget in order to keep the unit costs at the DOE site at a
manageable level.
Evaluations of alternatives which lead to a decision that use of a non-DOE facility is cost
effective are to be documented and should be included with the assessment of acceptable
performance discussed above when the request for approval to use the facility is submitted to the
Field Element Manager.
Meeting Waste Acceptance Criteria. Site personnel must characterize waste to meet the
minimum requirements cited in DOE M 435.1-1, and in sufficient detail to evaluate conformance
with the waste acceptance criteria of the non-DOE facility to which waste is being transferred.
The site should ensure that certification and transfer requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 are
implemented for waste to be sent to a non-DOE storage, treatment or disposal facility.
Implementing the certification and transfer requirements provides a structured process for
making sure that the waste acceptance criteria of the non-DOE facility are met, and that the
information necessary for safe handling is transferred along with the waste.
National Environmental Policy Act. Implementing this requirement and using non-DOE
facilities for reasonably small quantities of waste and special circumstances does not represent a
change in DOE policy that requires a Department-wide review under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). However, as part of approving the use of non-DOE facilities, the Field
Element Manager must ensure that adequate evaluation under NEPA is performed and
documented. For actions taken under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, NEPA values should be incorporated in the CERCLA
documentation. Important considerations include (1) impacts of the facility receiving the waste,
and (2) impacts of transporting the waste to the facility, and (3) an evaluation of alternative
disposal facilities.
Consultation and Notifications. The requirements for granting and implementing an exemption
for use of a non-DOE facility include consultation and notification both within and external to
the Department. Prior to the Field Element Manager granting an exemption, site personnel must
consult the State agency responsible for radioactive materials regulation. If the proposed
exemption is for disposal of low-level or mixed low-level waste, and the state is in a low-level
waste compact, the compact organization also must be consulted. This consultation with the
compact organization is to occur even if the disposal is planned for a non-compact facility. The
consultation is intended to provide information and enable DOE to consider any views that the
state or compact might have regarding the use of the facility for management of DOE radioactive
waste. Since consultation with the state and compact are prerequisites to granting an exemption,
sites are to include documentation of the consultation in the exemption request.
Once the Field Element Manager has signed the exemption request to use a non-DOE facility,
prior to exercising the exemption, notification of Headquarters, specifically to include
consultation with the Headquarters Office of Environment, Safety, and Health, is required.
Information provided to Headquarters, including the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health,
is to include:
A description of the waste stream including characteristics and expected
quantities;
Alternatives evaluated for the management of the waste, including onsite
management, management at another DOE site, and management at a non-DOE
facility, including a description of why a DOE facility is not available or the use
of one is impractical;
Documentation of the conclusions made regarding the facility's regulatory and
operational acceptability;
Documentation of the cost analysis for alternative disposal sites evaluated;
A description of the environmental review and documentation supporting the
action;
Documentation of consultation held with the host state and, if applicable, state
compact; and
Documentation showing the approval of the exemption request by the Field
Element Manager.
The requirement to consult with the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health may be met
without obtaining written confirmation. The process requires that 1) a copy of the complete
exemption request be provided to the Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance (EH-41),
and 2) exemption requests may not be considered approved until after completion of appropriate
environmental review and documentation, adequate demonstration of need for the exemption and
coordination with appropriate officials of the state and state compact where the non-DOE facility
is located.
The Office of Environmental and Policy Assistance will review the exemption and coordinate
with other EH offices as needed. If EH-41 believes that the exemption would raise
environmental concerns, it will respond to the Field Element Manager within 15 working days.
If a response is not received from EH 41 within the 15 working days, Field Element Managers
can assume that there are no environmental objections and further consultation with EH is not
required. Therefore, Field Elements must send a copy of the exemption to EH-41 for its review
and wait 15 working days before considering the exemption request approved. A copy of the
exemption should also be transmitted to the responsible Program Office and the Office of Waste
Management (EM-30).
In exercising the responsibility assigned under this requirement, Field Element Managers and
their staffs should avoid pursuing the use of State Compact disposal facilities. The Department
has a long-standing practice of avoiding actions which have the potential to affect State Compact
disposal facilities. The Department would only consider the use of State Compact disposal
facilities if petitioned by the State Compact for reasons such as economic viability.
Finally, the Field Element Manager must ensure that the state hosting the radioactive waste
management facility is notified prior to actually shipping waste to the facility. Notification can
be on a campaign or waste stream basis; it is not necessary under this requirement that
notification be made for each shipment.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by a site having a process for performing and
documenting the actions necessary to get an exemption for use of non-DOE facilities, and by the
site having records which show that the necessary evaluations, consultations, approvals and
notifications have occurred.
Supplemental References:
1. Whitfield, 1991. R.P. Whitfield to L.P. Duffy, memorandum, Commercial Disposal of
Department of Energy Radioactive (By-Product and Low-Level) and Mixed Wastes, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 13, 1991.
2. Lytle and Whitfield, 1993. J.E. Lytle and R.P. Whitfield to L.P. Duffy, memorandum,
Commercial Disposal of Department of Energy Radioactive (By-Product and Low-Level)
and Mixed Wastes, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October. 12, 1993.
3. Alm, 1996. A.L. Alm to Department of Energy Operations Office Managers and
Department of Energy Field Office Managers, memorandum, Delegation of Authority to
Grant Exemptions to Department of Energy Order 5820.2A to Allow for the Use of
Commercial Facilities for Department of Energy Low-Level Waste, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., October. 24, 1996.
4. DOE, 1999. Commercial Disposal Policy Analysis for Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level
Wastes, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., March 9, 1999.
I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(5) Environmental Restoration, Decommissioning, and Other Cleanup Waste.
Ensuring the management and disposal of radioactive waste resulting from
environmental restoration activities, including decommissioning, meet the
substantive requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management,
and this Manual. Environmental restoration activities using the CERCLA
process (in accordance with Executive Order 12580) may demonstrate
compliance with the substantive requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive
Waste Management, and this Manual (including the Performance Assessment
and performance objectives, as well as the Composite Analysis) through the
CERCLA process. However, compliance with all substantive requirements
of DOE O 435.1 not met through the CERCLA process must be
demonstrated. Environmental restoration activities which will result in the
off-site management and disposal of radioactive waste must meet the
applicable requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management,
and this Manual for the management and disposal of those off-site wastes.
Field Elements performing environmental restoration activities involving
development and management of radioactive waste disposal facilities under
the CERCLA process shall:
(a) Submit certification to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Restoration that compliance with the substantive requirements of DOE O
435.1 have been met through application of the CERCLA process; and
(b) Submit the decision document, such as the Record of Decision, or any
other document that serves as the authorization to dispose, to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration for approval.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that radioactive waste generated as a result of
environmental restoration, decommissioning, or other cleanup is managed in a manner that meets
the requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and DOE M 435.1-1,
Radioactive Waste Management Manual.
Discussion:
This requirement applies to sites undergoing environmental restoration (including
decommissioning) pursuant to regulatory authorities including, but not necessarily limited to, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
and applicable state requirements. This guidance clarifies how sites developing and managing
facilities for management and disposal of radioactive waste resulting from environmental
restoration activities are to comply with the requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste
Management. The requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 do not apply to other cleanup requirements
addressed by CERCLA or other authorities, such as determinations of protectiveness, cleanup
levels, or cleanup methods associated with remediation of spills and releases. Additionally, these
requirements do not apply to actions performed under environmental restoration which involve
commercial facilities. The original guidance on this topic was articulated in: 1) Policy for
Demonstrating Compliance with DOE 5820.2A for Onsite Management and Disposal of
Environmental Restoration Low-Level Waste under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, May 31, 1996 (DOE, 1996); and 2) Guidance for
Complying with DOE 5820.2A, Radioactive Waste Management, for Onsite Management and
Disposal of Low-Level Waste (LLW) from Environmental Restoration Activities (Alm, 1997).
These policies were prepared by the Department in response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board Recommendation 94-2. In its recommendation, the Board had indicated the need to
demonstrate how disposal and waste management activities performed during environmental
restoration activities ensured compliance with DOE's radioactive waste management
requirements. The major concepts of these policies are:
the CERCLA requirements and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements include significant
overlap in their substantive requirements given both are designed to ensure safe
management and disposal of waste;
the CERCLA process is to be used to comply with the requirements of DOE M
435.1-1 for environmental restoration actions;
the substantive requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 should be directly incorporated
into the CERCLA process to the extent practical and consistent with site-specific
technical and regulatory issues; and
the Department must demonstrate compliance with the substantive requirements
of DOE M 435.1-1 to fulfill its Atomic Energy Act responsibilities.
To fulfill DOE's Atomic Energy Act responsibilities, the Department must demonstrate
compliance with the substantive requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 for low-level waste disposal
facilities managed under CERCLA. A crosswalk between the CERCLA and the DOE M 435.1-1
requirements needs to be prepared and reviewed as described below when the cleanup action
involves development and management of a radioactive waste disposal facility. It is not
necessary to prepare a crosswalk to demonstrate compliance with DOE M 435.1-1 requirements
for environmental restoration activities that do not involve development and management of a
radioactive waste disposal facility.
Regarding the distinction between substantive and administrative requirements, DOE follows the
guidance provided in the rulemakings published for the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (59
FR 47384, September 15, 1994). The preambles to the NCP notices in the Federal Register (53
FR 51394, December 21, 1988; 55 FR 8666, March 8, 1990; and 59 FR 47384, September 15,
1994) state that substantive requirements are those that set environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations; all other requirements are considered administrative.
Management and Disposal of Environmental Restoration Wastes. The sites to which the
crosswalk requirement applies are those using the CERCLA process to develop and manage
facilities for disposal of radioactive waste resulting from environmental restoration activities.
(An important exception is the disposal of 11e.(2) byproduct material wastes which are subject,
instead, to the requirements of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act). These sites
may be following CERCLA either because they are listed on the National Priorities List (NPL)
or because the regulatory structure established in cleanup strategies (e.g., negotiated agreements)
is based on CERCLA authority and procedures. Under Executive Order 12580, Superfund
Implementation, DOE is the lead agency for responding to a release or threatened release of
hazardous substances, including radionuclides, from any facility or vessel under the jurisdiction,
custody, or control of DOE. As such, DOE has the authority to take appropriate response actions
in accordance with CERCLA at sites not listed on the NPL. Response actions, consisting of
removal actions (40 CFR 300.415) or remedial actions (40 CFR 300.430 and 300.435), may
include onsite disposal, use of access/institutional controls, or other appropriate and feasible
actions which ensure protection of human health and the environment.
A site which is not listed on the NPL may also perform corrective or remedial actions which
result in onsite disposal of environmental restoration wastes. Such activities may be conducted
pursuant to regulatory authorities other than CERCLA including, but not necessarily limited to,
RCRA, applicable state requirements, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. When
DOE is conducting cleanup work at a non-NPL site under its Atomic Energy Act authority or
under any other non-CERCLA authority, the substantive and full procedural requirements of
DOE M 435.1-1 apply. When using CERCLA authority to conduct a response action that
involves onsite waste disposal at a non-NPL site, responsible DOE elements need to act
consistent with the NCP as promulgated in 40 CFR Part 300 (including adherence to the
requirements for regulatory agency involvement and public participation) if it is the intent of the
Department for the CERCLA process to satisfy the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1.
The term onsite under CERCLA is defined as "the areal extent of contamination and all suitable
areas in very close proximity to the contamination and necessary for implementation of the
response action" [40 CFR 300.5]. Additionally, CERCLA Section 104 (d)(4) states "where two
or more noncontiguous facilities are reasonably related on the basis of geography, or on the basis
of the threat, or potential threat to the public health or welfare or the environment, the President
may, in his discretion, treat these related facilities as one." Therefore, the definition of onsite for
any specific Department installation may include noncontiguous facilities within an installation
as agreed by the parties involved (e.g., DOE, EPA, the State, and stakeholders) and documented
in interagency agreements and/or records of decision.
In selecting Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for radioactive
waste disposal facilities in accordance with EPA's guidance CERCLA Compliance with Other
Laws Manual, performance objectives and substantive requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 are
included as information "to be considered" (TBC) rather than specific ARARs because DOE
Orders are not promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act. However, to meet its
Atomic Energy Act responsibilities, the Department must still demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of the DOE M 435.1-1. To do this, a CERCLA/DOE M 435.1-1 crosswalk may be
prepared, showing how DOE M 435.1-1 was addressed through the CERCLA process. If any
substantive Order requirement was not satisfied through the CERCLA process, it would need to
be applied separately and complied with under the DOE M 435.1-1 process.
An example of a crosswalk between CERCLA requirements and DOE's waste management
requirements is provided in Attachment 1. This example appeared as an attachment to both the
1996 and 1997 policies referenced above. Although this example was developed to illustrate
compliance with the requirements of DOE 5820.2A and was referred to as a roadmap rather than
a crosswalk, it is nonetheless a valid illustration of the content and level of detail expected in
crosswalks linking the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 with the requirements of CERCLA. The
example is drawn from the actual comparison performed for the Fernald Environmental
Management Project.
The crosswalk should state if the specific DOE M 435.1-1 performance objective/requirement
was identified as an ARAR/TBC in the CERCLA process, or whether an equivalent requirement
from a promulgated Federal or State law was determined to be an ARAR and was met. The
CERCLA/DOE M 435.1-1 crosswalk should provide specific references to applicable sections of
the site-developed regulatory documentation (e.g., RI/FS) which provide the details that support
the statements made in the crosswalk. The tabular summary shown in Attachment 1 should be
included for completeness. The crosswalk should also provide a brief one or two paragraph
summary of the employed technical review process (e.g., identify reviewing organizations,
regulators, stakeholders, and major comments which resulted in significant changes to the
remedy selection and design).
In essence, when the CERCLA process is being used to plan for onsite disposal of CERCLA
waste, compliance with the performance objectives of DOE M 435.1-1 is essential and must be
documented. While the format in which compliance is demonstrated is not prescribed,
Attachment 1 offers a suggested means to satisfy this need. As noted above, the crosswalk
presented in Attachment 1 is a real example of a crosswalk prepared in accordance with the
original 1996 CERCLA policy for compliance with the requirements of DOE 5820.2A, and
illustrates the content and level of detail expected. If certain substantive requirements of DOE M
435.1-1 cannot be incorporated into the CERCLA documents, then those requirements must be
met separately and approved using the DOE M 435.1-1 process.
Example: Site B is not on the NPL but consistent with DOE policy and Executive Order
12580, is following the CERCLA process in identifying and addressing risks posed by
radioactive wastes previously disposed of at the site. One of the remedial alternatives at
the site calls for building a new onsite disposal facility. The FS includes calculations for
the new facility that are the same as those required for a performance assessment under
DOE M 435.1-1, and reports the results under the detailed evaluation of alternatives
against the CERCLA criteria. In addition, the risk evaluation prepared for the onsite
disposal remedial alternative includes an assessment of all interactive sources and was
submitted as an appendix to the FS. Therefore, the site met the substantive requirements
of DOE M 435.1-1 through their RI/FS and associated process, and documented this
compliance by developing a crosswalk. The CERCLA process is sufficient and there is
no need to conduct any separate analyses.
In some situations, analyses performed under CERCLA will not be identical to those conducted
under DOE M 435.1-1 due to differing assumptions or methodologies (e.g., related to land use,
institutional controls, etc.). In these cases, the brief statement in the crosswalk should identify
the issue and provide an explanation of how the assumption or methodology used under
CERCLA demonstrates compliance with requirements of DOE M 435.1-1.
Example: At Site C, one of DOE's largest NPL sites, an onsite disposal cell is being
considered as part of an overall remedial strategy under CERCLA. A risk evaluation is
prepared in accordance with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human
Health Evaluation (Part A). For the remedial alternatives involving the proposed onsite
disposal cell, an inadvertent intruder scenario is not evaluated based on the site's long
term land use plan. In this case, the CERCLA/DOE M 435.1-1 crosswalk statement
regarding compliance for this specific requirement, identifies the land use assumptions
and explains how the site's regulatory process ensures compliance. The crosswalk
explains that under CERCLA, the remedy would be evaluated no less than every five
years to ensure it is functioning as intended and remains effective in reducing risks and
complying with ARARs. This crosswalk statement and the accompanying table would
then document compliance with this requirement of DOE M 435.1-1.
CERCLA requires analysis of risks from all pathways/all sources [see 40 CFR 300.430(d) and 40
CFR 300.430(e)(2)(I)(A)]. However, there is no prescribed methodology for performing such an
evaluation. The Department has established a consistent approach for assessing interactive
sources; the document entitled Guidance for a Composite Analysis of the Impact of Interacting
Source Terms on the Radiological Protection of the Public from LLW Disposal Facilities can be
used to evaluate the impacts potentially resulting from radioactive waste disposal facilities. The
completed composite analysis will be an effective management tool for understanding the site-wide implications of multiple source-terms.
Example: Fernald, an NPL site, is following CERCLA for cleanup activities and is
disposing of some environmental restoration wastes in an onsite low-level waste disposal
facility. To meet the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 and CERCLA, the site prepared a
Comprehensive Response Action Risk Evaluation as part of its RI/FS process. This
Evaluation was a key component of the document prepared by the site to demonstrate
compliance with CERCLA and DOE M 435.1-1.
Field Element Managers are to submit the appropriate CERCLA documentation to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration. For purposes of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M
435.1-1, the term "appropriate CERCLA documentation" means the written materials prepared to
demonstrate compliance with the substantive requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 for low-level
waste disposal facilities managed under CERCLA. Specifically included in such written
materials are crosswalks between CERCLA requirements and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements
which are used as the basis for issuance of a disposal authorization by the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Restoration. Based on the appropriate CERCLA documentation,
the Field Element Manager certifies that compliance with the substantive requirements of DOE
M 435.1-1 has been achieved through application of the CERCLA process. Any other analyses
that have not been incorporated into the CERCLA process require a separate review. The
Deputy Assistant Secretary may assign the LFRG the task of reviewing the information
submitted by the Field Element Manager. In this instance, the documents would be reviewed
against the criteria set forth in the guidance entitled, Department of Energy LLW Disposal
Facility Federal Review Group Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis Review
Guidance Manual (the Review Guide). Based on the content of the crosswalk, the LFRG will
determine whether it needs to review the detailed analysis. The LFRG will report its conclusions
to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration. The Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Restoration will use this information as the basis for deciding
whether to issue a disposal authorization based on DOE's Atomic Energy Act responsibilities.
The disposal authorization statement does not impact the decision documented in the CERCLA
Record of Decision on whether to build a facility because this decision is made through the
CERCLA process. The disposal authorization statement specifies limits and conditions on
design, construction, operations, and closure of the radioactive waste disposal facility. The
disposal authorization statement could be included as part of the Record of Decision. If this is
the case, then the guidance on disposal authorization (Chapter IV) should be followed during the
development of a ROD on CERCLA radioactive waste disposal facilities, to the extent practical.
However, it should be understood that compliance with requirements of a law (e.g., CERCLA)
does not release DOE of compliance with another law (e.g., Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended). DOE must determine that whatever actions are taken, Atomic Energy Act
requirements are met.
