DOCKET NO: A-98-49, II-A4-96

WASTE CHARACTERIZATION INSPECTION REPORT

EPA BASELINE INSPECTION NO. EPA-LANL-CCP-RH-5.07-8

OF THE CENTRAL CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT

REMOTE-HANDLED TRANSURANIC WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

PROGRAM AT THE LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY May 8 - 10, 2007

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Center for Federal Regulations 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

February 2008i TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 Executive Summary ..............................

................................................... ........................... 1

2.0 Purpose of Inspection..........................

................................................... ............................. 3

3.0 Purpose of This Report.........................

................................................... ............................ 4

4.0 Scope of Inspection ............................

................................................... .............................. 5

5.0 Inspection-Related Definitions.................

................................................... ........................ 6

6.0 Personnel ......................................

................................................... .................................... 6
6.1 EPA Inspection Team............................

................................................... ............... 6

6.2 Personnel Contacted............................

................................................... ................. 6

7.0 Performance of the Inspection..................

................................................... ........................ 7

8.0 Technical Evaluation...........................

................................................... ............................. 8
8.1 Acceptable Knowledge Process Overview and Analy sis...................................... 17

8.2 Radiological Characterization..................

................................................... .......... 28
8.2.1 Scaling Factor Development ................... .................................................. 3 5

8.3 Mass Spectrometry Data to Support ORIGEN2.2 ..... ........................................... 39
8.4 Technical Evaluation: Physical Form and Prohib ited Item Characterization ...... 40

8.5 Technical Evaluation: Attainment of Data Quali ty Objectives (DQOs).............. 45

9.0 Response to Comments ...........................

................................................... ....................... 46

10.0 Summary of Results ............................

................................................... ........................... 46
10.1 EPA Findings and Concerns .....................

................................................... ......... 46

10.2 Conclusions ...................................

................................................... ..................... 46

11.0 References ....................................

................................................... .................................. 47ii ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A.1 EPA Inspection Issue Tracking Form, EPA Issue No.

LANL-CCP-RH-AK-07-001C Attachment A.2 EPA Inspection Issue Tracking Form, EPA Issue No.

LANL-CCP-RH-RC-07-002C

Attachment B EPA’s Response to Public Comments1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8(b), the U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) conducted Baseline Inspection No. EPA-LANL- CCP-RH-05.07-8 (original inspection number was EPA-LANL-CCP-RH-07.03-8) of the Central Characterization Project’s (CCP) waste characterization (WC) program for remote-hand led (RH) transuranic (TRU) waste at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Los Alamos Nationa l Laboratory (LANL) located in Los Alamos, New Mexico. EPA conducted a baseline inspec tion of the site’s program to characterize RH TRU wastes proposed for disposal in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). This inspection took place in a commercial office c omplex in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on May 8-10, 2007.

On August 22, 2007, EPA issued a Federal Register ( FR) notice (Vol. 72, No. 162, pp. 47023- 47026) announcing the proposed approval of the RH w aste characterization program implemented at LANL by CCP. The FR notice opened a 45-day comment period to solicit public comment on the proposed approval of LANL-CCP ’s RH WC program and the LANL Baseline Inspection Report (EPA Air Docket A-98-49, II-A4-89) that ended October 9, 2007. EPA received one set of public comments. [See EPA D ocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0643- 0003]. The comments have been included verbatim i n Attachment B to this report along with EPA’s responses. EPA requested CBFO/CCP to provide information to include in the response for some public comments. CBFO/CCP provided this i nformation in a memorandum, which has been docketed as a supporting document along with t he EPA letter approving LANL-CCP’s RH WC program and sixteen LANL RH canisters for WIPP d isposal. (See EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0643-0006 and 0007). We also have included the CBFO/CCP responses to comments (see Attachment B of this report), where a pplicable. The text of the report that proposed the LANL RH approval was changed in respon se to the comments received and the information provided by CBFO/CCP, where appropriate

.

