The Department of Energy is close to finalizing revisions to the federal regulation governing nuclear safety management at its facilities, according to a letter the agency recently sent to the federal government’s independent health and safety watchdog.
The agency sent the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) a copy of the draft final rule on June 9, Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette wrote two days later in a letter rejecting DNFSB safety recommendation about the proposed changes to Title 10, Part 830 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Energy Department rejected eight of the 11 elements of the DNFSB’s Recommendation 2020-1, which among other things urged the agency to preserve current definitions for nuclear facility hazard categories: qualitative ratings of the danger a given facility might pose to the public. Hazard Category 1 is the most potentially dangerous, Hazard Category 3 the least. The potential danger deals in part with the amount of fissile material present in a facility.
DOE had not published the final regulation at deadline Thursday for Nuclear Security & Deterrence Monitor.
The Energy Department disagreed with the DNFSB’s concern that deleting the existing hazard category definitions might motivate contractors to unsafely increase the radiological hazards present in older buildings. The department said both the current and proposed rule would still require private firms to comply with an agency standard that includes instructions for applying hazard categories to facilities.
The department also rejected the suggestion that DOE retain a requirement that contractors annually submit documented safety analyses for approval. These analyses describe potential hazards of operating, decommissioning, and cleaning up nuclear facilities. The Energy Department also declined the DNFSB’s suggestion that the agency itself formally approve any justifications for continued operations drafted by contractors.
On the other hand, the agency accepted board recommendations to require contractors to submit certain safety documents to back up actions those firms want to take while investigating hazard scenarios unforeseen in documented safety analyses — a scenario called an unreviewed safety question.The Energy Department also accepted the DNFSB’s suggestion to “[d]evelop and implement an approach including requirements to aging management that includes a formal process for identifying and performing infrastructure upgrades that are necessary to ensure facilities and structures, systems, and components can perform their safety functions.”
The Energy Department says revising 10 CFR Part 380 “would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the framework while continuing to ensure adequate protection of public and worker health and safety at DOE defense nuclear facilities.”
In some cases, DOE rejected elements of the DNFSB recommendation not because the agency disagreed with them, but because they applied to a rulemaking that is still technically ongoing.
Besides Recommendation 2020-1, the DNFSB also filed public comments on DOE’s rulemaking, so the final rule could incorporate some of the board’s concerns.
DOE’s proposed regulatory changes, and the DNFSB’s input on them, caught the attention of the Energy Communities Alliance, which has petitioned the board to write a plain-language summary of the highly technical Recommendation 2020-1.
The Energy Communities Alliance represents local and regional governments that host DOE defense nuclear sites. The organization has said that without more clarity from the DNFSB about its concerns, locals will have no alternative but to take DOE’s word about how safe the changes to 10 CFR Part 380 are.
The board agreed to at least meet with the alliance representatives about their concerns, but the groups had not met at deadline Thursday for Nuclear Security & Deterrence Monitor.