Example: At Site F, DOE and the stakeholders evaluated the disposal of environmental
restoration waste in an onsite disposal cell. The site is using the CERCLA process. The
CERCLA RI/FS team followed the DOE "Guidance for a Composite Analysis of the
Impact of Interacting Source Terms on the Radiological Protection of the Public from
LLW Disposal Facilities" when assessing the sources potentially interacting with the
proposed disposal facility. Therefore a separate composite analysis to comply with the
requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 was not necessary. A crosswalk was developed showing
the linkage between CERCLA requirements and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements. Based
upon the crosswalk, the Field Element Manager certified that the facility would meet all
of the DOE M 435.1-1 requirements and submitted the crosswalk to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Restoration. The Deputy Assistant Secretary turned to the
LFRG to review the crosswalk and the LFRG reported its conclusions to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary. Based on the LFRG report, the Deputy Assistant Secretary issued a
disposal authorization.
Environmental restoration activities will generate radioactive waste requiring off-site disposal.
Management of wastes that will be disposed of off-site must meet all the requirements of DOE M
435.1-1. There is no need to prepare a crosswalk documenting how the DOE M 435.1-1
requirements have been addressed in the CERCLA documents and process.
In addition, if DOE plans to use the services of a commercial facility for management of
radioactive waste from environmental restoration activities, the requirements of Section I.2.F.(4)
must be met. These requirements can be included in the appropriate CERCLA documentation or
handled separately.
Demonstrating Compliance. To fulfill DOE's Atomic Energy Act responsibilities, the
Department must demonstrate compliance with the substantive requirements of DOE M 435.1-1
for low-level waste disposal facilities managed under CERCLA. Appropriate CERCLA
documentation (define above) may be used to demonstrate compliance with the substantive
requirements of DOE M 435.1-1. This may include a crosswalk prepared to demonstrate that the
CERCLA process addresses the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1. In addition, the Field Element
Manager must submit certification to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Restoration that the substantive requirements have been met for the disposal facility. A disposal
authorization must be issued by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration.
Supplemental References:
1. Alm, 1997. Alvin L. Alm (DOE) to John T. Conway (DNFSB), letter, Guidance for
Complying With DOE Order 5820.2A, Radioactive Waste Management for Onsite
Management and Disposal of Low-Level Waste Resulting from Environmental
Restoration Activities, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., January 9, 1997.
2. DOE, 1996. Policy for Demonstrating Compliance with DOE Order 5820.2A for Onsite
Management and Disposal of Low-Level Wastes Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C., May 31, 1996.
3. EPA. National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part
300, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
4. EPA, 1988. "Proposed Rule; National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300," Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 245, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., December 21, 1988.
5. EPA, 1990. "Final Rule, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, 40 CFR Part 300," Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 46, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March 8, 1990.
6. EPA, 1994. "Final Rule, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, 40 CFR Parts 9 and 300," Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 178, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., September 15, 1994.
7. EPA, 1988. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Draft Guidance,
EPA/540/G-89/006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., August
8, 1988.
8. EPA, 1989. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual, Part II - Clean Air Act and
Other Environmental Statutes and State Requirements, Interim Final, EPA/540/G-89-009, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., August, 1989.
9. Superfund Implementation, Executive Order 12580, Washington, D.C., October 26, 1993.
10. EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part A), Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., December 1989.
ATTACHMENT 1
SELECTED PORTIONS FROM A SAMPLE CERCLA/DOE
ORDER 5820.2A [CROSSWALK]
INTRODUCTION
This example of a crosswalk between CERCLA requirements and DOE's waste management
requirements appeared as an attachment to both the 1996 and 1997 CERCLA policies referenced
above. Although this example was developed to illustrate compliance with the requirements of
DOE 5820.2A and was referred to as a roadmap rather than a crosswalk, it is nonetheless a
valid illustration of the content and level of detail expected in crosswalks linking the
requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 with the requirements of CERCLA. The example is drawn from
the actual comparison performed for the Fernald Environmental Management Project.
This [Crosswalk] provides specific examples of how the Fernald Environmental Management
Project (FEMP) has substantively met the objectives/requirements of DOE 5820.2A. Each
example specifically identifies how each performance objective or requirement was/will be
satisfied at the FEMP via the CERCLA process.
DOE Order 5820.2A is applicable to the FEMP because selected remedies for three of the five
operable units (OUs) include onsite disposal. The FEMP onsite disposal facility (OSDF) will
contain LLW from the remedial activities to be conducted under CERCLA. This [Crosswalk]
demonstrates that the FEMP CERCLA remedial activities of evaluation, design, construction,
and waste placement in the onsite disposal facility has/will substantively satisfy the applicable
requirements and intent of DOE Order 5820.2A, Chapter III, Management of LLW.
The CERCLA process satisfies the requirements and intent of DOE Order 5820.2A through
compliance with ARARs, TBCs, and the information and planning that is derived during the
implementation and completion of the CERCLA process, such as the completion of the
CERCLA mandated remedial investigations, feasibility studies, remedial designs, and remedial
planning documents. This [Crosswalk] will refer to the requirements that mandate these
remedial investigations, feasibility studies, remedial designs, remedial planning documents, and
the guidance used for implementation, as CERCLA Drivers. The ARARs, TBCs, and CERCLA
Drivers serve as the basis for complying with the requirements of DOE 5820.2A and the
[Crosswalk] document demonstrates that compliance has been attained. This [Crosswalk] is
specific to the FEMP alone. The FEMP CERCLA process and associated ARARs, and TBCs
that have been utilized will differ slightly from the ARARs, and TBCs that will be employed at
other CERCLA sites within the DOE complex. Page A2-8 includes a table that summarizes the
requirements of DOE 5820.2A that have been satisfied through the FEMP CERCLA process.
IDENTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS
OF DOE ORDER 5820.2A
DOE ORDER 5820.2A CHAPTER III (3) (a) PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
Purpose
This section of DOE 5820.2A identifies the performance based objectives that a LLW disposal
facility must achieve. The objectives are: (1) protection of public health and safety; (2) releases
to the environment from the LLW disposal facility shall be ALARA, and must not result in an
effective dose equivalent (EDE) that exceeds 25 mrem/year to any member of the public; (3)
prevent the possibility of a 100 mrem/year continuous exposure or 500 mrem acute exposure of
an inadvertent intruder after institutional controls have terminated (100 years); and (4) protect
ground-water resources consistent with Federal, State, and local requirements.
Statement of Compliance for 3(a)(1)
Compliance with this requirement was attained through applying the two CERCLA threshold
criteria as identified in the NCP, which are protecting human health and the environment and
identifying and complying with ARARs. Substantive compliance with this requirement was
further accomplished through the design of the Onsite Disposal Facility (OSDF) and the
establishment of waste acceptance criteria (WAC), which will result in the dose to the public
being lower than the established exposure limits and by providing protection to ground-water
resources.
Identification of ARARs, TBCs, and/or CERCLA Drivers for 3(a)(1)
ARARs: 40 CFR 300.430 (e)(9)(iii)(A), CERCLA Threshold Criteria
Statement of Compliance for 3(a)(2)
Compliance with this requirement was attained through the evaluation of all sources of risk to the
public which was completed in the CERCLA Feasibility Study (FS) risk assessments and the
Comprehensive Response Action Risk Evaluation (CRARE) performed for the FEMP. The
designed containment system (multi-layer cap and liner) of the OSDF eliminates all exposure
pathways except groundwater. Protecting the public through the groundwater pathway was
addressed by meeting applicable Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) maximum contaminant level
(MCL) groundwater standards. The established waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for the OSDF
ensure that the MCLs are not exceeded in the groundwater for 1,000 years. By meeting the
proposed SDWA uranium MCL of 20 parts per billion (ppb), the exposure dose from
groundwater will be below the 25 mrem per year EDE requirement for 1,000 years into the
future.
Identification of ARARs, TBCs, and/or CERCLA Drivers for 3(a)(2)
ARARs: OAC 3745-27-08 (C), Landfill Construction
40 CFR 61.92-93, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) for emissions of radionuclides other than radon from the Department
facilities
40 CFR 61.192, NESHAPS for emissions of radon from Department facilities
TBCs: DOE 5400.5 Chapter II (1)(a), (b), (3)(a)(5), Chapter IV (4)(c), Radiation Protection
of the Public and the Environment
DOE 5820.2A Chapter III (3)(a)(2), Protection of the General Population from
Releases of Radioactivity
CERCLA Drivers: 40 CFR 300.430, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and
selection of remedy
40 CFR 300.435, Remedial Design (RD)/Remedial action (RA), operation
and maintenance
US EPA, 1988, Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA
US EPA, 1988, Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual
US EPA, 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health
Evaluation manual, Part A, Interim Final
US EPA, Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The
Proposed Plan (PP), The Record of Decision (ROD), Explanation of
Significant Differences, the ROD Amendment
Statement of Compliance for 3(a)(3)
Compliance with this requirement was satisfied through the implementation of permanent
institutional controls, and the long-term permanence design of the OSDF. The Operable Unit 2
(OU2) and Operable Unit 5 (OU5) RODs specify that the final land use for the OSDF be
restricted with perpetual federal ownership and maintenance of institutional controls (such as
warning signs and fencing). The NCP and the OU2 and OU5 RODs also specify the design of a
containment system with long-term permanence. The OSDF has a designed nine-foot multi-layer cap system which includes a three-foot rock barrier layer, and a five-foot multi-layer liner
system. To ensure proper performance of the institutional controls and the containment system,
their overall performance will be reviewed every five years as required by the NCP. The
implementation of perpetual institutional controls and the designed containment system
precludes the inadvertent intrusion exposure scenario.
Identification of ARARs, TBCs, and/or CERCLA Drivers for 3(a)(3)
ARARs: OAC 3745-27-08 (C), Landfill Construction
OAC 3745-27-11 (H), Landfill Final Closure
OAC 3745-27-14 (A), Landfill Post-Closure Care
TBCs: DOE 5400.5 Chapter II (1)(a)(b), Radiation Protection of the Public and the
Environment
CERCLA Drivers: 40 CFR 300.430, RI/FS and selection of remedy
US EPA, 1988, Guidance for Conducting RI/FS Under CERCLA
US EPA, 1988, Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual
US EPA, 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final
US EPA, Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The
PP, the ROD, Explanation of Significant Differences, and the ROD
Amendment
Statement of Compliance for 3(a)(4)
Compliance with this requirement was met through the development of the WAC and design of
the OSDF. These actions resulted in the protection of the groundwater resources in accordance
with all applicable groundwater standards. The groundwater modeling for the OSDF WAC
development demonstrated that the aquifer would be protected to the proposed uranium MCL for
1,000 years into the future. The DOE Fernald Area Office (DOE-FN), DOE Headquarters
(DOE-HQ), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have approved the modeling in the OU2, and OU5 FSs.
Identification of ARARs, TBCs, and/or CERCLA Drivers for 3(a)(4)
CERCLA Drivers: 40 CFR 300.430, RI/FS and selection of remedy
40 CFR 300.435, RD/RA, operation and maintenance
US EPA, 1988, Guidance for Conducting RI/FS Under CERCLA
US EPA, 1988, Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual
US EPA, 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Human Health
Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim Final
US EPA, Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The
PP, the ROD, Explanation of Significant Differences, the ROD
Amendment
References for Requirement 3(a)
OU2 Risk Assessment (OU2 FS, Appendix C Risk Evaluation), OU5 Risk Assessment (OU5 FS,
Appendix F Fate and Transport Modeling, Appendix G Short Term Risk Assessment, and
Appendix H CRARE), and OU3 Risk Assessment (OU3 FS, Appendix H Short Term Risk
Assessment, Appendix I CRARE), OU2 ROD, OU5 ROD, and OU3 ROD, Onsite Disposal
Facility (OSDF) Design Criteria Package (OSDF Design Specifications Package, OSDF Design
Calculations Package, OSDF Design Drawings Package), OSDF Support Plans (Appendix A
Impacted Materials Placement Plan)
DOE ORDER 5820.2A CHAPTER III (3)(h) LONG-TERM STORAGE
Purpose
This section requires that the long-term storage of LLW be conducted in a manner in which the
performance objectives of Chapter III (3)(a) are maintained.
Statement of Compliance for 3(h)(1), (2), (3), and (4)
The long-term storage requirements specified in DOE 5820.2A are not applicable to the remedial
activities associated with the disposal of waste in the OSDF because there are no plans that
include the long-term storage of waste prior to final disposal in the onsite disposal facility.
DOE ORDER 5820.2A CHAPTER III (3)(k) ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
Purpose
This section requires that the LLW disposal facility be monitored by an environmental
monitoring program that can measure (through the monitoring of the applicable environmental
media) operational effluent releases, migration of radionuclides, disposal facility subsidence, and
changes in the disposal facility and site parameters that may effect the long-term performance of
the disposal facility.
Statement of Compliance with 3(k)(1)
Compliance with this requirement will be satisfied by utilization of the Integrated Environmental
Monitoring Plan (IEMP) developed for the FEMP and the OSDF Support Plans. These plans
will include monitoring of OSDF associated ground water, surface water, air, leachate, leak
detection system, and subsidence.
Identification of ARARs, TBCs, and/or CERCLA Drivers for 3(k)(1)
ARARs: OAC 3745-27-10, Ground-water Monitoring Program
OAC 3745-27-19(E)(26), Sanitary Landfill Operation; maintain integrity of landfill
components
OAC 3745-27-19(J)(1), (4) - Sanitary Landfill Operations; surface water control
structures
TBCs: DOE 5820.2(A) Chapter III(3)(k), Environmental Monitoring
CERCLA Drivers: 40 CFR 300.435, RD/RA, operation and maintenance
Statement of Compliance with 3(k)(2)
See discussion above stating compliance with 3(k)(1).
Identification of ARARs, TBCs, and/or CERCLA Drivers for 3(k)(2)
ARARs: OAC 3745-27-10, Ground-water Monitoring Program
OAC 3745-27-08(C)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), Leachate collection and
storage; structures must be monitored
OAC 3745-27-19(E)(26), Sanitary Landfill Operation; maintain integrity of landfill
components
OAC 3745-27-19(J)(1), (4) - Sanitary Landfill Operations; surface water control
structures
TBCs: DOE 5820.2(A) Chapter III(3)(k), Environmental Monitoring
CERCLA Drivers: 40 CFR 300.435, RD/RA, operation and maintenance
Statement of Compliance with 3(k)(3)
See discussion above stating compliance with 3(k)(1).
Identification of ARARs, TBCs, and/or CERCLA Drivers for 3(k)(3)
ARARs: OAC 3745-27-10, Ground-water Monitoring Program
OAC 3745-27-19(K)(1), (2), (3) - Sanitary Landfill Operations; leachate detection
TBCs: DOE 5820.2(A) Chapter III(3)(k), Environmental Monitoring
CERCLA Drivers: 40 CFR 300.435, RD/RA, operation and maintenance
Statement of Compliance with 3(k)(4)
See discussion above stating compliance with 3(k)(1).
Identification of ARARs, TBCs, and/or CERCLA Drivers for 3(k)(4)
ARARs: OAC 3745-27-10, Ground-water Monitoring Program
TBCs: DOE 5820.2(A) Chapter III(3)(k), Environmental Monitoring
CERCLA Drivers: 40 CFR 300.435, RD/RA, operation and maintenance
References for Requirement 3(k)
IEMP, Onsite Disposal Facility Support Plans (Appendix C Surface-Water Management and
Erosion Control, and Appendix F Air Monitoring Plan)
FEMP CERCLA REVIEW PROCESS
The CERCLA process at the FEMP involves many resources, organizations, and agencies, which
provides for a thorough review and approval process. Several subject matter expert resources are
utilized during the internal review process at the FEMP by the Department contractor.
Additionally, resources from the major contractor teaming partners are utilized during the
internal review.
The Fernald Area Office reviews and approves all CERCLA documents. The public
stakeholders also have review and comment capabilities throughout the process. Direct
involvement in information exchange meetings and technical review of CERCLA documents by
US EPA and Ohio EPA in the FEMP CERCLA process is required, pursuant to the terms of the
1986 Federal Facility Compliance Agreement, and a 1990 Consent Agreement between the
Department and US EPA, and a Consent Decree between the Department and Ohio EPA. The
US EPA including the US EPA Radiation and Risk Assessment specialists, the US EPA
environmental contractor, the Ohio EPA, and the Ohio EPA environmental contractor have
review and approval authority on all CERCLA documents.
REQUIREMENTS IN DOE ORDER 5820.2A, RADIOACTIVE WASTE
MANAGEMENT, CHAPTER III, SECTION 3, MANAGEMENT OF LLW, SATISFIED
THROUGH THE CERCLA PROCESS
The following table identifies requirements a. through m. of DOE 5820.2A, Chapter III, Section
3 that have been satisfied at the FEMP via the CERCLA process. These requirements have been
satisfied through the compliance with ARARs, TBCs, and other drivers of the CERCLA process.
Since these requirements were incorporated as part of the CERCLA process, they do not need to
be applied separately.
For completeness, the table also identifies those requirements that are not incorporated or
satisfied through the CERCLA process. In the case of the FEMP, none were identified for this
category. if any had been identified, they would need to be applied separately and complied with
under the DOE 5820.2A process.
DOE 5820.2A, Radioactive Waste
Management, Chapter III, LLW
Waste Management, Section 3,
Requirements
Requirements satisfied
via the FEMP CERCLA
process
Requirements not
satisfied via the FEMP
CERCLA process
a. Performance Objectives
a.1, a.2, a.3, a.4
b. Performance Assessment
b.1, b.2, b.3
c. Waste Generation
c.1, c.2, c.3, c.4
d. Waste Characterization
d.1, d.2, d.3
e. Waste Acceptance Criteria
e.1, e.2, e.3, e.4, e.5
f. Waste Treatment
f.1, f.2, f.3, f.4
g. Shipment
Not Applicable
h. Long-Term Storage
Not Applicable
i. Disposal
i.1, i.2, i.3, i.4, i.5, i.6, i.7,
i.8
j. Disposal Site Closure/Post Closure
j.1, j.2, j.3, j.4, j.5, j.6
k. Environmental Monitoring
k.1, k.2, k.3, k.4
l. Quality Assurance
all
m. Records and Reports
m.1, m.2
I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(6) Radioactive Waste Acceptance Requirements. Ensuring development,
review, approval, and implementation of the radioactive waste acceptance
requirements for facilities that receive waste for storage, treatment, or
disposal. Radioactive waste acceptance requirements shall establish the
facility's requirements for the receipt, evaluation, and acceptance of waste.
Objective:
The objective of these requirements is to establish limits and technical criteria which waste
and/or waste containers must meet, based on the hazards of the waste, to ensure that waste is
manageable at receipt and can subsequently be safely stored, treated, or disposed, as applicable.
Discussion:
The discussions that follow provide guidance on the above requirement for radioactive waste
acceptance requirements. Specific guidance for waste acceptance requirements for each of the
waste types is contained in Chapter II, High-Level Waste Requirements; Chapter III, Transuranic
Waste Requirements; and Chapter IV, Low-Level Waste Requirements of this guide.
The analysis of the hazards associated with management of radioactive waste in development of
DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 indicated that a critical point where controls are needed to
prevent or minimize the risks due to the hazards of radioactive waste is when waste is transferred
from one major functional area to another. That is, when waste moves from storage, for
example, to treatment or disposal. There is not only a physical transfer of the waste, but a
change in the management activities that are to be carried out with the waste, possibly a change
in potential risks or hazards, a transfer of the knowledge of the specific content and hazards of
the waste, and also a transfer of the responsibility for management of the waste. This transfer of
waste, knowledge, and responsibility can take place a large distance from where the waste was
generated or treated, or previously stored, or in some cases, after many years in storage.