In the course of responding to the October 8, 2007 public comments, EPA received information from CBFO/CCP at EPA’s request that was used in pre paring the response to some public

comments. A second set of comments from the same c ommenter was received on November 8, 2007 (See EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0643-000 8). These comments have been

included verbatim as late comments in Attachment B. Upon closer examination EPA determined

that these new comments did not warrant additional consideration because they were restatements of the original comments

. However, in few instances a response to the late

comment has been included as clarification to addre ss restatement of the original comment by

the commenter.

EPA must verify compliance with 40 CFR 194.24 befor e waste may be disposed of at the WIPP, as specified in Condition 3 of the Agency’s certifi cation of the WIPP’s compliance with disposal regulations for TRU radioactive waste (63 Federal Register 27354 and 27405, May 18, 1998). EPA Baseline Inspection No. EPA-LANL-CCP-RH-05.07-8 was performed in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 194.8(b), as issued in a J uly 16, 2004, FR notice (Vol. 69, No. 136, pp. 42571–42583). The purpose of the LANL-CCP RH W C inspection was to evaluate the adequacy of the site’s WC programs for sixteen cani sters in a single RH debris waste stream for disposal at the WIPP. The sixteen canisters of RH debris in this waste stream were generated from the examination of fuel pins at the LANL Chemi cal, Metallurgical Research (CMR) facility2

from 1970 through 1984. From 1986 to the early 199 0s, wastes derived from these fuel pins were loaded into 364 11⁄2-gallon steel cans that were welded shut. These 364 cans were later

assembled into twelve canisters and four other cani sters were assembled with bulk-loaded debris from the same activities. The WC activity examined during the inspection was acceptable knowledge (AK) for these sixteen canisters of RH re trievably-stored TRU debris (S5000) waste, including their radiological characterization (RC). LANL-CCP has assured EPA that these sixteen sealed canisters will be disposed of “as is ” at WIPP and will not be repackaged with any

other RH debris waste.

The EPA inspection team determined that the records documenting LANL-CCP’s RH WC program represented activities that were technicall y adequate. EPA, therefore, is approving the LANL-CCP RH WC program for the sixteen RH TRU canis ters in LANL RH Waste Stream No. LA-MHD03-002 evaluated during this baseline inspect ion that is described and documented in this report. The approval includes the following:

(1) The AK process for sixteen canisters of RH retrieva bly-stored TRU debris in the waste stream designated LANL RH Waste Stream No. LA-MHD03- 002.

(2) The RC process using dose-to-fissile gram, dose-to- curie (DTC), curie-to-dose and modeling-derived scaling factors for assigning radi onuclide values to sixteen canisters of RH retrievably-stored TRU debris in one waste strea m, designated as LANL RH Waste

Stream No. LA-MHD03-002 and documented in CCP-AK-LA NL-501, Revision 0 and detailed in this report.

This inspection was different from previous RH base line inspections as well as the previous contact-handled (CH) baseline inspections. General ly, EPA’s RH and CH baseline inspections evaluate a site’s WC program for technical adequacy and, when approved, the TRU site would continue to use the approved program components to characterize additional wastes on an ongoing basis. However, the characterization activ ities within the scope of this inspection had occurred at LANL from 1986 through the 1990s and we re completed prior to this inspection. This inspection’s sole focus was to evaluate the re cords that had been assembled to document WC activities, including recently performed modelin g, interpretation, and further calculations based on previously generated RH measurement data f or LANL RH debris Waste Stream No.

LA-MHD03-002. There will be no further WC activiti es relative to this waste, and this approval

is directed to a discrete set of containers within this LANL RH debris waste stream, as supported by the documentation the EPA inspection team evalua ted during this inspection. Note that this is a retrospective approval of LANL RH debris waste ch aracterization activities. LANL-CCP cannot characterize any additional RH waste in the future based on this baseline approval. Since

no additional WC activities will occur relative to the sixteen canisters of RH debris waste subject to this approval, changes to the WC activities eval uated during the baseline inspection are not expected to occur. Accordingly, this report does n ot list any Tier 1 (T1) or Tier 2 (T2) designations relative to this waste and waste chara cterization components covered by this approval. Approval of any future or other past RH WC activities at LANL-CCP would require a new EPA baseline inspection.3

