As all of you are probably aware, the Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/Nevada) have entered into an agreement which formally authorizes joint oversight over DOE's low level waste operations at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). There are many people that see this as precedent setting, however, I believe it is the first in a series logical steps that will over time result in the orderly process of the transfer of regulatory oversight from DOE to an external entity, in this case the State of Nevada.

Historically we at NDEP provided input and commented on many phases of the DOE's waste management operations. Our comments focused on site characterization concerns, DOE's waste characterization process and waste acceptance criteria.

Most of our comments focused on assuring the operations and procedures were adequate to insure wastes were sufficiently characterized to demonstrate they were not mixed wastes. This was clearly within our state authority.

Much of this input went into pushing to have the disposal sites characterized as they were also RCRA site; and comments on what was called NVO 325 now called the Nevada Test Site Waste Acceptance Criteria or NTSWAC. We feel we had a significant impact on what is now contained in, and required by, the waste acceptance criteria in terms of documentation to support a generators determination that they do not have a hazardous waste.

So the question everyone seem to be asking and concerned about is where are we going and what impacts will this new relationship have on all the generators. As you have all probably been appraised, this relationship will be somewhat similar to that of the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB).

We will review the activities for conformance/requirements -- most of which are contained in DOE orders. Of course, we will identify areas that appear not to be in conformance. DOE will than evaluate our comments and respond to them. The one significant difference between our involvement and the DNFSB is that we don't come and go -- we'll be here all the time.

Since many of the DOE's orders are broad based, I still see the potential for our comments to address the need for additional procedures. Thus, our comments could improve, or at least lessening the potential for ambiguity in existing procedure, which have or may cause a non conformance problem. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the results of the Type B investigation of the Fernald incident -- but many of the root causes associated with that event were a result of the ambiguities or lack of sufficient detail in procedures.

The State's oversight program will begin by becoming much more familiar with all the orders and requirements associated with DOE's waste management operation, that is -- becoming familiar with all the requirements of the NTSWAC.

We will begin by reviewing generators applications and understanding how DOE\Nevada presently documents it determinations relative to these applications, including how deficiencies are resolved.

We will participation in site visits to evaluate how DOE\Nevada is determining the generator's actual operations and procedures, as compare to what is actually in the applications. As many of you already know, we at NDEP have already accompanied DOE/Nevada as observers on some of these site visits. Again historically most of our focus has been on verifying that generators can document they are not shipping mixed wastes.

We will now be assessing the adequacy of procedures and documentation as it relates to the radiological requirements defined in the NTSWAC.

We will be reviewing non conformance issues and the CARs (Corrective Action Response) associated with them and the completeness and consistency of determinations made in resolving them.

I see us down the road making evaluation relative to how this site would compare to a commercial NRC regulated site. Again, we recognize there are some very distinct differences between the criteria and procedures that apply to, and govern, DOE and commercial sites. We need to be able to document that different does not necessarily mean a lower standard. One area I see is that we'll be looking are discussions related to on site verification of wastes received.

In conclusion I do expect that the Division's involvement will in fact cause some significant additional requirements and supporting information to be provided by you as generators. I certainly believe our past input relative to waste characterization requirements for hazardous constituent concerns caused you to modify your procedures.

I hope you would agree that an external set of eyes has a greater potential to see impending problems more readily than the people who are there every day.

We are looking forward to the release of DOE revised Waste Management Order (435.1), and I believe that with outside evaluation occurring, implementation of the Order should move forward easier.

Thank You -- now lets have some questions