Therefore, development of and implementation of waste acceptance requirements for storage,
treatment, and disposal facilities is a critically important control that leads to safe and efficient
management of radioactive waste.
Waste Acceptance Requirements.
The definition of "waste acceptance requirements" (DOE M 435.1-1, Attachment 2) is:
Waste acceptance requirements are waste acceptance criteria, and all other requirements
that a facility receiving waste for storage, treatment, or disposal must meet to receive
waste (e.g., waste acceptance program requirements, receiving facility operations
manual).
The waste acceptance requirements include both the program implemented by the facility
receiving the waste, such as waste handling procedures and training, and any technical and
administrative criteria to address the hazards associated with the waste that arise from handling
and managing the waste, and technical and administrative criteria that are provided to waste
generators who transfer waste to the receiving facility that waste must meet in order to be
acceptable, known as "waste acceptance criteria."
The waste acceptance requirements should include all of the technical limitations and criteria for
radioactive waste to be acceptable for storage, treatment, or disposal at the receiving facility.
The safety analysis report, criticality analysis, and any other appropriate safety, authorization
basis, or performance assessment documents should be used to establish the technical waste
acceptance requirements for the receiving facility, including radioactivity (concentration and
inventory) limits, waste classes or categories, waste form and/or packaging stability
requirements, allowable chemical content, percent liquid, and any other necessary waste
container or form requirements to ensure that the facilities' design bases, performance, and
operating bases are protected.
The waste acceptance requirements should include establishment of a process by which the
receiving facility evaluates incoming waste for acceptability and confirms that a waste meets the
acceptance criteria of the facility. The process should include one of, or a combination of,
physical evaluations of waste, such as sampling and testing, or reviews, audits, or observations of
generating facilities' certification processes and procedures. The process should establish the
procedures and mechanisms for dealing with incoming waste that does not meet the waste
acceptance requirements of the receiving facility. The waste type chapters contain additional
guidance on this element of waste acceptance requirements.
Waste Acceptance Criteria.
The definition of "waste acceptance criteria" (DOE M 435.1-1, Attachment 2) is:
Waste acceptance criteria are the technical and administrative requirements that a waste
must meet in order for it to be accepted at a storage, treatment, or disposal facility.
The waste acceptance criteria are those technical requirements, such as radionuclide
concentration and package weight limitations, that a waste must meet, and administrative
requirements, such as forms and certification statements, that a generator must prepare, for
radioactive waste to be accepted at a storage, treatment, or disposal facility. Waste acceptance
criteria must be documented, and in fact, for facilities that receive waste from many differing
generators, are commonly known documents, such as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Waste
Acceptance Criteria document, or the WIPP WAC.
The waste acceptance criteria should specify the documentation requirements regarding waste
generation, characterization, transport, treatment, storage, disposal, and any other information
that must be prepared by the generator, retained by the generator, sent to the receiving facility,
and accompany the waste in order for waste to be acceptable at the receiving facility. The waste
acceptance criteria should define the key elements to be included in a waste generator's
certification program to confirm that radioactive waste has been properly prepared to meet the
receiving facility's acceptance requirements.
Development of Waste Acceptance Requirements. The facility receiving waste for storage,
treatment, or disposal must document its waste acceptance requirements. The documentation
should be as thorough, clear, concise, and unambiguous as possible to minimize the potential for
unacceptable waste being sent to the facility.
The waste acceptance requirements and documentation should be developed using a graded
approach commensurate with the hazards associated with the management of the waste in the
facility and the complexity of the activities to be conducted in the facility and on the waste. The
complex activities that can involve many hazards that take place at a low-level waste disposal
facility or a high-level waste storage tank would likely involve numerous and/or detailed waste
acceptance requirements. By contrast, a facility which will only pass-through properly packaged
waste directly to a disposal facility may have a minimum set of requirements that refer to the
disposal facility waste acceptance requirements and are often more general in nature. A facility
engaged only in staging of waste for shipment to another facility may not have separate waste
acceptance requirements apart from the facility to which it will eventually be shipped.
Example: Facility 200 at Site W contains a high-level waste treatment process. The
treated high-level waste is transferred to Facility 400 for transportation to another DOE
site. Low-level waste and transuranic waste that result from the treatment process are
solidified for disposal at Site W, and transferred to Storage Building A while it waits for
disposal. The waste acceptance and processing documentation for Facility 200 contains
detailed procedures and technical specifications for the acceptance of high-level waste
streams for processing. The documentation contains details that make it clear that, as
long as operations are maintained within appropriate parameters, the solidified low-level
waste and transuranic waste are certifiable to the Site W disposal facility. No additional
waste acceptance requirements are prepared for Storage Building A where the waste is
stored prior to disposal.
A radioactive waste management facility may have individual, stand-alone requirements, if
warranted by the hazards involved or the complexity of the activities conducted. Or a site may
have general acceptance requirements applicable to all waste management facilities at the site, in
which case separate facilities would add facility-specific acceptance requirements to the site
acceptance requirements, as necessary. This may be the practice at a site with many facilities
which manage small quantities of waste with multiple locations for staging, storage, and/or
central management of waste. At such a facility, most of the process and procedural acceptance
requirements could be in one document applicable to the whole site, which would be
supplemented with specific technical requirements for acceptance at each of the management
locations. If activities at various facilities are the same, they could share the same supplemental
waste acceptance requirements documents. Likewise, if several activities are carried out at
locations that are close to one another, or are managed by the same entity, then it may be
advantageous for one supplemental technical document to be prepared to cover those activities.
Waste acceptance requirements for treatment and storage facilities should consider the waste
acceptance criteria for facilities in subsequent steps of waste management in development of
their waste acceptance criteria. Particular attention should be paid to the requirements for
treatment facilities to prevent generation of waste streams, following treatment, that would have
no path forward to disposal. Waste acceptance requirements should also clearly delineate
different requirements for on-site generators as opposed to off-site generators, if differences
exist. Similarly, if there are any specific requirements for, or accommodations made, at the
receiving facility for small volume generators, these should be specified in the waste acceptance
documentation. Waste acceptance requirements should also address any specific inspections for
leakage, contamination, or presence of hazardous materials required by other DOE Orders or
Department of Transportation regulations.
Example: Processes in the Site W Treatment Building include packaging of low-level and
mixed low-level waste, compaction of low-level waste, incineration of mixed low-level
waste, solidification of low-level waste, and storage and staging of waste prior to
disposal. The Site W Treatment Building Waste Acceptance Requirements document
contains provisions that address Department of Transportation requirements, RCRA
Permit requirements, State Hazardous waste law permit requirements, waste acceptance
criteria from the disposal facilities to which waste will be transferred, as well as DOE O
435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements.
Review and Approval of Waste Acceptance Requirements. The waste acceptance requirements
for DOE facilities that receive waste for storage, treatment, or disposal are a key element of the
radioactive waste management basis, and should be thoroughly reviewed for completeness,
adequacy, and consistency with the hazards that may be encountered at the facility. The Field
Element Manager, or his/her designee, is responsible for conducting this review. At his/her
discretion, review and approval of facility waste acceptance requirements can be delegated to a
contractor. The waste acceptance requirements document should be finalized and approved prior
to the issuance of a facility's radioactive waste management basis. The radioactive waste
management basis for the receiving facility should reference the waste acceptance requirements
document, or cite specific acceptance requirements, as critical elements of the radioactive waste
management basis for the facility. Likewise, generating facilities, operations, or activities that
send waste to the receiving facility should also cite or reference the waste acceptance
requirements document for the receiving facility in the radioactive waste management basis
statement applicable to the waste generation.
Implementation. The implementation of the waste acceptance requirements for radioactive waste
management facilities should also follow the graded approach process that is consistent with the
hazards associated with the management of the waste in the facility and the complexity of the
activities to be conducted in the facility and on the waste. Some radioactive waste management
facilities or operations that receive large amounts of waste for storage, treatment, or disposal
from many different generator organizations, should establish a waste acceptance program that
has separate responsibility for receipt, evaluation, and approval of receipt of waste. On the other
hand, waste acceptance at a group of several small facilities at which similar management steps,
like storage, are being undertaken, may require little in the way of an active program for
receiving waste.
Example: The Site D Disposal Facility accepts waste from several generators in the
DOE Complex. Site D establishes a Waste Acceptance Program which runs the receipt
and acceptance of waste, including establishment of the waste acceptance criteria (WAC)
documentation and waste receipt operations (including: container inspection upon
arrival, unloading, transfer to disposal emplacement operators). The Site D Waste
Acceptance Program performs waste certification audits of generators at all other DOE
sites which send waste to the Site D Disposal Facility. By way of contrast, at Site E,
where waste is generated, treated, and stored, and then transferred to Site D for disposal,
the Waste Generator Program handles all waste generation documentation, waste
certification, waste acceptance at Site E treatment and storage facilities, and all transfer
responsibilities to Site D. Site E personnel participate in Site D waste generator
certification audits, but do not conduct separate ones of their own.
Compliance with the requirement for radioactive waste acceptance requirements is demonstrated
if all radioactive waste management storage, treatment, and disposal facilities have approved,
documented waste acceptance requirements that include all necessary technical requirements and
limitations for waste to be acceptable upon receipt at the facility, documented waste acceptance
criteria that a generator uses to transfer acceptable waste to the receiving facility, and all
necessary administrative requirements that include a process for evaluation and acceptance of
incoming waste as meeting the acceptance requirements of the receiving facility.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1997. Nevada Test Site Waste Acceptance Criteria, NTSWAC ( Revision 1), U.S.
Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, August 1997.
2. DOE, 1996. Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, DOE/WIPP-069, Revision 5, U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad, NM, April 1996.
3. DOE, 1991. Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Criteria, WHC-EP-0063-3, U.S.
Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, WA, September 1991. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(7) Radioactive Waste Generator Requirements. Ensuring development, review,
approval, and implementation of a program for waste generation planning,
characterization, certification, and transfer. This program shall address
characterization of waste, preparation of waste for transfer, certification that
the waste meets the receiving facility's radioactive waste acceptance
requirements, and transfer of waste.
Objective:
The objective of radioactive waste generator requirements is to promote the development of
effective programs for managing the front end of radioactive waste management cycles. Front
end activities consist of those activities performed by waste generators in preparation for turning
over waste for management in systems intended to lead to disposal. The Field Element Manager
is assigned responsibility for ensuring that effective programs are developed and implemented
for managing radioactive wastes in a manner that promotes their eventual disposal.
Discussion:
The requirement for a waste generator program provides for development and implementation of
systematic, integrated capabilities for four key elements: (1) considering waste management
needs prior to and during generation of waste streams (planning), (2) obtaining and maintaining
knowledge about the waste that supports effective decision-making about the waste
(characterization), (3) documenting that waste generated by one facility meets the receiving
facility s waste acceptance requirements (certification), and (4) and ensuring that waste to be
shipped satisfies certain documentation, authorization, and manifest requirements (transfer).
Hazards associated with the physical aspects of radioactive waste transfer are addressed in
transfer requirements for specific waste types.
The definition of generator (Chapter I, Attachment 2) is;
"Organizations within DOE or managed by DOE whose act or process produces
radioactive waste or, for the purposes of the generator requirements in this Order and
Manual, transfer radioactive waste to a treatment, storage, or disposal facility."
Therefore, a waste generator program is to be implemented by all organizations who produce
waste as a byproduct of a mission or process, and all organizations who transfer waste to a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility, even if they don't produce waste. Some elements of the
waste generator program may not be applicable to organizations who only transfer waste, such as
waste characterization or approval to generate waste with no path to disposal. Organizations that
transfer waste are not required to implement any waste generator program elements that are not
necessary to perform a compliant waste transfer. Each generator must determine the elements of
the waste generator program that apply to the specific radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities, and ensure that they are included in the facility's approved generator
program.
Example: At Site Q, 1400 Area, there are three facilities who generate low-level waste,
and a storage building. The three generator facilities implement all four elements of the
1400 Area waste generator program; planning, characterization, certification, and
transfer. Waste generated at 1400 Area is certified to the Site Q Disposal Facility waste
acceptance criteria, and transferred to the storage building, where it is stored for 9
months prior to transfer for disposal. The storage building implements only two elements
of the 1400 Area waste generator program; waste certification and waste transfer. The
program is very minimal, as the storage building acts only to pass-through waste already
certified to the Site Q Disposal Facility acceptance criteria. Certification involves only a
signature by the storage facility manager on the waste certification statement that the
waste continues to meet Site Q Disposal Facility criteria.
Field Element Managers are required to ensure that their subordinate organizations and personnel
establish and carry out these programs. Field Element Managers are also responsible for
ensuring the adequacy of the programs for achieving the more detailed requirements identified
for waste types and then approving the programs. Finally, Field Element Managers are to ensure
that the programs are implemented as designed and approved.
Specific guidance on the four key elements of waste generator programs (i.e., planning,
characterization, certification, and transfer) and on issues such as reliance on proposed facilities,
conditions under which waste with no path forward can be generated, and demonstration of
acceptable performance is provided in Chapter II, High-Level Waste Requirements; Chapter III,
Transuranic Waste Requirements; and Chapter IV, Low-Level Waste Requirements of this guide.
Some of the conditions and weaknesses that need to be controlled to prevent or minimize the
risks due to the hazards of radioactive waste management are a result of technical and
administrative weaknesses and conditions in generator activities. In some cases, waste has been
generated without due consideration of the benefits of the activity that generated the waste
compared to the work required to manage and dispose of the waste generated. Waste generator
requirements focus on systematic attention to the need for generating a waste and effective
processes for turning over the waste to waste management facilities. The waste generator
program is closely related to other requirements in this Manual, such as waste acceptance
requirements, and the implementation of these related requirements should be integrated.
Development and Implementation of a Waste Generator Program. A facility that generates waste
should have a program in place that provides for integration of four key elements -- planning,
characterization, certification, and transfer. Facilities who transfer waste must also have a waste
generator program that integrates whatever elements of the program are being implemented.
Documentation of the program should be thorough, clear, concise, and unambiguous to promote
integration of these elements and to clearly specify roles and responsibilities. The program does
not need to be managed by a discrete organization with dedicated staff and offices. Rather the
program is intended to describe the processes and procedures needed to integrate and document
the four key elements and to establish roles and responsibilities for carrying out these elements,
even across organizational boundaries.
A separate program need not be developed for each facility or each waste type. The
establishment of a single waste generator program for an entire site may be the most effective
and least expensive option, but depends on the complexity of the facilities and operations and
other practical considerations at the site. Some of the waste generator requirements in
DOE M 435.1-1 are identical across the waste types and others are very similar among the waste
types. Ultimately, the structure and organization of the waste generator program are left to the
discretion of Field Element Managers.
The waste generator program and its documentation should be developed using a graded
approach commensurate with the hazards associated with the waste generated, the quantities of
waste generated, and the complexity of the characterization, certification, and transfer activities
to be conducted. Facilities that generate relatively benign radioactive waste with known
management and disposal approaches should not have generator program requirements at the
same level of detail as activities that produce very hazardous (high radiation) wastes whose
management and disposal challenge existing capabilities. For some large, high-hazard facilities,
it may be appropriate to establish a waste generator program that has separate responsibility for
planning, characterization, certification, and transfer of waste. Facilities who are only pass-throughs (i.e., storage) from one management step (e.g., generation of waste certified to a
treatment facility) to another will have minimal waste generator programs.
A radioactive waste generation facility may have individualized requirements if warranted by the
hazards involved or the complexity of the activities conducted. Alternatively, a site may have
site-wide generator requirements applicable to all waste generators at the site with separate
generators supplementing the site requirements with facility-specific requirements as necessary.
This would be a particularly good practice at a site with many facilities that generate small
quantities of similar waste. At such facilities, most of the process and procedural generation
requirements could be articulated in one document applicable to the entire site, which could be
supplemented by specific technical requirements for waste generation at each of the management
locations. If waste generation activities at some of the facilities are the same or very similar,
then they could share the same supplemental waste generator documents. Likewise, if several
wastes are generated at locations that are close to one another, or are managed by the same entity,
then it may be advantageous for one supplemental technical document to be prepared to cover
those activities.
Example: Site X had dozens of operations that each generate approximately one package
of radioactive waste each year and one large facility that generates truckloads of waste
every week. The Field Element Manager decides to require the development of a site-wide waste generator program that applies to all of the small generators and to require
the large volume generator to develop a separate program that applies only to its
operation.
Waste generator certification and characterization requirements are directly linked to the waste
acceptance requirements for the facility to which a generator will transfer waste. The generator
must certify that waste to be sent to the receiving facility meets its waste acceptance criteria, and
waste characterization determines whether the waste acceptance criteria have been satisfied. The
waste generator program should include a process for reviewing waste acceptance criteria of the
receiving facilities and tailoring certification, characterization, and transfer elements to fully
comply with the applicable waste acceptance criteria. The waste acceptance criteria for the
receiving facility should be thoroughly reviewed to establish the conditions that the waste to be
transferred must meet, as well as the corresponding characterization methods that will be used to
ensure that the wastes meet the criteria. If it is determined that the waste acceptance
requirements of a facility receiving waste for storage, treatment, or disposal have not been met,
the generator bears the financial responsibility for corrective actions necessary to make the waste
acceptable or for return of the waste.
Review and Approval of Waste Generator Requirements. The Field Element Manager is
responsible for ensuring the proposed generator program(s) are reviewed and approved. As
decided by the Field Element Manager, the review and approval may be done by DOE staff or by
the contractor. Waste generator program documentation should confirm that the generators
consider and plan for waste that will be generated; that a process is included for approving
generation of waste that has no path forward to disposal; that waste will be certified to meet
acceptance requirements for a receiving facility prior to transfer; that adequate characterization
capability is in place; and that transfer requirements will be met. The program should document
the roles and responsibilities for carrying out the component elements and should describe
interfaces between the elements that will provide for appropriate integration. Documented
evidence of the waste generation program approval, based on review of the written description of
the program, will serve as the performance measure for this requirement.
Example: Upon completion of the draft written waste generator requirements program,
the Field Element Manager directs his staff to review the process used by the contractor
to review and approve the program against the requirements of DOE M 435.1-1 for
waste generation planning, waste characterization, waste certification, and waste
transfer. The contractor review is performed using procedures developed and
documented for this purpose. Once any deficiencies in the programs are corrected, the
contractor management provides written approval of the program for implementation.
The DOE staff report to the Field Element Manager that they are satisfied with the
process used by the contractor for reviewing and approving the program.
Planning Requirements. The goal of the waste generation planning element of this requirement
is to provide ultimately for the disposal of all radioactive waste that is generated in the future.
This requirement emphasizes analysis of the activities necessary to manage and dispose of waste
prior to generating the waste. The objective of this requirement is to increase assurance that
necessary waste management facilities are available. Planning is required for all new waste
streams. All aspects of waste management up to and including disposal are included. The
planning requirements for specific waste types in this Manual are structured to discourage sites
from generating waste that does not have an identified path for storage, treatment, and disposal;
and to promote the development of plans for resolving issues that prevent disposal of those
radioactive wastes that must be generated, but do not have an identified path to disposal. The
general requirement for waste with no identified path to disposal (see DOE M 435.1-1,
Section I.2.F.(19)) requires approval for generation of such wastes.