2.0 PURPOSE OF INSPECTION

On May 18, 1998, EPA certified that the WIPP will c omply with the radioactive waste disposal regulations in 40 CFR Part 191. In this certificat ion, EPA also included Condition 3, which states that “the Secretary shall not allow shipment of any waste from...any waste generator site other than LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory] for disposal at the WIPP until the Agency has approved the processes for characterizing those waste streams for shipment using the process set forth in §194.8.” The approval process describ ed in 40 CFR 194.8 requires DOE to (1) provide EPA with information on AK 1 for waste streams proposed for disposal at the WIP P, and (2) implement a system of controls used to conf irm that the total amount of each waste component that will be emplaced in the WIPP will no t exceed limits identified in the WIPP Compliance Certification Application (CCA).

Under the changes to 40 CFR 194.8 promulgated in th e July 16, 2004, FR notice, EPA must perform a baseline inspection of a TRU waste genera tor site’s WC program. The purpose of the baseline inspection is to approve the site’s WC pro gram based on the demonstration that the program’s components, with applicable conditions an d limitations, can adequately characterize TRU wastes and comply with the regulatory requireme nts imposed on TRU wastes destined for disposal at the WIPP. An EPA inspection team condu cts an on-site inspection to verify that the site’s system of controls is technically adequate a nd properly implemented. Specifically, EPA’s inspection team verifies compliance with 40 CFR 194 .24(c)(4), which states the following:

Any compliance application shall: . . . Provide inf ormation which demonstrates that a system of controls has been and will continu e to be implemented to confirm that the total amount of each waste component that will be emplaced in the disposal system will not exceed the upper limiting value or fall below the lower limiting value described in the introductory text o f paragraph of this section. 2
The system of controls shall include, but shall not be limited to: measurement; sampling; chain of custody records; record keeping systems; waste loading
schemes used; and other documentation.

In other words, the purpose of the baseline inspect ion is to implement the requirements of 40 CFR 194 by assessing whether DOE sites that char acterize TRU waste prior to disposal at the WIPP are capable of characterizing and tracking the waste. EPA may also conduct follow-up inspections to address issues remaining from the ba seline inspection or to seek further clarification/discussion related to WC processes ev aluated during a baseline inspection. By approving the WC systems and processes at LANL-CCP that were applied to the sixteen canisters of retrievably-stored RH debris waste, EP A confirms that the Agency has evaluated the

1 As of the FR notice of July 16, 2004, EPA has repl aced the term process knowledge with acceptable knowledge . Acceptable knowledge refers to any information a bout the process used to generate waste, material inputs to the process, and the time period during w hich the wastes were generated, as well as data res ulting from the analysis of waste conducted prior to or separate fr om the waste certification process authorized by an EPA certification decision to show compliance with Cond ition 3 of the certification decision.

2 The introductory text of 40 CFR 194.24(c) states, “For each waste component identified and assessed p ursuant to [40 CFR 194.24(b)], the Department shall specify the limiting value (expressed as an upper or lower limit of mass, volume, curies, concentration, etc.), and the associated uncertainty (i.e., margin of error) for each limiting value, of the total inventory of such waste propose d for disposal in the disposal system.”4

capabilities of systems and processes implemented b y the site to accomplish two tasks: (1) the identification and measurement of waste components [such as plutonium (Pu)] that must be tracked for compliance, 3 and (2) the confirmation that the waste in any giv en container has been properly identified as belonging to the group of ap proved waste streams.

Based on the adequacies of the WC processes demonst rated during the baseline inspection, including all conditions and limitations, EPA usual ly specifies which subsequent WC program changes or modifications must undergo further EPA i nspection or approval under 40 CFR 194.24. This is accomplished by assigning a tier l evel to each aspect of the characterization program, i.e., T1 and T2 activities, as discussed a bove. However, the nature of the WC activities

at LANL-CCP is such that no additional characteriza tion activities will take place, making an assignment of T1 or T2 changes irrelevant. Accordi ngly, no formal tiering is assigned to the LANL-CCP RH WC program as a result of this baseline based on the information included in this inspection report. As stated previously, EPA’ s proposed approval is limited to the sixteen

sealed canisters whose characterization is document ed in the records evaluated during the inspection as detailed in this report. The rule ap plying to this baseline inspection can be found in the FR (Vol. 69, No. 136, pp. 42571–42583, July 16, 2004). EPA does not expect to conduct additional LANL-CCP RH waste inspections specific t o this waste stream in the future. EPA, however, will perform a new baseline inspection and approval of a LANL-CCP RH waste characterization program implemented to characteriz e any RH waste other than the debris waste stream discussed in this report under the authority of 40 CFR 194.8.

3.0 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

This report documents the basis for EPA’s approval decision and explains the results of Baseline Inspection No. EPA-LANL-CCP-RH-5.07-8 in terms of fi ndings or concerns. Specifically, this report does the following:

• Describes the characterization systems that are cov ered by this approval

• Delineates a specific set of RH wastes that are app roved

• Provides objective evidence of the approval basis f or all WC systems and/or waste

containers

• Identifies all relevant limitations and or conditio ns for each WC system and/or waste

container

• Provides objective evidence of outstanding findings or concerns in the form of documentation, as applicable

3 The potential contents of a single waste stream or group of waste streams determine which processes ca n adequately characterize the waste. For example, if AK suggests that the waste form is heterogeneous, the site should select the matrix-appropriate radiological characte rization technique to obtain adequate radionuclide measurements. Visual Examination (VE) serves to confirm and quant ify waste components, such as cellulosics, rubbers, plastics,

and metals. Once the nature of the waste has been confirmed, characterization techniques quantify sel ected radionuclides in the waste. In some cases, a TRU w aste generator site may be able to characterize a r ange of heterogeneous waste streams or only a few. A site’ s stated limits on the applicability of proposed WC processes govern the scope of EPA’s inspection.5

• Describes any tests or demonstrations completed dur ing the course of the inspection and their relevance to EPA’s approval decision

This report references the documents that the EPA i nspection team members reviewed in support

of the technical determination. To see or obtain c opies of any items identified in this report, write to the following address:

Quality Assurance Manager

USDOE/Carlsbad Field Office

P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221

EPA’s final approval decision regarding the LANL-CC P WC program is conveyed to DOE separately by letter. This information is also ava ilable on EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/WIPP, in accordance wi th 40 CFR 194.8(b)(3).

4.0 SCOPE OF INSPECTION

The scope of Baseline Inspection No. EPA-LANL-CCP-RH -5.07-8 included the technical adequacy of the WC systems used by LANL-CCP to char acterize sixteen canisters of RH TRU

wastes in LANL RH Waste Stream No. LA-MHD03-002. In the case of these wastes, AK provides the basis for all radiological and physica l waste characterization, including: the identification and quantification of the 10 WIPP-tr acked radionuclides ( 241 Am, 137 Cs, 238 Pu,

239 Pu, 240 Pu, 242 Pu, 90 Sr, 233 U, 234 U, and 238 U). Accordingly, the inspection’s scope consisted of reviewing records of WC activities that had been pe rformed from 1986 through the 1990s, supplemented by data interpretation and manipulatio n, and the development and application of conceptual models that were performed more recently related to WC.

During an inspection, EPA does not approve characte rization data; that function is the sole responsibility of the site being evaluated during t he inspection, in this case LANL-CCP. EPA evaluated records that documented the technical asp ects of the WC processes implemented by

LANL to characterize sixteen canisters of RH retrie vably-stored debris waste that were conducted from 1986 through the 1990s. These recor ds included more recent compilations of older information, as well as newer interpretations of, and additional calculations to, older

measurement data. The evaluation consisted of inte rviewing personnel and inspecting records related to the WC processes within the inspection’s scope. An important aspect of this evaluation is the objective evidence that documents the effectiveness of the WC processes. Objective evidence typically takes the form of Batc h Data Reports (BDRs) for radiological characterization and AK accuracy reports. EPA typi cally selects samples of each of these items based on the number and variety of items that were completed and available for inspecting each WC process, consistent with standard sampling techn iques. However, because the WC activities for these LANL RH wastes are not ongoing, BDRs were not prepared. Accordingly, EPA

evaluated records associated with the characterizat ion of all sixteen canisters, i.e., conducted a one hundred percent examination. Waste characteriz ation information that is the equivalent of what is typically contained in BDRs was provided wi thin specific LANL-CCP reports, as discussed in Section 8 of this report. Based on an evaluation of the WC processes documented in6

the LANL RH records, EPA determined the technical a dequacy of the WC processes within the inspection’s scope.