Example: A batch of spent fuel stored at Site X is deteriorating, and reprocessing is
necessary to reduce risk. The reprocessing will begin two years after the effective date of
DOE O 435.1 in an existing reprocessing canyon. The spent fuel is different from that
previously reprocessed in the canyon, and necessary process changes will produce a
waste stream unlike those previously produced. The high-level waste produced will be
subjected to pretreatment and treatment. Prior to disposal, the high-level waste will be
solidified. At various stages in this series of operations, temporary or long-term storage
will likely be required. Satisfactory performance of the waste generation planning
requirements will include preparation of a high-level waste stream life cycle description
consisting of identification and explanation of each of these steps and explanation of the
interfaces between the steps. Prior to beginning reprocessing, the generator of the waste
holds discussions with operators of facilities that may be able to manage the waste and
incorporates relevant information on waste management needs and the availability of
facilities to meet those needs in written plans.
Characterization Requirements. The waste characterization element of the waste generator
process is a critical control used by other elements (e.g., waste acceptance requirements,
certification, transfer) to ensure that sufficient knowledge of a waste's characteristics is available
to support effective decision-making for its management. Waste characterization is a necessary
control to mitigate potential vulnerabilities if a waste stream is not adequately described. The
requirements contained in this section, and in the respective waste type chapters, address the
identified vulnerabilities by specifying the minimum characterization data, and requiring the use
of a data quality objectives, or similar, process.
Example: A waste stream from an actinide processing building is sampled and analyzed
and determined to consist of three primary nuclides: Pu-239, Am-241, and Pu-238.
Multiple samples are found to contain the three radionuclides in essentially the same
ratio, and the process does not vary significantly over time. Therefore, the contents of
future waste packages are routinely characterized based on a gamma energy analysis
which detects gamma radiation from the Am-241 and the Pu-238. The characterization
program requires the collection and full analysis of samples once a month to confirm that
the ratio of the three radionuclides falls within an acceptable range (based on
application of the data quality objectives process).
Certification Requirements. The waste certification element of the waste generator program is
one part of the controls put in place as a result of the hazards analysis performed when
developing DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1. Certification requirements address confirmation
that the waste acceptance criteria of a receiving facility have been met.
Example: The Building Five Storage Facility has low-level waste that it has received for
storage over the last year. Facility personnel plan to continue to receive low-level waste
and store it until it can be transferred to the Nevada Test Site disposal facility. The
organization responsible for the storage facility will be considered a generator when the
waste is shipped to the Nevada Test Site disposal facility. The storage facility must
develop and implement a certification program that provides documented confirmation
that the Nevada Test Site Waste Acceptance Criteria have been met.
Transfer Requirements. The waste transfer requirement ensures that waste is transferred to a
receiving facility only with the authorization of the receiving organization. It also ensures that
the waste transfer is accompanied by transfer of relevant information and by appropriate transfer
of responsibility for maintaining, as necessary, the integrity of the waste and its container. Waste
should not arrive at a receiving facility until the sending facility has been authorized to send it by
personnel responsible for the receiving facility. The transferred waste should be accompanied by
relevant documentation about the waste and designation of the individuals in the receiving
organization who will be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the waste and its container.
This requirement is the responsibility of the individual or organization that is transferring
(sending) the waste. While this approach ensures that the receiving organization is aware of and
prepared for arrivals of waste, this requirement is also intended to promote communication
between the sender and the receiver regarding waste acceptance criteria, available capacity of the
receiving facility, and other important coordination information.
Example: In preparation for transfer of low-level waste to a disposal facility,
characterization and packaging information is documented and, as required,
accompanies the waste to the disposal facility. However, the generator had not received
authorization to transfer the waste to the disposal facility and no disposal capacity was
available when the waste arrived. The waste was shipped back to the generator.
Compliance with this requirement for a radioactive waste generator program can be
demonstrated if all radioactive waste generator facilities have a documented waste generator
program that includes, as appropriate, the four key elements -- planning, characterization,
certification, and transfer -- and the Field Element Manager or his designee monitors those
activities to verify that they are being implemented as described in the program.
Supplemental References:
1. EPA, 1994. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., September 1994.
2. DOE, 1997. Nevada Test Site Waste Acceptance Criteria (NTSWAC), Revision 1, U.S.
Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, August 1997. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(8) Closure Plans. Ensuring development, review, approval, and
implementation of closure plans for radioactive waste management facilities
in accordance with the applicable requirements in the waste-type chapters of
this Manual.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure closure plans for radioactive waste facilities reflect
the engineered and administrative controls established by the facility's radioactive waste
management basis and that the closure plans and other documentation include sufficient technical
specifications of the final closure of the facility to justify the bases for evaluating the protection
of the public and the environment that are presented in the performance assessment and
composite analysis of the facility, or similar prospective assessments.
Discussion:
The safety and hazard analysis for management of radioactive waste conducted to develop the
essential requirements for DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 indicated that disposal is a critical
activity requiring controls because disposal is the last function conducted on the waste, but yet,
the potential hazards from radioactive waste will continue far into the future. Thus, there are
specific requirements for the disposal of radioactive waste that are critical to protection of the
public, workers, and environment. One of the most important of these controls is the closure
plan for the facility, the elements of which represent the last line of defense against the possible
interaction of buried radioactive materials with the public, workers, and the environment. The
development, review and approval, and implementation of radioactive waste disposal facility
closure plans are necessary to assure disposal is being conducted safely and effectively and that
the disposal facilities will remain safe far into the future. The closure of deactivated high-level
waste facilities and sites also poses potential hazards from radioactivity far into the future,
similar to radioactive waste disposal activities. The development, review and approval, and
implementation of closure plans and other closure documentation for deactivated high-level
waste facilities and sites are also crucial in assuring that the public, workers, and the environment
are protected far into the future.
The DOE M 435.1-1 requirement states that it is the responsibility of the Field Element Manager
to develop, review and approve, and implement radioactive waste facility closure plans. The
discussions that follow provide guidance on these aspects of the requirement for low-level waste
disposal facilities and deactivated high-level waste sites and facilities. As indicated in the
requirement, closure plans required by the Manual must meet the requirements for closure plans
in the waste type chapters of DOE M 435.1-1. Additional guidance on the following subjects, is
found in the guidance on Chapter II, High-Level Waste Requirements and Chapter IV, Low-Level
Waste Requirements.
Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Preliminary Closure Plan. A preliminary closure plan must
be submitted to Headquarters as part of the review documentation necessary for issuance of a
disposal authorization statement for a low-level waste disposal facility. The preliminary closure
plan documents the closure of the disposal facility that is assumed and evaluated in the
performance assessment and composite analysis submitted for the disposal facility. Detailed
guidance on the contents and submittal of this preliminary closure plan is discussed in guidance,
on DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.Q.(1).
Development of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plan. The development of a closure
plan is necessary for a planned or operating disposal facility to ensure waste disposal operations
are performed in a manner which is consistent with the assumptions made about closure in the
performance assessment and composite analysis, and so that the actual closure of the facility is
ultimately protective of the public and the environment. The closure plan provides the technical
specifications to be addressed during waste disposal operations and closure of the facility. The
closure plan is developed after consideration and evaluation of such factors as the activities that
will occur at the facility during its use, the expected condition of the facility at the time of
closure, the intended use of the facility following closure, land use plans for the facility, and
institutional control of the disposal facility following closure. The closure plan establishes the
conditions to be met to provide protection to workers, the public and the environment when
active disposal operations have ceased. The specifications and conditions presented in the
closure plan provide the bases for the long-term projection of the performance of the disposal
facility and related facilities that are addressed in the performance assessment and composite
analysis for the disposal facility. Detailed discussions on low-level waste disposal facility
closure plans are included in the guidance on DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.Q.
Example: The performance assessment and composite analysis for the Site X low-level
waste disposal facility include assumptions regarding waste degradation, infiltration of
water, and leaching of waste that correspond to descriptions of disposal unit closure in
those documents. The closure plan describes the partial closure of the disposal units and
provides technical specifications and conditions for the closure of units and the partial
closure of the facility that are consistent with achieving an infiltration rate of water and
degree of degradation of waste as assumed in the performance assessment and composite
analysis. The closure plan also indicates preliminary plans for the installation of
monitoring wells that will measure infiltration to confirm the assumptions used in the
evaluations, and so appropriate adjustments can be made once closure activities begin.
Review and Approval of Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plan. The preliminary
closure plan for a low-level waste disposal facility must be submitted along with the performance
assessment and composite analysis for review prior to issuance of a disposal authorization
statement. Therefore, review and approval of the closure plan for a low-level waste disposal
facility is to be conducted by the Field Element Manager, and the approved closure plan then
becomes part of the radioactive waste management basis for the disposal facility. The
preliminary closure plan for a disposal facility comprises the documentation of the assumed
closure configuration of the facility with some additional detail on how this closure can be
achieved. The closure plan will be a living document that is constantly updated through the
operational life of the facility with specific information about contents, partial closure (e.g., caps
on trenches) of disposal units, and other information necessary (e.g., monitoring locations) to
support the final closed state. It is imperative that the relationship between the closure plan and
the analyses conducted in the performance assessment and composite analysis be considered as
the facility is being operated. Any information that is incorporated into the closure plan or any
changes made to closure of the facility that impact the analysis in the performance assessment or
composite analysis need to be incorporated into these evaluations immediately, to determine their
impact. This allows any changes to waste acceptance, or other aspects of operation, to be made
effective as soon as possible. This relationship between the performance assessment and
composite analysis and the closure plan is discussed in detail in the guidance on DOE M 435.1-1,
Section IV.Q.(1). When major changes are required to the closure plan, based on operational
changes or impacts as evaluated in the long-term assessments, re-approval by the Field Element
Manager should be considered.
Development of Closure Plans and Other Closure Documentation for Deactivated High-Level
Waste Facilities/Sites. The development of closure plans and other closure documentation for
deactivated high-level waste facilities/sites is necessary to ensure that the process of closure
results in a closed facility that is protective of the public and the environment. Closure of
deactivated high-level waste facilities/sites can be accomplished by one of three paths.
Documentation requirements and review/approval requirements for the first path,
decommissioning, are defined in DOE O 430.1A and DOE 5400.5, and refer to these Orders for
information on these topics. Documentation and review/approval requirements for the second
and third paths, CERCLA process and closure, are defined in DOE M 435.1-1, Section II.U,
Section I.2.F.(8), and Section I.2.E.(2). Section II.U defines the documentation requirements
while the two General Requirements sections define the roles and responsibilities of the Field
Element Manager and the Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste Management and
Environmental Restoration, respectively.
As discussed in the guidance Section II.U, the development of closure plans and other closure
documentation, e.g., CERCLA plans and analyses, are necessary for a planned closure action to
ensure the closure activities are consistent with the assumptions made about the closure in the
analysis, e.g., assessments of projected performance and projected composite performance, and
so that the actual closure is protective of the public and environment. Refer to Section II.U for
the specific information that is required.
Review and Approval of Site Closure Plans and Other Closure Documentation for Deactivated
High-Level Waste Facilities/Sites. The site closure plans and other closure documents required
by Section II.U must be reviewed and approved by the Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Waste
Management and/or Environmental Restoration, as appropriate, as required by DOE M 435.1-1,
Section I.2.E.(2). Guidance on Section I.2.E.(2) discusses the review and approval process in
detail. The responsible Field Element Manager needs to take the appropriate actions to ensure
that the closure documentation for a facility or site meets the technical and administrative
requirements of Section II.U and that the package of information submitted for the DOE
Headquarters review and approval is adequate. To accomplish these tasks it is expected that the
Field Element Manager will need to develop and implement a formal review and approval
process that is completed prior to submission of the documentation to DOE Headquarters.
The authorization by the Deputy Assistant Secretaries to the Field Element Manager to proceed
with closure activities should be viewed as analogous to a license that would be issued by the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or another regulatory agency. As explained in the
guidance to Section I.2.E.(2) and II.U., an authorization to proceed with closure activities is
issued by the Assistant Secretaries to the Field Element Manager responsible for closing the
deactivated facility and contains the conditions of the authorization and controls deemed
necessary for the long-term protection of the public and the environment. Thus the closure
documentation is to contain information on the configuration of the closed facility or site as well
as the details on how the closure will be achieved. It is envisioned that the closure plan, required
by Section II.U(3), will be a living document that is updated as necessary to ensure the
assumptions and analysis contained in the plan are consistent with the conditions at the site. It is
imperative that the relationship between the closure plan and the analysis conducted in the
assessment of performance and composite analysis be kept in mind as the facility or site is being
closed. Any information that becomes available during the closure activity or any changes made
to closure of the facility that impact the analysis in the assessment of performance or composite
analysis needs to be incorporated into these evaluations immediately to determine needs to their
impact. Any information that is incorporated into the closure documentation, or any changes to
the closure activities, that impact the analysis in the performance assessment or composite
analysis in the closure documentation should be incorporated into these evaluations immediately,
to determine the extent of their impact. Once a closure action is authorized by the appropriate
Deputy Assistant Secretary, as provided in Section I.2.E.(2), the Field Element Manager is
responsible for ensuring that the closure plan or other closure documentation, with emphasis on
the performance assessment and composite analyses, remain current with accurate and up-to-date
information. This maintenance function is discussed in the guidance to Section II.U and ensures
the data and analyses are accurate and reflective of current conditions at the closure site. When
major changes or revisions are required to the closure plan or other closure documentation, it is
the responsibility of the Field Element Manager to perform a review and approval of the revised
analysis to ensure the bounding conditions contained in the closure plan, and authorization to
proceed with closure activities, is not exceeded. As explained in the guidance to Section
I.2.E.(2), if these bounding conditions are exceeded, the closure plan needs to be revised and
submitted to the appropriate Deputy Assistant Secretary within the Office of Waste Management
for review and/or approval.
Closure Plan Implementation. The closure plan for a radioactive waste facility is a living
document and needs to be implemented during facility operations and continue through final
closure. The aspects of closure that are to be implemented during operations are generally
limited but then increase as the time of final closure of the disposal facility nears. The Field
Element Manager is responsible for ensuring the various aspects of the closure plan are properly
implemented throughout the life cycle of the facility.
Example: The closure plan for a low-level waste disposal facility requires daily cover as
wastes are disposed, and that the wastes and cover material are to be compacted to a
specified density. A Field Element staff member makes periodic site visits to the disposal
facility to ensure these disposal closure criteria are being met as part of facility
operations. In the fifth year of operation, a performance monitoring well is installed at
the north side of the disposal units filled to date. The staff member monitors the
progress of the monitoring well installation, and ensures that the information concerning
the well is incorporated into the closure plan.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated if closure plans for radioactive waste facilities
are developed, approved, maintained, and implemented throughout the life cycle of the facility.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1998. Life Cycle Asset Management, DOE O 430.1A, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C., October 14, 1998. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(9) Defense-In-Depth. Ensuring that defense-in-depth principles are
incorporated where potential uncertainties or vulnerabilities warrant their
use when reviewing and approving radioactive waste management activities
and documents. These principles advocate the use of multiple levels of
engineered and administrative controls to provide protection to the public,
workers, and the environment.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that defense-in-depth principles are appropriately
evaluated and applied to the management of radioactive waste where uncertainties or
vulnerabilities warrant multiple levels of controls to provide protection to the public, workers,
and the environment.
Discussion:
Defense-in-depth is the use of multiple levels of protection to compensate for potential human
and mechanical failures which could result in the release of radioactive material. Defense-in-depth as an approach to radioactive waste management safety has precedent in nuclear safety
philosophy. The requirements analysis conducted to develop the requirements in DOE O 435.1
and DOE M 435.1-1 employed the defense-in-depth philosophy as a fundamental approach to
hazard control for radioactive waste management facilities and operations even though they do
not pose the catastrophic accident potential associated with nuclear power plants. In keeping
with the performance-oriented approach to the development of DOE M 435.1-1, there is no
requirement to demonstrate a minimum number of layers of defense-in-depth. However,
evaluating and justifying that defense-in-depth is appropriate at a given facility is necessary for
establishing a safety basis and/or a radioactive waste management basis. Operators of
radioactive waste management facilities should use the rigorous application of defense-in-depth
thinking in their designs and operations. Such an approach is representative of industrial
operations with an effective commitment to public and worker safety and the minimization of
environmental releases.
Implementing defense-in-depth can include use of both administrative and design controls.
Administrative controls include plans (e.g., program management, emergency response, and
characterization), training and qualification requirements, written procedures, safety reviews,
quality assurance programs, evaluations, authorization bases, waste acceptance criteria, waste
certification, and other actions. Design controls include secondary confinement, leak detection,
environmental monitoring, backups to critical systems, and other engineered barriers or
redundancies. The degree to which defense-in-depth is implemented (i.e., graded approach)
needs to be commensurate with the risk that the facility or operation poses to workers, the public,
or environment.
Most radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and activities typically have defense-in-depth. The first layer of defense is a high level of design quality that ensures important
systems, structures, and components will perform their required functions reliably. The next
layer of defense is administrative controls such as training and written procedures. The final
measure of protection is emergency response actions to minimize consequences of a given event
for releases that might occur despite the other layers of defense.
Example: A low-level waste storage facility is authorized to store 100 55-gallon drums of
solid waste. However, the low-level waste acceptance criteria allows up to 5 percent
liquid by volume. Thus the liquid that could be released from a single drum is 2.75
gallons, or 275 gallons for the entire inventory of drums. Historical operational data
indicate that failure of a drum can occur as often as five times per year for a 100 drum
inventory. However, historical data support that the likelihood of failure of all 100
drums is near zero. Using the graded approach facility personnel determine that spill
controls need to be implemented for a spill the size of less than 15 gallons and not the
entire inventory of liquid of 275 gallons. Additional layers of defense-in-depth (other
than the spill controls) include personnel training, container inspections, waste
acceptance criteria, and an emergency response plan.
DOE Standard DOE-STD-3009-94 provides further discussion on the use of safety-significant
structures, systems, and components as contributors to defense-in-depth for DOE nonreactor
nuclear facilities.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by documentation in the radioactive waste
management basis that describes and provides a rationale for the layers of controls (defense-in-depth) in place to provide the protection for the public, workers, and the environment.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1994. Preparation Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Nonreactor Nuclear
Facility Safety Analysis Reports, DOE-STD-3009-94, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C., July 1994. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(10) Oversight. Ensuring oversight of radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities is conducted. Oversight shall ensure radioactive
waste management program activities are conducted in accordance with a
radioactive waste management basis and meet the requirements of DOE O
435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and this Manual.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure Field Element oversight of radioactive waste,
management facilities, operations, and activities is carried out.
Discussion:
A key to successful compliance with any DOE Directive is oversight. This is particularly true of
directives which, like DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, have performance-oriented
requirements that call for review and approval of site- or facility-specific implementation of
procedures and other controls to ensure the requirements are being met. Oversight is defined
(DOE M 435.1-1, Attachment 2) as:
The responsibility and authority assigned to line management to assess the adequacy of
DOE and contractor performance. Independent Oversight refers to the responsibility and
authority assigned to the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health to
independently assess the adequacy of DOE and contractor performance.