5.0 INSPECTION-RELATED DEFINITIONS

During the course of an inspection, EPA inspectors may encounter items or activities that require further inquiry for their potential to adversely af fect WC and/or isolation within the repository. The two main categories relevant to WC inspections are identified below:

Finding : A determination that a specific item or activity does not conform to

40 CFR 194.24(c)(4). A finding requires a response from CBFO.

Concern : A judgment that a specific item or activity may o r may not have a negative effect on

compliance and, depending on the magnitude of the i ssue, may or may not require a response. (Concerns not requiring a response do no t have to be addressed prior to program approval.)

6.0 PERSONNEL

6.1 EPA Inspection Team

The members of the EPA WC inspection team are ident ified in Table 1.

Table 1. EPA Inspection Team Members

Inspection Team Member Position Affiliation

Ms. Rajani Joglekar Inspection Team Leader U.S. EPA ORIA

Mr. Ed Feltcorn Inspector U.S. EPA ORIA

Ms. Connie Walker Inspector S. Cohen & Associates, Inc.

Mr. Patrick Kelly Inspector S. Cohen & Associates, Inc.

6.2 Personnel Contacted

EPA and its support personnel conducted interviews with LANL-CCP personnel in several disciplines. The personnel contacted consisted of representatives of the TRU WC staff, and they are listed in Table 2, along with their affiliation and technical area.

Table 2. Personnel Contacted During Inspection

Personnel Affiliation Area of Expertise

Jene Vance CCP AK/DTC; Scaling Factors Larry Porter CCP AK, SPM; Scaling Factors-MS Data Steve Schafer CCP AK, AK Expert Kevin Peters CCP AK, AK Expert Mark Doherty CCP/WTS DTC & Scaling Factors-MS Data7

7.0 PERFORMANCE OF THE INSPECTION

Site Background and History

LANL is located approximately 25 miles northwest of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and encompasses an area of 43 square miles. The primary mission of LANL since its creation in the 1940s has been nuclear weapons research and development. Its current mission supports civilian defense and includes large waste management and stockpile s tewardship components. In 1998, LANL was the first DOE site authorized by EPA to ship CH TRU waste to the WIPP and in 2003, CCP assumed responsibilities for CH TRU waste certifica tion activities at the site. CCP has also been tasked with responsibilities for the characterizati on of LANL RH wastes.

Inspection Process Overview

EPA Inspection No.EPA-LANL-CCP-RH-05.07-8 had the s cope described in Section 4.0, above, for the purpose of determining the site’s complianc e with 40 CFR 194.24. The inspection was conducted in the following steps:

(1) Obtaining and reviewing site procedures, reports, a nd other technical information related to

RH WC activities used to characterize these wastes at LANL from 1986 through the 1990s in advance of the inspection

(2) Preparing technical questions specific to the vario us aspects of AK prior to the inspection based on the activities cited in the previous bulle t, as appropriate

(3) Interacting with CBFO and LANL-CCP personnel to arr ange inspection logistics

(4) Evaluating LANL-CCP’s implementation of WC processe s for adequacy and demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR 194.24 require ments, as evidenced by the records

of the waste characterization activities conducted at LANL from 1986 through the 1990s

(5) Conducting the baseline inspection in Albuquerque t o verify the technical adequacy or qualifications of RH WC personnel, procedures, proc esses, and equipment as evidenced by

the records of the waste characterization activitie s conducted at LANL from 1986 through

the 1990s

(6) Recording all concerns on EPA Inspection Issue Trac king Forms, which were completed and provided to CBFO and LANL-CCP personnel as they were generated (see Attachment A for copies of these forms)