The DOE Complex has initiated the integrated Safety Management System under Secretarial
policies DOE P 450.4, Safety Management System Policy, DOE P 450.5, Line Environment,
Safety, and Health Oversight, and DOE P 411.1, Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities,
and Authorities Policy. These policies are invoked by DOE M 435.1-1, I.1.E.(17) for the
purposes of emphasis and clarity. DOE P 450.4 provides the overall goals and objectives of the
DOE integrated Safety Management System. Core function No. 5, "Provide Feedback and
Continuous Improvement," calls for a system of evaluations and reporting in order to
continuously improve in achieving the goals and requirements for safety and protection of the
environment. DOE P 450.5 explains that line management has the responsibility for oversight of
DOE facilities, operations, and activities, including those involving management of radioactive
waste.
DOE G 450.4-1, Integrated Safety Management System Guide, Revision 0, contains guidance on
Core Function No.5. Included with this guidance is Appendix D, which references other DOE
publications and handbooks for conducting environmental audits and other types of assessments
that can be conducted during self-assessments or which can be used by line management or
parties with independent oversight responsibilities to conduct oversight assessments of contractor
work performance. The guidance in DOE G 450.4-1, Integrated Safety Management System
Guide, Revision 0, is sufficient guidance on oversight of radioactive waste management facilities,
operations, and activities.
It is expected that the revised requirements of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 will be
incorporated into the contractor self-assessments established under the integrated Safety
Management System, and incorporated into the Field Office oversight of the contractor
programs, as appropriate. Similarly, under the Safety Management System policies,
Headquarters line management has the responsibility to monitor the Field Office oversight and
participate in Field Office oversight functions, as appropriate. Likewise, under the Safety
Management Systems policies, the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health (EH-1) has the responsibility to assess the adequacy of Field Office and contractor performance, and it
is expected that the revised DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements will be assimilated
into the Assistant Secretary's programs for independent oversight at his/her discretion.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by appropriate incorporation of DOE O 435.1
and DOE M 435.1-1 requirements within the functions, responsibilities, authorities, and
requirements explained in the set of Safety Management System directives. This should result in
thorough and effective oversight of radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and
activities, and assurance that the public, workers, and the environment are protected from the
hazards associated with management of radioactive waste.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1997. Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities Policy,
DOE P 411.1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., January 28, 1997.
2. DOE, 1996. Safety Management System Policy, DOE P 450.4, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, DC, October 15, 1996.
3. DOE, 1997. Line Environment, Safety and Health Oversight, DOE P 450.5, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., June 26, 1997.
4. DOE, 1997. Manual of Safety Management Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities,
DOE M 411.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 8, 1997.
5. DOE, 1992. Environmental Audit Program Guidance, DOE/EH-0232, U.S. Department
of Energy, Washington, D.C., January 1992.
6. DOE. Performance Objective and Criteria for Conducting DOE Environmental Audits,
DOE/EH-0229, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
7. DOE, 1999. Implementation Plan for Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Recommendation 98-1, Department of Energy Plan to Address and Resolve Safety Issues
Identified by Internal Independent Oversight. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,
D.C., March 10, 1999.
I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(11) Training and Qualification. Ensuring that a training and qualification
program is implemented for designated radioactive waste management
program personnel, and the training is commensurate with job duties and
responsibilities. Only those personnel who have been trained and qualified
shall design or operate safety (safety class and safety significant) structures,
systems, and components.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that Field Element Managers establish the process
and criteria for designating personnel that should be trained on the management of radioactive
waste and establishing the appropriate level of training for those individuals.
Discussion:
It is the responsibility of the Field Element Manager to ensure a program is in place that includes
a process for designating those field personnel for which a training and/or qualification program
is required, and a process, for establishing the appropriate training and level of rigor for those
personnel designated to be trained or qualified.
The selection, qualification, and training requirements for personnel involved in the operation,
maintenance, and technical support of DOE-owned nonreactor nuclear facilities is contained in
DOE 5480.20A, Personnel Selection, Qualification, and Training Requirements for DOE
Nuclear Facilities. The requirements for establishing, implementing, documenting, and
evaluating training programs for Federal employees is contained in DOE O 360.1, Training.
These two DOE Orders are invoked by DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.1.E.(19), and are emphasized
here only as an indication of the importance of training to the successful implementation of the
requirements in DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1.
The Technical Qualification Program specified in DOE O 360.1 is required of DOE Federal
technical employees whose position requires them to provide management direction or oversight
that could impact the safe operation of a defense nuclear facility. The Technical Qualification
Program is an example of the process used to determine that personnel possess the necessary
knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform their specific duties and responsibilities. This
program (or a similar program) may be specified by the Field Element Manager for a non-defense or nonnuclear related DOE waste management activity.
Use of the National Environmental Education and Training Center of Excellence (A. Alm
memorandum, January 30, 1998) ensures DOE takes a corporate approach to optimizing and
standardizing environmental training across the complex. The Center assesses training needs and
develops and provides training courses on crosscutting environmental management topics. The
Field Element Manager can use this resource in fulfilling the training needs of radioactive waste
management personnel.
The second part of this requirement pertains to those personnel designing or operating safety
(safety class and safety significant) structures, systems, and components. The hazards analysis
conducted for preparation of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 indicated a weakness in the
design process that could lead to moderate or high hazard conditions if design personnel were not
adequately trained and qualified. DOE 5480.20A does not have a requirement for personnel
designing safety significant/safety class components to be qualified. Note that this requirement
is targeted to design authority personnel and does not apply to design agency personnel.
Compliance with this requirement can be demonstrated by documentation that a Technical
Qualification Program or similar personnel training process has been used to ensure that
radioactive waste management personnel are sufficiently trained to perform these duties.
Supplemental References:
1. Alm, A., 1998. A. Alm to Distribution, memorandum, Environmental Management
Training Policy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., January 30, 1998.
2. DOE, 1994. Personnel Selection, Qualification and Training Requirements for DOE
Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 15, 1994.
3. DOE, 1995. Training, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., May 31, 1995. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(12) As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). Ensuring ALARA principles
for radiation protection are incorporated when reviewing and approving
radioactive waste management activities.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to emphasize implementation of the ALARA process in the
management of radioactive waste.
Discussion:
A hazards analysis was conducted as part of the process for developing DOE O 435.1 and DOE
M 435.1-1. In that analysis, there were many functions and activities with the potential for
personnel exposure to radioactivity and radioactive releases to the environment. Application of
the ALARA process was found to be a mitigating factor for these circumstances. ALARA means
"As Low As is Reasonably Achievable," which is the approach to radiation protection to manage
and control exposures (both individual and collective) to the work force and to the general public
to as low as is reasonable, taking into account social, technical, economic, practical, and public
policy considerations. ALARA is not a dose limit but a process which has the objective of
attaining doses as far below the applicable limits as is reasonably achievable.
An underlying principle of radiation control is that there should be no exposure to workers or the
public, or releases to the environment of ionizing radiation without the expectation of an overall
benefit from the activity causing the exposure or release. This principle advocates the use of
administrative and design controls in work processes to minimize exposures to radiation. These
controls are incorporated into the radioactive waste management system from initial design
through operation. The fundamental outcome the ALARA process seeks to achieve is an
absolute balance between detriment and benefit. Approved ALARA programs which provide the
frame work for making ALARA determinations are probably in place for radioactive waste
management facilities. The purpose of this requirement is to reinforce this concept. The
ALARA process must be incorporated into all radioactive waste management activities. Line
management involvement and accountability at the highest levels must be maintained. The
governing directives on implementing an ALARA process, 10 CFR Part 835 Occupational
Radiation Protection and DOE 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment,
have been previously noted in DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.1.E. under Applicability of Other
Regulations and DOE Directives.
DOE waste management operations are to be conducted so that radiation exposures to workers
and members of the public are maintained as far below regulatory limits as possible, and releases
to the environment are minimized, commensurate with sound economics and operating
principles. ALARA requires judgment with respect to what is reasonably achievable. Factors
that relate to societal, technological, economic, and other public policy considerations are
evaluated in making such judgments. Integration of this process into radioactive waste work
plans with continuous feedback for improvement are essential to achieving the goal of ALARA
and thus protecting the worker, public and the environment. Additional guidance may also be
found in the Implementation Guide for Use With Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part
835, Occupational Radiation Protection.
Example: At a DOE site, an analysis of data on doses to maintenance workers at
a radioactive waste treatment facility shows that doses rose rapidly after four
hours in a radiation area. This was attributed to worker fatigue, since work in
radiation areas requires extra caution and concentration, when compared with
work in non-radiation areas. Additionally, this fatigue factor causes tasks
performed after four hours to take disproportionately longer exposing the workers
to the radiological environment longer and is compounded by their being less
efficient than they are in the first four hours. The net result is more exposure with
less productivity during the second four hours. Limiting work in radiation areas
to four hours and alternating maintenance workers between radiation and
nonradiation areas contributes to achieving ALARA where all other factors are
equal.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by documented analyses showing the
application of the site's approved ALARA process to the planning for the construction
modification, operation, and closure of radioactive waste management facilities, operations, and
activities.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE. Occupational Radiation Protection, 10 CFR Part 835, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C., November 1998.
2. DOE, 1994. Implementation Guide for Use with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection, G-10 CFR Part 835/B1-Rev.1, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 1994.
3. DOE, 1990. Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, DOE 5400.5, U.S.
Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1990.
4. DOE, 1990. Department of Energy (DOE) Radiological Control Manual, DOE/EH 0256,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 30, 1990.
5. DOE, 1997. ALARA Training for Technical Support Personnel, DOE-HDBK-1110-97,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1997. (This document is available from
the Radiation Safety Training home page, http://tis-nt.eh.doe.gov/wpphm/rst/rst.html.) I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(13) Storage. Ensuring all radioactive waste is stored in a manner that protects
the public, workers, and the environment in accordance with a radioactive
waste management basis, and that the integrity of waste storage is
maintained for the expected time of storage and does not compromise
meeting the disposal performance objectives for protection of the public and
the environment when the waste is disposed.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to properly store radioactive waste by providing for
containment of the waste during storage, protecting the ability of packages to maintain
containment, and ensuring waste is handled in storage in a way that facilitates proper disposal
and contributes to the long-term performance of the disposal facility.
Discussion:
During the development of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, the storage of radioactive waste
was identified as an activity that presented potential risk to the public, workers, and the
environment. Numerous weaknesses and conditions were identified during the safety and
hazards analysis conducted in support of the Manual documentation. In addition, previous
reviews of radioactive waste storage conditions and management practices (e.g., Complex-Wide
Review of DOE's Low-Level Waste Management ES&H Vulnerabilities) revealed inadequately or
improperly stored waste, which presents the possibility of human exposure to radiation and the
potential for adverse environmental effects.
The evaluations of storage that were conducted during development of the Order and Manual
revealed a variety of current practices, desired end-states, and required lengths of storage among
DOE's radioactive waste types. For instance, high-level waste has been in storage, and will
remain in storage, for an indefinite period of time in many different forms (liquids in tanks,
calcine in vessels, vitrified forms in canisters). Transuranic waste has been stored in many
locations in dense-pack, until disposal capacity at WIPP was available. Low-level waste is
planned for short term storage, unless unforeseen circumstances require otherwise. Besides these
differences, in storage times, there are differences in the radiological and chemical hazards posed
by storage of the waste types. Because of these differences, there are numerous waste-type
specific storage requirements that must be met to maintain safe storage. The general requirement
is performance based and states that storage must protect public, workers, and the environment.
Waste packages must be maintained during the storage period, and DOE must ensure that
nothing occurs to the waste or waste packages that is detrimental to the final disposal of the
waste or to meeting the disposal performance objectives of DOE M 435.1-1.
Integrity of Waste Packages. An essential element of proper storage of radioactive waste is the
assurance that the waste is adequately contained in waste packaging and the package is protected
from conditions that could cause it to degrade. Degradation could lead to failure and result in the
spread of contaminated materials, leading to worker, public, or environmental exposure. It could
also result in non-acceptance by a receiving facility.
Radioactive waste storage facilities should establish waste package design, inspection and
corrective action programs to ensure that package integrity is maintained throughout the storage
period. The inspection and corrective action program should evaluate storage conditions and
eliminate conditions that could lead to package failure.
Example: Bulk contaminated soil and debris was packaged in untreated wooden boxes
and stored outside. Inspection of the storage area revealed that the boxes degraded to
the point that they no longer provide proper containment of the waste. The corrective
action included repackaging the waste and storing the waste packages in a protected
area.
Periodic radiation and contamination surveys of storage areas and waste package should be
performed to provide an indication of waste package integrity and ensure worker protection. It is
not advisable to conduct inspections or surveys at a frequency or within a proximity that may
lead to unnecessary exposure. As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) practices should
always be considered during radioactive waste storage. Detailed guidance on monitoring of
radioactive waste storage is discussed for high-level waste (Section II.T), transuranic waste
(Section III.Q), and low-level waste (Section IV.R).
New radioactive waste storage facilities should be designed, constructed, and operated so that the
minimum amount of residual radioactive material that requires cleanup prior to closure remains
in the facility. Consideration should be given to facility design to meet other potential
requirements. For example, mixed radioactive waste must be stored in facilities that meet RCRA
storage requirements. Therefore, the facility should be designed to accommodate storage of
RCRA wastes. For facilities storing liquid radioactive waste, the facility should be designed to
allow liquid level, waste volume, and significant tank chemistry parameters, to be monitored.
Support Meeting Disposal Objectives. Storage of radioactive waste is usually done to facilitate
future disposal of the waste. Disposal options may not be immediately available and long
periods of storage may be required. Storage systems should be designed to last significantly
longer than the anticipated need for capacity to allow for unexpected delays. The optimization of
storage periods and storage conditions, with the waste and the waste packaging should be
performed, as part of the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program required in Section
I.2.F. of this guidance.
Example: The need exists to store a certain radioactive waste stream that has no
identified path to disposal. An analysis is performed by the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste
Management Program to determine the probable storage period and all other
requirements for a potential storage facility. An acceptable storage location is identified
that meets all the storage facility requirements and is compatible with the waste package
and the anticipated storage period for the waste.
Particular consideration should be given to the design and operation of storage facilities to meet
the eventual requirements of the disposal facility. Thus, maintaining the certified status of waste
that is already certified for disposal, and protecting the waste from conditions, either man-made
or natural, that would change the certification status and the acceptance of waste at the disposal
facility is essential. (Further guidance on certification of waste and maintaining certification
status of waste is in the guidance for each of the waste type chapters.) For waste that will be in
storage for a short period, this may not require much additional effort. For waste that remains in
storage for longer than anticipated, this could be quite challenging. Storage facilities should have
the capability of differentiating between waste that is already certified to a disposal waste
acceptance criteria and managing it appropriately.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated if the public, the workers, and the
environment are protected from radioactive waste in storage while maintaining complete waste
package integrity during the entire storage period plus that period of time necessary to facilitate
proper disposal. As discussed above, each waste type chapter contains numerous specific storage
requirements, and meeting those requirements is essential in achieving the desired safe storage
that is the objective of this requirement. Additional information on the waste-type specific
storage requirements is contained in the guidance on Chapter II, High-Level Wastes; Chapter III,
Transuranic Waste; and Chapter IV, Low-Level Waste.
Supplemental References: None. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(14) Treatment. Ensuring all radioactive waste requiring treatment is treated in
a manner that protects the public, workers, and the environment and in
accordance with a radioactive waste management basis.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that when radioactive waste treatment technologies
are utilized, they provide the necessary protection to the public, workers and the environment
from treatment operations and from the resulting treated waste.
Discussion:
During the development of DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1, the treatment of radioactive
waste was identified as an activity that presented potential risk to the public, workers, and the
environment. Numerous weaknesses and conditions were identified that required controls during
the safety and hazards analysis conducted in support of the Manual documentation. As with the
other major functions that were evaluated (i.e. generation, storage, and disposal), most of the
weaknesses and conditions were found to be already covered by controls in numerous DOE
Directives and external regulations, especially those concerning safety during operations. In
addition, the analysis also confirmed that, although treatment is a separate management step
taken with waste and was evaluated as a distinct function, disposal technologies and
requirements are the primary driving force behind the need for treatment and the type of
treatment. Except for some hazardous waste requirements based on RCRA, (e.g., certain
constituents must be destroyed), the desire for an improved waste form behavior after disposal is
usually the reason for treating waste. There may also be a need for reduced volumes to minimize
the amount of disposal capacity utilized, but this is likewise, a disposal requirement driving the
need for treatment. Additionally, the hazards and requirements analysis resulted in identifying
characteristics of radioactive waste that are unsuitable for long-term storage. These wastes
require treatment prior to their acceptance for storage.
Thus, the controls that must be implemented at a treatment facility in addition to those
concerning operations address the waste forms resulting from the treatment process. Several
objectives may be achieved through treatment such as enhancing the waste form, rendering waste
suitable for storage, reducing disposal waste volumes, minimizing the number of transportation
shipments, enhancing the monitorability of waste disposal facilities, or minimizing the long-term
risks to the public and the environment from waste disposal. This requirement basically forms
an umbrella performance-oriented requirement that requires that treatment technologies used
must protect the public, workers, and the environment. The treatment and waste form
requirements in each of the specific waste-type chapters must also be complied with to treat
radioactive waste successfully in accordance with DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by the issuance of a radioactive waste
management basis for a treatment facility that demonstrates that the public, workers, and the
environment will be protected from the hazards inherent in the treatment facility. The
radioactive waste management basis will ensure that waste form requirements for the resultant
treated waste will be met in addition to the safety and environmental protection objectives of this
requirement.
Specific requirements for treatment are in Chapter II, High-Level Waste; Chapter III,
Transuranic Waste; and Chapter IV, Low-Level Waste of the Manual. Guidance on those
requirements can be found in the sections of this document corresponding to the treatment
requirements for each waste type.
Supplemental References: None. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(15) Disposal. Ensuring radioactive waste is disposed in a manner that protects
the public, workers, and the environment and in accordance with a
radioactive waste management basis. Reviewing specific transuranic or low-level waste documentation including the performance assessment and
composite analysis, or appropriate CERCLA documentation, prior to
forwarding them to Headquarters for approval, and obtaining and ensuring
the facility is operated in accordance with the disposal authorization
statement. Conducting performance assessment and composite analysis
maintenance.
Objective:
The objectives of this requirement are to ensure that: (1) transuranic waste is disposed so there is
a reasonable expectation that the disposal standards in 40 CFR Part 191 will be met; (2) and
low-level waste is disposed so that there is a reasonable expectation that the performance
objectives of Chapter IV of DOE M 435.1-1 will be met. The objectives are also to ensure that
the performance assessment for a transuranic waste disposal facility and the performance
assessment and composite analysis for a low-level waste disposal facility are technically
adequate, logical, complete, and defensible for establishing the controls on disposal of waste for
protection of the public, and the environment into the future. Lastly, the objectives are to ensure
that data are collected and studies conducted to verify these analyses and that they are updated
whenever necessary.
Discussion:
The safety and hazard analysis for management of radioactive waste that was conducted to
develop the essential requirements for DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 indicated that disposal
is a critical activity requiring controls because disposal is the last function in managing waste,
yet the potential hazards from radioactive waste continue into the future. There are specific
requirements for disposal of radioactive waste included in the DOE M 435.1-1 to ensure the
protection of the public, workers, and environment. The analyses conducted in the performance
assessment for a transuranic or a low-level waste disposal facility, and the composite analysis for
a low-level waste disposal facility, are critical in determining the nature and extent of the
controls that need to be put in place. The review and approval of these evaluations is important
for the management of radioactive waste to ensure it is being conducted safely and effectively.