(7) Communicating all pertinent information with CBFO a nd LANL-CCP personnel, as appropriate

(8) Pursuing resolution of all identified issues prior to completion of the inspection and after the inspection, as appropriate

(9) Conducting entrance, exit, and daily briefings for CBFO and LANL-CCP management personnel, as appropriate

(10) Preparing the draft inspection report

(11) Responding to the public comments receiving during the comment period and pre8

8.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The focus of this inspection was to evaluate AK doc umentation that was verified using radiological characterization and peer-reviewed inf ormation for physical content and prohibited item identification. EPA examined the AK process a nd associated information to determine whether the LANL-CCP RH program for characterizing waste stream LA-MHD03-002 demonstrated compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 194.8. Due to the approach taken by LANL-CCP, all waste characterization activities rel ative to the sixteen canisters of this waste stream fall under the general heading of AK. In th is report, AK is divided into five sections:

• 8.1, Acceptable Knowledge Overview and Process Anal ysis

• 8.2, Radiological Characterization

• 8.3, Physical Form and Prohibited Item Characteriza tion

• 8.4, Mass Spectrometry to Support ORIGEN2.2

• 8.5, Attainment of Data Quality Objectives.

This report format differs from the format that EPA generally uses where there are multiple sections named for each WC process, i.e., AK, Non D estructive Assay (NDA), Non Destructive Examination (NDE), and WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS) that can be found in other EPA baseline inspection reports.

Waste Containers

The terminology regarding waste containers used in this report can be confusing, in large part because there were several types of containers used . In all cases, the waste container became part of the waste matrix except for the RH canister that ultimately is loaded into the 72B RH shipping cask. For purposes of clarification, the terms used in this report are defined as follows:

• Paint Can refers to a 1-gallon metal can into which the RH w aste items were placed.

• Alpha Can refers to a polypropylene can with a press-fit lid made specifically for LANL

to contain the paint can

.

• Can refers to a 11⁄2-gallon steel can 1⁄4 inch thick with a filtered vent that is welded shut.

• Drum refers to a 55-gallon (208 liter) drum as is commo nly used for CH TRU wastes.

• Canister refers to the 0.89-m 3 volume RH canister, the payload container that wil l be emplaced in the WIPP.

Figure 1 presents a cut-away view of the first thre e cans listed above, i.e., a paint can inside an alpha can inside a 11⁄2-gallon steel can that has bee n welded shut. Figure 2 presents the assembly of the RH canister containing up to three drums, ea ch of which contains 12 welded-shut cans. In this report, each of these terms is used deliberate ly, i.e., to designate the specific container as

described above.9 Figure 1. Cut-away View of a Paint Can Inside an A lpha Can

Inside a 11⁄2-Gallon Steel Can that Has Been Welded S hut10 Canister section removed for illustration purposes

Figure 2. Removable Lid RH Canister with three 55- Gallon Drum Payload11

Waste Origin and Generation

The RH debris that makes up this waste stream was g enerated from approximately 1,610 fuel pins that were examined in the LANL CMR facility ov er the course of the fuel examination program from 1970 through 1984. All fuel pins were from the fast breeder reactor program and most of them were irradiated in the Experimental Br eeder Reactor II (EBR-II) and consisted primarily of uranium and plutonium mixed oxide or c arbide fuel with some thorium fuel pins. In the early 1990s, these fuel pin-related RH TRU debr is wastes were loaded into a total of 768 paint cans, 404 of which were placed in the undergr ound storage shafts at Technical Area 54 (TA-54), area G at LANL. Each of the remaining 364 cans was subsequently placed inside a 11⁄2-gallon steel can and each can was welded shut. These 364 11⁄2-gallon steel cans were then assayed individually at LANL using a Passive-Active Neutron (PAN) assay system inside a hot

cell within the CMR that was modified to accommodat e the radiological constraints of such a measurement. The PAN system was calibrated and perf ormed both active and passive