This responsibility is placed with senior management in the Office of Environmental
Management (see Section I.2.E.(1)).
Even more important is the implementation of the controls that are deemed necessary as a result
of these evaluations. The radioactive waste management basis is intended to coordinate
implementation of the necessary controls for disposal of radioactive waste, the performance
assessment and composite analysis, and related documents that are based on the evaluations in
them (e.g., waste acceptance). These analyses and the controls derived from them form the core
of the radioactive waste management basis for a disposal facility. Additional guidance can be
found in the guidance on the requirement for a Radioactive Waste Management Basis (Section
I.2.F.(2)).
DOE M 435.1-1 gives the Field Element Manager responsibility for disposing of radioactive
waste safely, reviewing the performance assessment (and composite analysis if applicable) for
radioactive waste disposal facilities under his/her authority, submitting the evaluations to
Headquarters for review and approval, and ensuring that the evaluations in the performance
assessment and composite analysis are maintained. The discussions that follow provide guidance
on the above requirement for review of the documents and submittal to Headquarters. DOE M
435.1-1, Section I.2.E.(1) contains the requirements of Headquarters for review and approval of
the performance assessment and composite analysis. In order to achieve the safe disposal of
waste, the Field Element Manager is responsible for implementing the controls in the radioactive
waste management basis documentation, which includes the performance assessment, composite
analysis, and disposal authorization statement.
Disposal of Transuranic Waste (not at WIPP). In cases where the Department disposes of
transuranic waste in a facility other than WIPP (e.g., Greater Confinement Disposal at the
Nevada Test Site), the Department is currently responsible for determining compliance with 40
CFR Part 191, and ensuring the transuranic waste is disposed of safely. The requirement
includes the responsibility for ensuring safe disposal of transuranic waste disposed at a facility
other than WIPP, and reviewing performance assessments for any transuranic waste disposal
facility, including WIPP, before submittal to Headquarters. Since performance assessment is
defined, and the requirements for compliance and what must be included in a performance
assessment for a transuranic waste disposal facility are fully discussed in 40 CFR Part 191, the
transuranic waste chapter only contains reference to the 40 CFR Part 191 standards, with no
additional minimum requirements for disposal. Guidance on the transuranic waste disposal
requirements at Section III.P should be consulted for additional discussions.
Safe and Environmentally Sound Disposal of Low-Level Waste. DOE M 435.1-1 contains
requirements that must be met for the siting, design, operations, closure, and maintenance of
DOE low-level waste disposal facilities. Achieving the goals of protecting the public, workers,
and the environment from the potential hazards of disposal of low-level waste requires linking
the functions of design, siting, operation, closure, and maintenance to the performance
assessment objectives of DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.P.(1), taking into consideration the waste
and radionuclides to be disposed. It is the Field Element Manager's responsibility to link these
critical functions for control of low-level waste disposal facilities to the performance assessment
and composite analysis evaluations, and to determine the level of controls within each of these
functions that need to be imposed to continue to achieve the low-level waste disposal facility
performance objectives. This responsibility is embodied in the concept of a radioactive waste
management basis for a disposal facility. The linkage between the controls on these operational
functions of the disposal facility and the evaluations in the performance assessment and
composite analysis forms the critical components of the radioactive waste management basis for
the facility. An important aspect of this linkage is the incorporation of changes in disposal
facility operations, closure, monitoring, waste acceptance criteria, or other low-level waste
management functions by the implementation of the conditions spelled out in the disposal
authorization statement from Headquarters.
Example: The Field Element Manager for the Site R Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility
approves the radioactive waste management basis for the disposal facility. He has
thoroughly reviewed the performance assessment, disposal authorization statement,
preliminary closure and monitoring plans, quality assurance plan, performance
assessment maintenance procedure, and training manual. He also has a thorough
understanding of the relationship of the controls described in the procedures and
manuals, and of the results of the evaluation explained in the performance assessment
and the conclusions of Headquarters documented in the disposal authorization statement.
Section IV.P. contains the detailed requirements for disposal of low-level waste, and design,
siting, maintenance, closure, and operations of a low-level waste disposal facility. More
discussion on safe disposal of low-level waste, and the link between disposal operational
functions and the performance assessment, composite analysis, and the disposal authorization
statement, appears in the guidance on Chapter IV.
Reviewing and Submitting Low-Level Waste Performance Assessments and Composite
Analyses. It is the responsibility of the Field Element Manager to submit the performance
assessment and composite analysis to Headquarters for review. Chapter IV of the DOE M 435.1-1 contains the detailed requirements for performance assessments and composite analyses for a
low-level waste disposal facility. More guidance appears on this subject in the guidance on
Chapter IV. DOE G 435.1-1, Format and Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses (under
preparation), will provide details on the format and content of performance assessments and
composite analyses. Preparers need to follow that guidance document to ensure that complete
information is included.
Prior to submitting these documents to Headquarters for review, the Field Element Manager
reviews them to ensure they are complete and consistent with planned disposal facility operations
and use. An independent organization or group may review these documents to assist the Field
Element Manager in ensuring that all manual requirements identified have been properly
addressed. This review process will ensure that once the document is submitted to DOE
Headquarters it will not be determined to be deficient in content. It also enables the responsible
organization to obtain an independent opinion on the technical adequacy and defensibility of the
information presented.
Example: Prior to submittal to Headquarters for review and approval, the performance
assessment and composite analysis are reviewed against the Standard Format and
Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility
Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses by two former members of the DOE
Peer Review Panel, funded by the appropriate Field Element Manager. Consideration of
their comments results in a more complete and technically defensible evaluation.
The performance assessments and/or composite analyses are submitted to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Waste Management, unless the facility being evaluated is an onsite low-level waste
management unit being developed under CERCLA. In the case of a CERCLA onsite low-level
waste management facility, documentation including a crosswalk from CERCLA to DOE O
435.1 (see Section I.2.E) and a separate composite analysis if one is prepared, are submitted to
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration. For CERCLA onsite low-level
waste management facilities, the Standard Format and Content Guide, DOE G 435.1-1, should
be consulted and implemented in the development of the CERCLA documentation to ensure that
adequate analysis is included to demonstrate compliance with the DOE O 435.1 and DOE M
435.1-1 (see guidance on DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(5)).
Low-Level Waste Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis Maintenance. Once
authorized to operate, a low-level waste disposal facility may be in operation for many years.
Uncertainties may exist in certain aspects of the technical decisions when assumptions were
made during the performance assessment and the composite analysis. Additionally, information
about waste receipts and knowledge concerning the disposal facility environs could change.
Therefore, DOE M 435.1-1 requirements include maintaining the performance assessment and
composite analysis through regular collection of data and studies designed to reduce
uncertainties, and a regular schedule of evaluations to update the analysis. It is the responsibility
of the Field Element Manager to ensure these requirements are carried out. DOE M 435.1-1
Chapter IV contains the detailed requirements for maintenance of the performance assessment
and composite analysis for a low-level waste disposal facility. Also, DOE G 435.1-3,
Maintenance Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility
Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses (under preparation), will provide guidance on
performing the critical function of keeping these important analyses updated.
Example: The Field Element Manager with responsibility over a low-level waste
disposal facility at Site A issues a procedure, in accordance with Site A Manual WM-100-5, mandating performance assessment and composite analysis maintenance that follows
the guidance in DOE G 435.1-3, Maintenance Guide for U.S. Department of Energy
Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated through the low-level waste disposal facility
documentation, that shows the siting, design, operation, closure, and maintenance of the facility
are linked to the evaluations in the performance assessment and composite analysis, and that
these documents have been properly submitted to Headquarters for review in accordance with
guidance in DOE G 435.1-1, Format and Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses. Additionally,
the documentation demonstrates that a program/process has been put in place for conducting
performance assessment and composite analysis maintenance in accordance with DOE 435.1-3,
Maintenance Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility
Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1999. Format and Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste
Disposal Facility Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses (in preparation),
DOE G 435.1-1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1999.
2. DOE, 1999. Maintenance Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste
Disposal Facility Performance Assessments and Composite Analyses. (in preparation),
DOE G 435.1-3, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1999.
3. EPA, 1985. "Final rule; 40 CFR Part 191, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards
for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic
Radioactive Wastes," Federal Register, Vol 50, No. 182, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., September 19, 1985.
4. EPA, 1993. "Final rule; Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the
Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic
Radioactive Wastes," Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 242, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., December 20, 1993.
5. DOE, 1996. Interim Format and Content Guide, and Standard Review Plan for U.S.
Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessments,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., October 1996.
6. DOE, 1996. Maintenance of US Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Performance
Assessments, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., September 1996. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(16) Monitoring. Ensuring monitoring is conducted for all radioactive waste
management facilities as required. Ensuring that disposal facilities are
monitored, as appropriate, for compliance with conditions of the disposal
authorization statement.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that all monitoring is conducted as required,
including monitoring of storage, treatment, and disposal facilities with respect to key parameters
and conditions of their authorization statements.
Discussion:
The safety and hazard analysis identified that monitoring for releases of radiation and radioactive
material to the environment was an especially important mitigating factor for potential
weaknesses and conditions in radioactive waste management. The requirements analysis
concluded that the environmental monitoring programs and plans, as required by DOE 5400.1,
General Environmental Protection Program; and DOE 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the
Public and Environment, implemented monitoring that would address the kinds of concerns
evaluated in the analysis.
However, monitoring of disposed radioactive waste, because it must remain effective for a long
time period following cessation of operations, presents a unique challenge. Additional
monitoring of low-level waste disposal facilities is addressed in DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.R.
Implementation guidance for those requirements should be consulted for information on
incorporating additional low-level waste disposal facility performance monitoring into the
environmental monitoring program and plans already required to be in compliance with the
subject DOE Orders on environmental monitoring.
Additionally, while the general environmental monitoring program and the environmental
monitoring plans mandated by these DOE Orders are adequate for most circumstances, they were
judged to not be sufficient in requiring identification of specific warning signs of impending
conditions that would lead to releases, especially for storage of liquid low-level waste. DOE M
435.1-1, Sections IV.R.(1) and IV.R.(2) address these aspects of additional monitoring for low-level waste facilities. Also, the environmental monitoring requirements did not sufficiently
address monitoring of the performance of a low-level waste disposal facility, for identification of
specific signs that assumptions made in evaluations of the facility (i.e., performance assessment)
were incorrect or for warning signs of conditions that should be addressed in a timely fashion to
prevent conditions that were not evaluated. DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.R.(3) addresses
additional monitoring needed for low-level waste disposal facilities.
Additionally, through the conduct of safety analyses, whether they are formal safety analysis
reports or auditable safety analyses, facility personnel identify the quantity and form of
radioactive and/or hazardous material to be handled at the facility and the operations for
managing the waste. The safety analysis establishes a basis for defining the acceptable
operations envelope for the facility, and provides the basis for technical safety requirements
(TSRs). The technical safety requirements may include requirements for monitoring. Review of
the safety analysis will determine if the analyses indicate other monitoring that would be prudent.
The DOE M 435.1-1 requirement states that it is the responsibility of the Field Element Manager
to ensure that monitoring is conducted for all radioactive waste management facilities as
required, including ensuring that disposal facilities are monitored, as appropriate, for compliance
with conditions of the disposal authorization statement.
The requirements for monitoring low-level waste disposal facilities are additional requirements
beyond the Chapter I requirements which are applicable to all facilities. Site-specific
performance assessments and composite analyses are required for all low-level waste disposal
facilities by DOE M 435.1-1, Sections IV.P. (2) and (3). These documents have the purpose of
evaluating the long-term performance of the disposal facility and providing reasonable assurance
that the performance objectives for low-level waste disposal are met. Assessments of the long-term performance of natural systems often have large uncertainties, and include many
assumptions of the behavior of natural systems over extended periods of time. The performance
assessment and composite analysis of a disposal system identifies these uncertainties and
assumptions along with the results. An effective way to verify assumptions, reduce uncertainties,
and build confidence in the results and conclusions of the performance assessment and composite
analysis is to monitor the performance of the disposal facility.
Thus, the performance assessment and composite analysis are used as primary tools for
establishing the monitoring plan to collect data to develop an understanding of the actual
performance of the disposal facility. The performance assessment and composite analysis should
provide sufficient information to identify the important migration pathways for the transport of
radionuclides, primary mobile radiological and chemical constituents, logical monitoring
locations, monitoring parameters, and sampling frequencies.
With respect to long-term performance of the low-level waste disposal facility to ensure the
performance objectives are met, monitoring data are reviewed periodically against the action
levels contained in the monitoring plan (see guidance on DOE M 435.1-1, Section IV.R.(3)(c)).
This review is conducted routinely throughout the operational, closure and post-closure periods
of the facility to evaluate the performance of the facility as compared to the results contained in
the performance assessment and composite analysis, detect trends in the performance of the
facility sufficiently in advance to allow for necessary corrective actions, and to provide
justification for changes in the monitoring plan for the facility. Additional guidance on this
aspect of monitoring data evaluation is provided with the discussion of Section IV.R.(3)(c).
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated if monitoring plans are developed, approved,
maintained, and implemented throughout the life cycle of the facilities.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1988. General Environmental Protection Program, DOE 5400.1, U.S. Department
of Energy, Washington, D.C., November 9, 1988.
2. DOE, 1990. Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environmental, DOE 5400.5,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1990.
3. NRC, 1989. Environmental Monitoring of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Facility, NUREG-1388, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 1989.
4. NRC, 1983. Subsurface Monitoring Programs at Sites for Disposal of Low-Level
Radioactive Waste, NUREG/CR-3164, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (by U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station), Washington, D.C., 1983.
5. DOE, 1990. Environmental Monitoring for Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites: Low-Level
Management Handbook Series, Revision 2, DOE/LLW-13Tg, U.S. Department of
Energy, National Low-Level Waste Management Program, Idaho Falls, ID, 1990.
6. DOE, 1991. Environmental Regulatory Guide for Radiological Monitoring and
Environmental Surveillance, DOE/EH-0173T, U.S. Department of Energy, 1991.
7. DOE, 1981. A Guide for Environmental Radiological Surveillance at U.S. Department of
Energy Installations, DOE/EP-0023, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.,
1981.
8. NRC, 1979. Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal
Operations)--Effluent Streams and the Environment, Regulatory Guide 4.15, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., February 1979.
9. DOE, 1986. Experience and Improved Techniques in Radiological Environmental
Monitoring at Major DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal Sites, DOE/LLW-54T, U.S.
Department of Energy, National Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program,
Idaho Falls, ID, 1986. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(17) Material and Waste Declassification for Waste Management. Ensuring, to
the extent practical, radioactive material and waste generated under a
program that is classified for national security reasons is declassified or
rendered suitable for unclassified radioactive waste management.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to reduce unnecessary management costs and maintain
national security by ensuring that radioactive material and waste is, as practical, declassified
and managed as unclassified waste.
Discussion:
Some radioactive waste is the product of activities that are classified for national security reasons
and therefore the waste may require special handling and protection. The waste may be any
classified substance regardless of its form, e.g., fabricated or processed items, machinery, or
equipment which inherently contains sensitive information. It may be classified for a variety of
reasons such as dimensions, configuration, potential for reverse engineering to determine its
function, or radionuclide content.
The management of classified radioactive waste could be more costly and difficult than
unclassified waste. The Department has an ongoing effort to declassify or sanitize classified
material including waste. Declassification of waste was a requirement in the management of
transuranic waste in the previous order on Radioactive Waste Management. In reviewing
requirements for inclusion in DOE M 435.1-1, it was realized that declassification/sanitization is
a sound management practice that needs to be applied across all waste types. Declassification or
sanitization of radioactive material that will become waste can enhance efficient and cost
effective management of radioactive waste since it allows the Department to avoid the security
costs associated with classified material.
Declassification means a determination by an appropriate authority that information, documents,
or material no longer require protection against unauthorized disclosure for national security
reasons. At one time, many alloys were considered classified, however, as a result of the
Department's Openness Initiative, the Director of Security Affairs has determined that some of
these alloys no longer require protection as classified information and has declassified them. The
information remains the same, but it no longer requires security protection.
In contrast, sanitization means the irreversible modification or destruction of a component or part
of a component of a nuclear weapon, device, trainer, or test assembly as necessary to prevent
revealing classified or otherwise controlled information. Figure I.2.F.I provides a description of
the declassification and sanitization process:
Figure I.2.F.1. Flow Diagram for Declassifying or Sanitizing Material for Waste Management Example 1: As a result of weapons disassembly, components that are made of a
classified alloy have become excess. Some of these components are contaminated by
radioactivity. The custodian of the component believes that the alloy no longer warrants
protection in the interest of national security. The custodian proposes to the Office of
Declassification, that the alloy be declassified. The decision is made that the alloy no
longer needs to be classified and it is declassified. The component is handled as
unclassified excess material and an evaluation made to determine if it has any future
programmatic value. The result of that analysis leads to the conclusion that the
components are radioactive waste so they are treated, stored, and disposed without
classified controls. Since the alloy has been declassified, future decisions concerning
components made of it may be made by a Derivative Declassifier.
Example 2: As a result of weapons disassembly, a component whose shape is classified is
being excessed. It can be sanitized by melting it into another shape or by pulverizing it,
thus destroying the information that needs to be protected. The component can be
handled as unclassified excess material, or if determined to be a radioactive waste, it can
be treated, stored, or disposed without classified controls.
Material that is classified and can be declassified or sanitized should be handled in accordance
with current classification guidance. However, certain classified material, once it is determined
to be of no future programmatic use (i.e., waste), cannot be declassified or sanitized, and thus, is
ultimately disposed of in a classified disposal site.
Example: A radioactive material has been determined to be of no future use due to
advances in technology and is therefore determined to be a radioactive waste. The
characteristics of the radioactive contamination i.e., the level of enrichment, requires
protection to preclude revealing sensitive weapons information. As a waste classified
which cannot be decontaminated, the waste must be afforded security protection and
ultimately disposed of in a classified disposal site.
Classified waste is to be minimized whenever practical to reduce costs and increase efficiency in
waste management programs. Decisions to continue to manage a waste as classified need to be
based on careful consideration of requirements in the areas of environment, safety and health,
safeguards and security, proliferation, and of total cost factors.
If waste can be declassified or economically sanitized, it can be disposed of in conventional
facilities not requiring special protection and it avoids the cost of security during transport.
Declassifying or sanitizing waste also preserves capacity in classified disposal facilities for that
waste that cannot be declassified or sanitized.
Example: A facility has a classified waste. The facility's manager analyzes the options
for managing the waste and discovers that it cannot be declassified, but can be sanitized.
However, the treatment required in order to sanitize it would equal or exceed the cost of
the necessary protections during transportation and disposal of the classified waste, with
no increase in the protection of workers, the public, or the environment and no
significant reduction in security or proliferation concerns. Therefore, the manager
decides that the waste need not be sanitized and that use of a classified disposal facility is
appropriate.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by documented determinations that waste has
been declassified or sanitized or by documented evaluations that support maintaining the
classification for either national security or economic reasons.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1998. Identifying Classified Information , DOE M 475.1-1, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1998.