determinations as a function of each can’s contents and the operator’s judgment. Records for the PAN’s calibration, routine performance checks and al l assays that were generated by LANL from 1986 through the 1990s were retrieved by LANL- CCP. These 11⁄2-gallon cans were loaded into 55-gallon (208 liter) drums (12 cans per drum) and the drums were transferred to a total of twelve RH canisters, with each canister containing up to three drums. Additionally, another four

canisters contain bulk-loaded items such as discard ed equipment and contaminated hardware associated with the fuel examination program conduc ted within the CMR hot cell. The four bulk-loaded canisters were not assayed using the PA N system. In 1992, these sixteen canisters were transferred to underground storage shafts at T A-54 where they currently reside. As stated previously, the scope of this inspection was the si xteen canisters of RH debris wastes described in this report.

Waste Characterization Overview

AK provides the basis for all radiological and phys ical waste characterization information for the RH canisters in this waste stream. As part of the inspection, EPA reviewed the following with respect to the use of AK for WC:

• Waste stream definition and identification, includi ng radiological content

• Identification of TRU versus non-TRU wastes, i.e., high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel

• Identification and quantification of the waste’s ra dionuclide content, including uncertainty

• Material parameters

• Assignment of Waste Matrix Codes (WMC)

• Role of AK in the characterization methodology,

• Compilation of AK documentation and assembly of req uired information

• Adequacy of WCPIP AK process implementation and AK Summary Report

• AK data traceability for all drums and containers u sed in the process from data assembly through confirmatory modeling12

• AK source document sufficiency

• Waste Characterization Program Implementation Plan (WCPIP) interpretation with respect to AK qualification

• Confirmatory Test Plan (CTP) preparation and plan a dequacy

• Characterization Reconciliation Report (CRR) prepar ation and report adequacy

• Correlation and Surrogate Summary Form (CSSF) and C H-RH correlation

• Personnel training

• AK discrepancy resolution

• AK accuracy

• Implementation of load management

• Identification of the method for determining data q uality objectives (DQOs) including those to be attained by AK qualification

Note that DOE is responsible for determining and def ending the defense waste status of waste proposed for EPA approval and disposal in WIPP.

The text that follows identifies the objective evid ence that the EPA inspection team reviewed in conducting this inspection. Because the characteri zation process is based on AK records and the various methods used to verify AK exclusive of conf irmatory testing, the entire audit was based solely on reviewing documents of activities that ha d been completed prior to the inspection. Observations of procedural implementation could not be made because all characterization activities had been completed prior to the time of the inspection. All of the 16 canisters within this limited waste stream have been sealed, and no further testing or characterization of the waste will be performed.

Radiological AK information available for this wast e stream includes PAN assay data for individual cans of RH wastes and external exposure rate (dose rate) measurements that were taken at the time of packaging for all drums. The determination of several DQOs is achieved through use of isotopic distributions and AK-derive d scaling factors applied to the PAN data for appropriate canisters. The DTC, Curie-to-Dose, and Dose-to-Fissile Gram techniques were used for canisters containing bulk-loaded or direct-load ed drums. For both DTC and PAN data, radionuclide-specific scaling factors were derived through the application of ORIGEN2.2 modeling, using input that was based on fuel pins t hat contributed to the radionuclide content of the waste stream. The data for individual fuel pin s were used as input to the ORIGEN2.2 code, but mass spectrometry (MS) data from destructive as say are available for about one quarter of the fuel pins tested within the CMR facility. The MS data were used to confirm or validate the fuel pin results derived with ORIGEN2.2. Quality As surance documentation for the PAN

software used in 1990 and 1991 was not available. Confirmatory testing was performed by recreating the PAN active and passive mode calculati ons in Excel and verifying one hundred percent of the calculations using the original raw PAN data as input.13

Documents Reviewed

The list of documents provided below in conjunction with those listed in Section 8.4 comprise all documents related to the LANL-CCP RH radiological c haracterization program that were evaluated to support this inspection. Several of t he documents were provided to EPA following the Albuquerque inspection.