2. Classified National Security Information, Executive Order 12958, Washington, D.C.,
April 17, 1995. I.2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(18) Waste Incidental to Reprocessing. Ensuring that waste incidental to
reprocessing determinations are made by either the "citation" or
"evaluation" process as described in Chapter II of this Manual. Ensuring
consultation and coordination with the Office of Environmental Management
for waste determined to be incidental to reprocessing through the
"evaluation" process.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that the processes and responsibilities for making
waste incidental to reprocessing determinations are understood and implemented.
Discussion:
As discussed in Section II.B, Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, there are certain waste streams
that may be generated during the management of high-level waste that may not have to be
managed as high-level waste and therefore can be managed as another type (transuranic or low-level waste). To make such determinations, DOE M 435.1-1 establishes two processes, the
citation process and the evaluation process. These are described in detail in Section II.B. In
addition, Section II.A, Definition of High-Level Waste, provides assistance in determining
whether a waste stream should be classified as high-level waste.
Determinations. To meet the first part of the requirement, the Field Element Manager, or
designee, needs to establish a process or method that documents waste incidental to reprocessing
decisions. Such a method is required by the evaluation process (see Section II.B.(2)) and is
recommended for the citation process, although not required. While the level of formality of the
process is left to the discretion of site management, the following elements are considered
necessary:
1. Organization and Responsibilities: Identification of the site organizations that are
responsible for formulating and approving the determinations.
2. Procedures: The process is formalized in procedures, including a requirement
confirming the determination process has been followed correctly.
3. Quality Assurance: The determination process is subject to a quality assurance
program that ensures the validity of the information used to make the
determinations.
4. Document/Record Control: The principal documents that constitute the
documentation of the determination process are controlled and retained.
5. Training: At a minimum, the process requires training of personnel that will
implement the process (e.g., procedures, quality assurance program, document
control).
The above elements have been recommended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
(Bernero, 1993), and adopted by DOE, as good practices for performing and documenting waste
incidental to reprocessing determinations. Invoking existing programs (e.g., quality assurance
program) and processes (e.g., document control) to implement the waste incidental to
reprocessing determination process is appropriate. Additionally, site management may conclude
that instead of making determinations for individual waste streams, it may be cost effective to
establish categories of wastes that meet the citation and the evaluation process requirements and
therefore avoid a determination for each candidate waste.
Example: At Site X, management of the high-level waste tank farm involves periodic
sampling and analysis of tank contents. When taking these samples, operations
personnel generate job wastes, including protective clothing, work tools, and personnel
protective equipment. In implementing the Site's "Citation Determination Process," a
determination is made that such job wastes are not high-level waste. The Site's
procedures for making citation process (waste incidental to reprocessing) determinations
requires that an initial documented determination is necessary for each waste stream.
However, following this determination, and with the appropriate documentation and
approvals, e.g., a basis for concluding the waste stream meets the citation criteria,
similar wastes can be considered to be non-high level waste by inclusion within this
determination. Thus, future generation of similar wastes from similar activities do not
have to be subjected to the citation determination process if it can be shown that they fit
within the existing determination.
Citation Process. The Field Element Manager, using the process described in Section II.B.(1), is
responsible for determining if a waste meets the citation process requirements. While not
required, it is recommended that the process described for the evaluation process be implemented
for the citation process as well. These elements are considered important to making defensible
and consistent citation determinations and would be valuable if such determinations are
questioned or challenged.
Guidance for Section II.B.(1), Citation, provides information and examples of the types of wastes
and waste streams that have been considered to be non-high-level waste by use of the citation
process. However, it is emphasized that these are examples only, and it is the Field Element
Manager's responsibility to make, and defend, citation process determinations. While challenges
to these determinations are not expected, prudence suggests that a process similar to that required
for the evaluation process (see below) be considered for the citation process by site management.
In addition, consultation and coordination with the DOE Office of Environmental Management
to support consistent interpretations of citation determinations is encouraged.
Evaluation Process. As noted in the guidance to Section II.B.(2), Evaluation, waste incidental to
reprocessing determinations using the evaluation process require the involvement of two
organizations: the program (site) management responsible for the management of the high-level
waste (includes the Field Element Manager, or designee) and the DOE Office of Environmental
Management (DOE EM). In using the evaluation process, the elements described under
Determinations above need to be implemented to ensure that the requirements of Section II.B.(2)
are met. These requirements are met by the use of good record-keeping practices, with an
adequate quality assurance process, and documented to support the determination(s). The
documentation is prepared in a manner that defends and supports the conclusions and provides
adequate information to support outside organizations' review and approval. During the
preparation of the determination package, the Field Element Manager is responsible for ensuring
it is coordinated with the Office of Environmental Management, to ensure consistency of
evaluation determinations between DOE sites. At the time of the preparation of this guidance the
office within the Office of Environmental Management that is responsible for fulfilling this
consultation role is the Office of Waste Management.
As discussed in the guidance to Section II.B, it is recommended that groups of waste streams or
waste items that have similar characteristics, or will require similar processing/treatment, be
grouped within one evaluation process analysis in lieu of preparing/submitting analysis for
individual waste streams or waste items. Such grouping is expected to be possible and avoid
duplication of preparation and review efforts by Site and the Office of Environmental
Management personnel and expedite management of the wastes. In addition, grouping the waste
streams promotes the best use of resources at both the DOE site level and the Office of
Environmental Management and reduces the number of determinations that need to be processed.
NRC Role in Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Determinations. In September 1998 the DOE
General Counsel (Letter, Mary Anne Sullivan to John T. Greeves, NRDC Petition, September
30, 1998) concluded, in response to a Natural Resources Defense Council Petition, that the NRC
has no licensing authority over the 51 high-level waste tanks at the Savannah River Site. This
conclusion was based on the following summary statement:
"Section 202(4) of the ERA (Energy Reorganization Act) gives the NRC licensing
authority over DOE facilities authorized for the express purpose of subsequent long-term
storage of high level radioactive waste generated by [DOE and its predecessor agencies].'
As explained in greater detail in the discussion below, this statutory language, the
legislative history and governing case law establish that this licensing authority exists
only with respect to facilities that are (i) authorized by Congress for the express purpose
of long-term storage of HLW and (ii) developed and constructed after the passage of the
ERA. None of the SRS tanks have been authorized for the express purpose of long-term
storage of HLW and only 18 of the newer tanks were constructed after the passage of the
ERA. As a result, NRC has no licensing authority over the SRS tanks."
From this determination DOE has taken the position in DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 that,
unless determined otherwise, NRC does not have licensing authority over DOE's current high-level waste tanks and the waste contained in them. While it is acknowledged that similar
determinations have not been made for the high-level waste tanks at Hanford, INEEL, and West
Valley and that Departmental decisions in the future could change this position, it is believed that
the approach defined in the Order and Manual is reasonable for all DOE-managed high-level
waste. It should be noted, however, that the West Valley Demonstration Project Act specifies a
review and consultation responsibility for the NRC which may include oversight of the high-level waste tanks. If this position changes, i.e., it is determined that the NRC has regulatory
authority over some of the high-level waste tanks within the DOE complex, the requirements in
Sections II.B. and I.2.F.(18) will be revised accordingly.
The Waste Incidental to Reprocessing requirement in Section II.B and the requirement in Section
I.2.F.(18) support the position that formal involvement by NRC in making incidental waste
determinations is not required. However, NRC involvement as a consultant to Field Offices and
Programs on technical issues, is recommended, particularly for those waste streams that are
expected to be controversial or contentious with other regulators or stakeholders. The NRC staff
has conducted several reviews recently on compliance with criteria similar to the evaluation
requirements in Section II.B.(2) and thus possess a level of expertise that is expected to
complement the Field Office and DOE Office of Environmental Management reviews.
Example: Site X anticipates removing and disposing of many contaminated mixers/pumps
and instrument trees from high-level waste tanks in the next few years. Characterization
data and past experience in handling and disposing of this equipment indicate that the
contamination levels, following decontamination activities, will likely allow these pieces
of equipment to be managed and disposed as low-level waste, assuming they can meet the
evaluation requirements under the DOE M 435.1-1, Waste Incidental to Reprocessing,
Section II.B.(2). Plans over the next three years for removal and disposal of this
equipment are reviewed and used to prepare the analysis required by Section II.B.(2).
The decision is to use the most conservative (highest) contamination levels expected for
this grouping of contaminated equipment for the three-year period to avoid continual
preparation/review of separate evaluations. The analysis is prepared and concludes that
the evaluation process requirements at Section II.B.(2)(a) 1., 2., and 3., can be met, and
therefore, these waste items qualify for management as low-level waste. This analysis is
prepared under Site X's quality assurance program, is coordinated with the Office of
Waste Management, and is reviewed and approved by Site X waste management
personnel in accordance with Site X procedures. During preparation of the analysis, the
NRC is requested by Site X management to review and provide their position on the
adequacy of the performance assessment prepared to meet the requirement in Section
II.B.(2)(a)2. Following this review and the Site X's review and acceptance, the Site X
High-Level Waste Program Manager approves the determination allowing these wastes,
as defined in the determination, to be managed and disposed as low-level waste for the
next three years without further review. The analysis and results of the determinations
are incorporated into the facility's safety documentation and a copy is provided to the
Office of Waste Management.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by developing and implementing a process for
documenting waste incidental to reprocessing determinations as specified in Section II.B.
Specific to the evaluation process, the documentation includes analysis that supports the
conclusions reached, as well as DOE Office of Environmental Management concurrence, that the
waste meets the evaluation requirements in Section II.B of DOE M 435.1-1.
Supplemental References:
1. Bernero, 1993. R. Bernero, USNRC, to J. Lytle, DOE-EM, letter, Hanford Waste Tank
Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., March 2, 1993.
2. Paperiello, 1997. C. Paperiello, USNRC, to J. Kinzer, DOE-RL, letter, Classification of
Hanford Low-Activity Tank Waste Fraction, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, June 9, 1997.
3. Sullivan, 1998. Mary Anne Sullivan, DOE General Counsel, to John T. Greeves,
Director, Division of Waste Management, USNRC, letter, Natural Resources Defense
Council Petition to Exercise Licensing Authority over Savannah River Site High-Level
Waste Tanks, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, September 30, 1998.
4. West Valley Demonstration Project Act, as amended, October 1, 1980. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(19) Waste with No Identified Path to Disposal. Ensuring a process is developed
and implemented for identifying the generation of radioactive waste with no
identified path to disposal, and reviewing and approving conditions under
which radioactive waste with no identified path to disposal may be generated.
Headquarters shall be notified of the decisions to generate a waste with no
path to disposal.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to bring issues associated with generating waste with no
identified path to disposal to the attention of appropriate DOE managers before the waste is
generated to resolve the problems that will prevent it from being disposed, to ensure that the
waste has appropriate long-term safe storage until it can be disposed, and to minimize the
generation of waste with no path to disposal.
Discussion:
The Complex-Wide Review of DOE Low-Level Waste ES&H Vulnerabilities conducted in
response to Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 94-2 identified storage of
low-level waste with no identified path forward to disposal as a major complex-wide
vulnerability. DOE M 435.1-1 addresses this vulnerability in several ways. The Safety and
Hazards Analysis conducted as part of the preparation of DOE O 435.1 also identified significant
weaknesses and risks associated with wastes being generated with no path to disposal for all
radioactive waste types, particularly weaknesses associated with long-term storage of waste,
potential loss of characterization data from generators, and the problems associated with re-characterization.
This requirement is intended to cover newly generated waste streams. Waste streams generated
in the past with no path to disposal which are now in storage should be addressed in the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program required by DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(1).
(See discussion entitled, Relationship to Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program.)
Waste streams without a path to disposal that currently are being generated are also to be
addressed by the Site-Wide Management Program. A periodic evaluation of whether no path to
disposal waste should continue to be generated should be included in the management plans for
this waste. This evaluation should consider the same conditions for approval for continuing to
generate the waste stream that are described below under Conditions for Review and Approval.
If a facility that currently generates no path forward waste is shutdown, or for any other reasons a
no path forward waste stream is temporarily not being generated, consideration should be given
to including those wastes in the identification, approval, and notification process described in this
section of the guidance.
Example 1: All transuranic and low-level waste streams to be generated from the New
Mixed Waste Treatment Facility at Site X, scheduled to begin operations three years after
issuance of DOE O 435.1, are all considered new waste streams. A full life-cycle
planning process is applied to all waste from the facility to identify potential disposition
issues and approve its generation.
Example 2: A filter system in Building 440 at Site Y is changed out four months after
issuance of the Order. The resultant filter process waste is mixed low-level waste.
Change out of the filter media has occurred repeatedly in the past, and the mixed low-level waste is in storage awaiting a disposal path. This is not considered a new waste
stream and is not included in the Site's procedures for identification of potential no path
forward waste, for approval, and for HQ notification. However, it is described in the
Site's Waste Management Program documentation, along with the steps being taken to
achieve disposal. The Site's program documentation also includes an evaluation of the
need to continue to generate this no path forward waste.
Example 3: One year after issuance of the Order, Building 440 is shutdown for major
upgrades, and does not resume operation for 18 months. When operations are resumed,
all waste streams, including the existing filter media waste, will be included in the
identification process and the waste stream generation will be in accordance with the
approval process established by the Field Element Manager.
By requiring Field Element Managers to be involved with the decisions for generating wastes
without a path to disposal prior to waste generation, and notifying Headquarters of the decisions
to generate waste without a path to disposal prior to generation, senior management attention is
directed to the long-term commitment made with the generation of such waste. The long-term
commitment comes from the prolonged storage of the waste and from the work necessary to
resolve issues which prohibit the disposal of the wastes.
The requirement calls for the Field Element Manager to ensure that three items are established in
the programs implemented by waste generators (see DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(7)): (1) a
process for identifying the generation of no path forward waste prior to its generation, (2)
approved conditions under which no path forward to disposal waste may be generated, and (3) a
process for notifying appropriate Headquarters management of decisions to generate no path
forward waste. Each of these three items is discussed in the following guidance.
No Path Forward Identification Process. The first part of the requirement is directly related to
the general requirement calling for the Field Element Manager to ensure generation planning is
occurring by all generators (DOE M 435.1-1, Section I.2.F.(7)), and to the subrequirement in
each waste type chapter that requires generator planning to include life-cycle planning for all
wastes prior to their generation (DOE M 435.1-1, Sections II.K.(1), III.H.(1), and IV.H.(1)). As
discussed previously, "prior to their generation" applies to the stage before any of the waste is
produced (e.g.,preceding the activity that will result in the waste). Therefore, this requirement is
not intended to be applied to the generation of an individual waste drum, source, box, etc.
The situations which may lead to the generation of waste without a path to disposal are many.
The life-cycle planning that is required under DOE M 435.1-1, Sections II.K.(1), III.H.(1), and
IV.H.(1) needs to include the necessary elements and components to identify the possible
generation of waste which will have no path to disposal prior to their generation and a process by
which the Field Element Manager is informed of the potential to generate the waste. This
element of the life-cycle planning required under DOE M 435.1-1 is considered very important.
No path forward waste issues and problems may be complicated and should be dealt with early in
the life cycle of the waste to prevent situations that could require expenditure of large amounts of
resources to reverse erroneous steps taken in the managing of the waste.
Example 1: The life-cycle planning process at Facility 300 includes a semi-annual
submittal by individual generators to the waste certification official of known or
suspected new waste streams (i.e, waste streams not already approved for disposal at
Site Q). The waste certification official's duties include an analysis of these waste
streams to decide if they have a path to disposal. In one such exercise, a suspected waste
stream is determined as not acceptable at disposal Site Q. The waste certification official
submits this information as required in his procedures to the DOE Field Office, Assistant
Manager for Waste Management.
Example 2: Site R has signed a Record of Decision requiring remediation of a seepage
basin by excavation and re-disposal of the contaminated soils. Contaminants include
heavy metals, organics, and radionuclides. Because the waste that will be generated
from this remedial action is a mixed low-level waste, there may be no path forward for
disposal. Therefore, Site R will prepare an analysis for consideration by the Site
Manager, regulators, and other stakeholders identifying the need to generate the waste
(the relevant compliance agreement/Record of Decision), the characteristics of the waste
to be generated (radioactive and hazardous constituents), the plans for storing the waste
after generation (a RCRA-compliant mixed low-level waste storage facility), and the
plans for identifying a disposal option for the waste.
The identification process should occur early enough before the waste is generated so that
alternatives to generating the no path forward waste can be examined as an option. Also,
notification of Headquarters (see guidance below on Notification to Headquarters) prior to waste
generation appropriately involves Headquarters managers into the final decisions for generation
and management of waste with no path to disposal. More detailed guidance for life-cycle
planning for generation of new waste streams is included in guidance for life-cycle planning
requirements in each of the waste type chapters (Sections II.K.(1), III.H.(1), and IV.H.(1)).
The determination of whether a waste stream has an identified path to disposal should be based
on the availability of existing or planned facilities and operations and on the technical
acceptability of the waste at the facility. A planned facility is considered to be available if it has
been authorized (e.g., a line item in a Congressional appropriation or equivalent approval for
design and construction). For purposes of planning for treatment and/or disposal of waste, a
facility or capability that is part of a program or strategic plan, but has not been authorized,
should not be considered available. A facility is also not considered available if it is not
authorized to accept or manage a particular waste type or concentration. If an available planned
facility used in life-cycle planning is canceled, the generator should revise the planning for the
life-cycle of the waste and an alternate path to disposal should be identified and documented. If
an alternate path to disposal is not available, then approval to continue to generate the waste
should be obtained in accordance with this requirement, even though it had not needed approval
when the waste was initially generated.
Example: Several no path forward waste streams generated throughout the Complex are
approved because of a planned new High-Activity Borehole Disposal Facility which has
received initial line item funding. In the FY2003 budget, Congress does not approve
further funding of the facility. The approval to continue to generate these wastes is re-examined by several Field Offices in light of this development.
Whether a path to disposal can be identified should also be based on the acceptability of the
waste at the facilities at which it must be managed. For existing facilities, this involves no more
than an evaluation of the waste stream properties against the waste acceptance requirements of
the facility and determining there are no impediments for its management. For planned facilities,
this determination is more involved. For some waste streams, the acceptability at a planned
facility could be determined based on similar circumstances already known to exist in the
Complex. This may be a common situation for wastes that do not have a full path to disposal
because of issues that are not entirely technical (e.g., non-defense transuranic waste without a
disposal option). For other waste streams, particular those with a technical impediment to
disposal, the acceptability may need to be evaluated and a judgement made that a planned facility
will be able to accept the waste provided some necessary treatment is performed (e.g., waste with
explosive properties is made non-explosive), or some administrative step is successfully
accomplished (e.g., a RCRA permit is obtained so that mixed waste can be accepted).
Example: A new project will generate 2 waste streams for which a path to disposal is
unclear. One waste stream is a typical dry active transuranic waste stream, but it is non-defense transuranic waste, therefore, planned storage at Storage Facility B followed by
disposal at the new borehole disposal facility under construction is evaluated. The waste
stream is determined to be acceptable at both facilities through a comparison to the
waste acceptance criteria for the two facilities. The second waste stream is a unique
mixed low-level waste stream that can be stored at Facility B, but for which a disposal
facility has not yet been determined. The acceptability of the waste is evaluated by
comparing it to a similar waste stream in the Site Treatment Plan (STP), and determining
that the treatment described in the STP will also work for the new waste stream.
Conditions for Review and Approval. The second part of the requirement calls for the Field
Element Manager to be involved in the decision to generate waste without a path to disposal,
prior to the generation of the waste. This requirement intends to ensure that wastes are generated
with no identified path to disposal only under approved conditions and known circumstances and
are considered to be acceptable by both the Field Managers and Headquarters. The waste type
chapters contain requirements that these conditions for generating a no path to disposal waste
stream must meet.
The review and approval of the generation of waste without a path to disposal is the
responsibility of the Field Element Manager. The approval process and approved waste streams
should be documented. In some cases, the Field Element Manager may approve the conditions
under which an individual waste stream is generated, while in other cases, he/she may approve a
process that confirms the conditions are being met, perhaps through the certification program.
The latter circumstances may be appropriate for the routine generation of waste streams having
no path forward to disposal.
Example 1: A large scale facility dismantlement is about to begin. Life-cycle planning
evaluations indicate that several large components that will be removed from the facility
cannot meet the current acceptance criteria for disposal at WIPP or at any other disposal
facility. The Field Element Manager is directly involved in exploring alternatives to the
generation of this waste, and if appropriate, approving the decision to proceed with the
dismantlement and the plans for long-term storage for the components.
Example 2: A laboratory facility on Site B routinely generates small amounts of several
mixed low-level waste streams. Prior approval to generate two of the waste streams was
necessary in accordance with the guidelines discussed here. DOE Field staff has
approved a process that includes conditions and decision criteria being implemented at
the laboratory as part of its waste certification program. The process allows laboratory
personnel to approve generation of additional mixed low-level waste streams.
The conditions for generating a waste without an identified path to disposal should include
evaluations and considerations that involve both the waste generating and waste management
organizations. Guidance on Sections II.K.(2), III.H.(2), and IV.H.(2) discusses the evaluations
that must be included in the conditions for generating a no path forward waste.
For many newly generated waste streams identified as having no path to disposal, programmatic
or technical problems and issues contributing to the lack of a disposal path may be the same as
ones already experienced by other waste streams at the site, or within the Complex. All or part
of the solution towards disposing of problem waste stream may therefore be actions being taken
or planned as part of the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Programs. Likewise, the
issues or problems may have also been elevated and are being addressed in the Complex-Wide
Waste Management Program for one of the waste types. The relationship of this General
Requirement to the requirements for the Radioactive Waste Management Programs is discussed
at the end of this guidance under Relationship to Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management
Programs.
Example: A new process at a DOE laboratory facility will result in the generation of
some non-defense transuranic waste. This is a programmatic and complex-wide issue
requiring resolution that is being addressed as a high priority item at Headquarters in
accordance with the FY 2000 Transuranic Waste Management Program Plan.
Information is prepared under the four topics (a) - (d) discussed above. The information
on plans in place to take care of the no path forward waste identifies the complex-wide
actions, and the actions being taken specifically at the site.
Notification of Headquarters. The third part of the requirement calls for the Field Element
Manager to inform DOE Headquarters of the decision to generate waste without a path to
disposal. As previously mentioned, only newly generated waste streams are subject to this
requirement. Notifications do not have to be made for wastes already generated at the time DOE
O 435.1 is issued. Documentation of approvals should be provided to the cognizant Program
Secretarial Officer (PSO) for the activity or program generating the waste, with an information
copy to the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM-1). The notification should
summarize the conditions for approval as described in the previous discussion, and should
include an expiration date for the approval or other conditions that would require a new approval
of the Field Manager. This notification should be accomplished in a timely fashion following the
identification of the potential generation of no path forward waste so that Headquarters
management is fully informed of the situation resulting in no path forward waste, and any
Headquarters management concerns can be appropriately considered and included in the final
Field Element Manager approval to generate the waste.
Example: A new waste generating process is developed that requires a waste treatment
process not currently available for the waste to be acceptable for disposal. The needed
waste treatment process has been approved, but the necessary hardware will not be
available for five years. The waste generating process is approved by the Field Element
Manager with the conditions that (a) the waste is stored in Storage Building 5, and (b)
satisfactory progress is made toward the installation of the additional waste treatment
process. The approval is documented, and sent to the PSO with an information copy to
EM-1.
Relationship to Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program. As previously discussed,
waste streams generated in the past with no path to disposal which are now in storage, and waste
streams without a path to disposal that are currently being generated are intended to be addressed
in the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Programs required by DOE M 435.1-1, Section
I.2.F.(1) (and elevated to the waste type Complex-Wide Waste Management Program, if
appropriate). Waste streams being generated when DOE O 435.1 is issued should also be
evaluated for whether they should continue to be generated. This requirement for an
identification process, approved conditions, and Headquarters notification is intended to cover
newly generated waste streams only.
Since life-cycle planning should be a major element of the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste
Management Program implemented at each site, information on waste streams generated at the
subject site is expected to be documented as part of the program in accordance with the site's
documentation protocol. It should be understood that the identification, approval, and
notification process called for in this requirement for waste streams not being generated is a
proactive part of the program, and as such, should be included in a site's operating processes or
procedures.
However, once generation of a waste stream with no path forward is approved, then it should be
included in the site's life-cycle planning program documentation so that complete waste stream
information is maintained in one place. Revisions of the Site-Wide Management Program
documents should contain appropriate actions to address new issues and problems of no path
forward waste incorporated into them especially from any waste streams not covered in prior
revisions of the documentation. Likewise, information already documented about past waste
streams with no path forward should be updated because of developments concerning new no
path forward wastes.
Example: Three new non-defense transuranic waste streams are approved and generated
at Facility 200 in FY1998. In the FY1999 Site Radioactive Waste Life-Cycle
Management Plan, these three waste streams are added to the list of previously
generated non-defense transuranic wastes that have been managed at the site for years.
The actions already documented in the current Life-Cycle Plan (FY1998) are evaluated
and considered appropriate to pursue for the new as well as previous waste streams.
This is documented, and progress on meeting the actions is updated in the FY1999 Plan.
Waste without a path to disposal which received approval in accordance with these requirements,
and which have become part of the Site-Wide Program planning information, should continue to
be observed with additional scrutiny. At a minimum, the approval to generate the wastes should
be considered annually, with the primary focus being an evaluation of the progress toward
identifying a path to disposal. Repeated or numerous one-time approvals for the generation of
waste streams without a path to disposal should not be acceptable. The Site-Wide Program
Documentation should be used as the vehicle for the evaluation and continued approval of no
path forward waste streams on an annual basis. The evaluation of waste streams with no path to
disposal should be consolidated with the annual evaluation discussed here.
Example: For the example above, the actions referred to in the Life-Cycle Plan are
updated for the FY2000 Life-Cycle Plan for the site. Progress on meeting those actions
is evaluated by a task force established by the Field Element Manager, and it is
determined that progress is adequate. This decision is documented in the FY2000 Plan
as a renewal of the approval of these three non-defense transuranic waste streams.
Major changes to the planned management of waste without a path forward (e.g., changes for
developing the treatment facility or disposal facility to handle the waste) should also result in a
re-evaluation and re-confirmation of the acceptability of continuing to generate no path forward
waste. Headquarters should be notified of changes of this magnitude. On the other hand, if the
assumptions for the planned management of approved no path forward waste are only slightly
impacted (e.g., as a result of testing, design, changes in funding, or DOE policy), the information
in the Site-Wide Program documentation should be updated. Slight changes to assumptions and
to the planned management of the waste should not necessarily be a basis for re-evaluating the
generation of the waste.
Example 1: For the three new non-defense transuranic wastes at Facility 200, the
FY2000 Life-Cycle Plan, minor changes in the actions between the FY1999 and FY2000
Life-Cycle Plans are explained in the text of the plan. These minor items include a
decision to add a peer review of one study, and a delay in the scheduled completion dates
for three actions. The text states that the approvals for continuing generation of the non-defense transuranic wastes were not evaluated because these were deemed minor items.
Example 2: Continuing example 1 above, after the FY2000 Life-Cycle Plan is issued, the
peer review convened on the study finds some of the conclusions in the study to be
invalid. This finding has a significant impact on whether the technology selected for
solidification of the non-defense transuranic waste can still be a cornerstone of the plan
for the site's no path forward waste. This is considered a major item concerning the
continuing generation of the non-defense transuranic wastes. The continuing approvals
were re-evaluated because of this item, and only two are re-approved. The FY2001
Life-Cycle Plan incorporates these new facts into its updated text.
Compliance with this requirement is achieved if the life-cycle planning implemented at generator
sites includes a documented process for identifying waste streams which may be generated that
will not have an identified path to disposal; if a documented process is included for review and
approval of the conditions for generation of the waste; if approved conditions are documented for
any new no path forward waste streams being generated; if the approvals of generation of no path
forward waste is appropriately considered in the Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management
Program documentation; and if Headquarters is being notified of the approval of and conditions
under which new no path forward waste can be generated.
Supplemental References: None. I. 2.F. Field Element Managers.
Field Element Managers are responsible for:
(20) Corrective Actions. Ensuring a process exists for proposing, reviewing,
approving, and implementing corrective actions when necessary to ensure
that the requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and
this Manual are met, and to address conditions that are not protective of the
public, workers, or the environment. The process shall allow workers,
through the appropriate level of management, to stop or curtail work when
they discover conditions that pose an imminent danger or other serious
hazard to workers or the public, or are not protective of the environment.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that processes to identify, manage, and resolve
radioactive waste management deficiencies in complying with DOE O 435.1 and address
conditions that are not protective of the public, workers or the environment are established and
implemented.
Discussion:
Corrective actions taken prior to events occurring that pose a threat to the workers, the public, or
the environment can avert serious occurrences. Actions may include improvements to
documentation (e.g., procedures, plans, authorization basis documents), training and qualification
programs or procedures, or physical and process design changes. Corrective actions routinely
occur as part of the implementation of DOE O 232.1A, Occurrence Reporting and Processing of
Operations Information (ORPS). The requirement to implement a corrective actions process in
managing radioactive waste includes those ORPS Corrective actions as well as corrective actions
initiated by circumstances that do not rise to the threshold of reportable incidents.
Potential problems range from minor ones to those which pose an immediate threat to safety and
health. Additional information on problem identification can be found in Section I.2.G.(1),
Problem Identification. For situations where a problem could pose an immediate risk to a
worker, member of the public, or damage to the environment, the immediate corrective action of
shutting an operation down may be appropriate until the threat can be controlled. Guidance on
shutting down or curtailing radioactive waste activities is provided in Section I.2.G.(2),
Shutdown or Curtailment of Activities.
The corrective action process includes problem identification and tracking through resolution;
proposal, review, and implementation of solutions, and a method for approval and assigning
accountability. Provisions need to be made for interfaces with the lessons learned program when
others could benefit from an action taken. In the corrective actions process, review and approval
by cognizant managers is necessary to assess the effectiveness of the corrective action in
eliminating the problem and preventing recurrence, its practicality, cost effectiveness, and
timeliness. Additional information on corrective action processes may be found in DOE O
232.1A, DOE-HDBK-1089-95 Guidance for Identifying, Reporting and Tracking Nuclear Safety
Noncompliances, and DOE G 452.2A-1A Implementation Guide for DOE Order 452.2A, Safety
of Nuclear Explosive Operations. These guides are specific to the topics for which they are
written, but may have generic applications adaptable for use by radioactive waste management
personnel.
Example: At the recommendation of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, the
department performed a Complex-Wide Review of DOE's Low-Level Waste Management
ES&H Vulnerabilities. Site personnel performed a self evaluation followed by an
assessment team visit. Based on the problems identified, Corrective Action Plans (CAPs)
were prepared to address both complex-wide and site specific corrective actions. These
CAPs identify and allow tracking of actions necessary to address the identified problems,
including their time lines, milestones and relative resource impacts. The staff responsible
to ensure that the corrective actions are completed are also identified. The CAPs were
reviewed and approved by senior DOE managers.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by a site corrective actions program that
addresses radioactive waste management-related occurrence reporting and processing of
operations information reports citing corrective actions taken, and by records of changes to
procedures or processes reflecting that changes were made to correct a problem.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1997. Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations Information, DOE O
232.1A, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., July 21, 1997.
2. DOE, 1995. Guidance for Identifying, Reporting and Tracking Nuclear Safety
Noncompliances, DOE-HDBK-1089-95, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.,
December 1995.
3. DOE, 1997. Implementation Guide for DOE Order 452.2A, Safety of Nuclear Explosive
Operations, DOE G 452.2A-1A, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.,
January 17, 1997. I. 2.G. All Personnel.
All personnel are responsible for:
(1) Problem Identification. Identifying and reporting radioactive waste
management facilities, operations, or activities that do not meet the
requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and this
Manual, or pose a threat to the safety of the public, workers, or the
environment.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to clearly state the responsibility and right of each individual
to identify and report unsafe conditions so that action can be taken to ensure protection of
workers, the public, and the environment.
Discussion:
During the development of DOE M 435.1-1, it was recognized that achievement of safe working
practices and conditions could be realized only if all personnel are involved and constantly
critical of activities and operations. Comprehensive worker protection programs should already
exist in compliance with DOE O 440.1A Worker Protection Management For DOE Federal And
Contractor Employees. Detailed guidance is available in the multiple guides associated with that
Order. This requirement is included in DOE M 435.1-1 to reinforce that accomplishing work
safely is critical.
Safe and environmentally sound operations are not, and cannot be, solely the responsibility of
management or safety professionals. Coordinated and integrated efforts and constant vigilance
are required. Every individual must act in the role of a safety observer. Managers are typically
accountable for the overall worker protection program, including planning and allocating
resources. Supervisors are accountable for ensuring that worker protection plans, programs, and
procedures, including hazard identification and abatement activities, are implemented on a day-to-day basis at the front line. Employee/worker accountability involves following procedures,
using safe work practices, and reporting hazards. Formal roles may vary, but everyone has the
role of identifying and reporting threats to safety.
Example 1: A subcontractor at a DOE site is performing roofing repairs in an explosives
processing area which is a non-smoking area. The subcontractor, however, has
permission to have an open flame on the roof because the work involves tar and a
hazards analysis indicated that there was no threat from the flame at that location. The
subcontractor and crew receive the standard safety briefing upon being awarded the
contract, including an explanation of the rules regulating smoking in the restricted area,
i.e. smoking is authorized only in designated areas. As a DOE employee is walking in the
area, the roofer's crew is leaving to go to lunch. The employee observes that a laborer is
smoking a cigarette in the bed of the truck. He immediately calls the security post to
have the truck stopped and security personnel inform safety and contract management
personnel to take appropriate action.
Example 2: The approved radioactive waste management basis for a storage facility
requires low level waste to be stored on concrete pads with suitable leak detection and
spill control. The facility manager has allowed two slightly corroded drums of low level
waste to be stored temporarily in a grassy area beside the pad due to a lack of storage
space on the pad. A DOE employee familiar with the radioactive waste management
basis notices the drums on the grass, and notifies his supervisor, who contacts the facility
manager about the situation. The facility manager immediately rectifies the situation by
transferring the waste to an acceptable storage pas at another facility.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by records showing what corrective actions
were taken to remedy situations in the radioactive waste management system.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1998. Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor
Employees, DOE O 440.1A, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., March 27,
1998.
2. DOE, 1997. Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor
Employees Guide for Use with DOE Order 440.1A, DOE G 440.1-1, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., July 10, 1997. (This guide has applicable standards and
guidance documents listed at the end of each chapter.)
I.2.G(2) Shutdown or Curtailment of Activities. Stopping or curtailing work,
through the appropriate level of management, to prohibit
continuation of conditions or activities which pose an imminent
danger or other serious hazard to workers or the public, or are not
protective of the environment.
Objective:
The objective of this requirement is to ensure that the operation of radioactive waste management
facilities or the performance of radioactive waste management activities is discontinued or
controls put in place if it poses an imminent danger or serious hazard to the public, workers, or
the environment.
Discussion:
The shutdown and curtailment of activities requirement complements DOE M 435.1-1,
Section I.2.G.(1), Problem Identification, and requires that the Field Element Manager has a
system in place to ensure that corrective actions are initiated when necessary. The need for
corrective actions has long been recognized in the management of radioactive waste. However,
the responsibility for individual actions was not clearly assigned. Stop work procedures, which
are not specific to radioactive waste management, are anticipated to be already in place and
workers need to be trained to those procedures. DOE O 440.1A requires that DOE elements and
contractors implement procedures to allow workers, through their supervisors, to stop work when
they discover employee exposures to imminent danger or other serious hazards. A worker has
the right to decline to perform an assigned task because of a reasonable belief that, under the
circumstances, the task poses an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm to that individual,
coupled with a reasonable belief that there is insufficient time to seek effective redress through
the normal hazard reporting and abatement procedures.
Accomplishing work safely is an important DOE goal. When a situation with an imminent
danger is discovered, immediate action must be taken either to correct the dangerous condition or
practice, or to remove all employees from exposure to the dangerous condition until the
condition or practice has been removed. Imminent danger means a situation that could
reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm unless immediate actions are
taken. This requirement to shut down or curtail activities is included in DOE M 435.1-1 to
complement DOE O 440.1A by broadening its application to include threats to the public and
environment, and to emphasize that it applies in radioactive waste management.
Any stop work authority must be exercised in a justifiable and responsible manner. All workers,
supervisors, managers, and safety professionals are responsible for being cognizant of the
conditions in their workplaces and for being prepared to stop work if conditions pose a serious
threat to health or safety, or a detriment to the environment. Hazards analyses and hazard
prevention/abatement processes result in routine hazards being controlled. This requirement is
intended to address extraordinary or unanticipated circumstances and situations where there is a
breakdown in controls. When a reasonable person views the circumstances as having the
potential to cause injury, serious impairment, harmful health effects, or serious damage to the
environment, a stop work order is to be issued. However, the full implications of what will occur
must be recognized. Any work stoppage must alleviate the hazard without creating unintended
consequences that are worse than the hazard. Whenever workers see a need to stop work, they
are to advise their supervisors. Before a stop work order is issued, the person issuing it needs to
ensure the work stoppage itself will not negatively impact workers or public health and safety or
the environment.
Example: At a site, radioactive waste is stored in an approved storage facility in drums.
These drums are in groups of four on wooden pallets and are strapped together for
stability. In order to remove them for transfer to a treatment facility, the pallets are lifted
by forklifts and placed in trucks. In the course of moving a pallet from the third tier, an
adjacent pallet load becomes unstable. Any further movement would cause it to fall on
support workers who are inventorying and processing the drums for the transfer. The
supervisor recognizes that the pallet load is an imminent threat to those support workers
with the potential to cause serious physical harm. The supervisor immediately suspends
work in the immediate area, clearing all personnel until a second forklift can be made
available to stabilize the threatening pallet load. In accordance with site procedures,
appropriate occurrence reporting and processing system (ORPS) reports are made.
Compliance with this requirement is demonstrated by having the necessary procedures,
mechanisms, and training in place to effect shutdown or curtailment of activities which pose an
imminent danger or other serious hazard to workers or the public, or are not protective of the
environment.
Supplemental References:
1. DOE, 1998. Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor
Employees, DOE O 440.1A, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., March 27,
1998.
2. DOE, 1997. Worker Protection Management for DOE Federal and Contractor
Employees Guide for Use with DOE Order 440.1A, DOE G 440.1-1, U.S. Department of
Energy, Washington, D.C., July 10, 1997. (This guide has additional topic specific
standards and guidance documents listed at the end of each chapter.)