• CCP-PO-001 Revision 13, CCP Transuranic Waste Chara cterization Quality Assurance Project Plan, Effective Date November 16, 2006

• CCP-PO-002, Revision 18, CCP Transuranic Waste Cert ification Plan, Effective Date November 16, 2006

• Transuranic Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Revision 0, date

TBD

• Remote-Handled TRU Waste Characterization Program I mplementation Plan, Revision 0D

• CCP-AK-LANL-500, CCP Acceptable Knowledge Summary R eport for 16 Canisters of

Remote-Handled Transuranic Debris Waste from Los Al amos National Laboratory Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Facility, Waste S tream: LA-MHD03.002, Revision 0

and Revision 2

• CCP-AK-LANL-501, CCP Remote-Handled Transuranic Rad iological Characterization Technical Report for Remote-Handled Transuranic Deb ris Waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory, Revision 0

• CCP-AK-LANL-502, CCP RH TRU Waste Certification Pla n for 40 CFR Part 194 Compliance and Confirmation Test Plan for LANL RH W aste Stream: LA-MHD03-002,

Revision 0 and Revision 1

• CP-AK-INL-503, CCP Los Alamos National Laboratory Qu ality Assurance Equivalency Report and Procedure Matrix for Remote-Handled Tran suranic Debris Waste, Revision 3

• CCP-TP-504, CCP Los Alamos National Laboratory Quali fication of Passive-Active Neutron Assay System Software, Revision 0

• CCP-TP-506, CCP Preparation of the Remote-Handled T ransuranic Waste Acceptable Knowledge Characterization Reconciliation Report, R evision 2

• CRR, LANL Waste Stream LA-MHD03.002, Attachment 5 a nd related required documents, May 1, 2007

• Draft Waste Stream Profile Form, Waste Stream LA-MH D03.002, May 2007 prepared for Audit Purposes Only

• CBFO MP 10.5, Revision 6 Management Procedure for t he Performance of Peer Review, effective date July 25, 2005 expires July 25, 2007

• C002, Analysis of CMR RH Hot Cell Waste Inventory, N/A, April 25, 2003

• C015, Interview Report with LANL Staff Cognizant of Wing 9 Operations, N/A, June 12,

200314

• C016, QC Check of Spreadsheet Can Weights to CMR RH Hot Cell Logbook No. 23741, N/A, June 12, 2003

• C017, Quality Control Check of Waste Description Re cords to CMR RH Hot Cell Logbook, N/A, May 23, 2003

• C300, Waste Material Parameter Evaluation for Waste Stream LA-MHD03.002, August 7,

2006

• C301, Radiological Evaluation for Waste Stream LA-M HD03.002, N/A, February 9, 2007

• C303, Weights of RH TRU Cans, N/A, March 10, 2003

• C306, Record of Communication, Interview with Toby Romero, Clarification of Wing 9, Hot Cell Compaction of RH Waste, January 17, 2007

• C307, Record of Communication, Interview with Toby Romero, Clarification of Wing 9, Miscellaneous Waste Management Questions, N/A, Febru ary 14, 2007

• C309, Record of Communication: RTR SME Review of RH RTR Tape of Twelve (12) Waste Barrels (B01-B012), N/A, March 7, 2007

• DR001, Discrepancy Resolution for Potential PCB Flu orescent Light Ballasts, N/A, May 1, 2003

• DR002, Compacted Waste Discrepancy Report, N/A, Feb ruary 6, 2007

• DR003, Waste Loading and Packaging Verification Dis crepancy Report, N/A, February 6, 2007

• DR005, Sealed Transfer Cans Greater than 4 Liters i n Direct Loaded Drums, N/A, April 19,

2007

• DR006, Canister Weight and Waste Packaging Discrepa ncies, November 7, 2007

• M001, Data Necessary for Post-Irradiation Examinatio n of Fuel Elements at LASL - LASL No. 79-399 (incomplete sequence), TWCP 25926, P2010- 1489, July15, 1970 through April 9, 1974

• M002, Data Necessary for Post-Irradiation Examinatio n of Fuel Elements at LASL - LASL No. 400-699 (incomplete sequence), TWCP-25930, P2010 -1493, April 9, 1974 through October 30, 1976

• M003, Data Necessary for Post-Irradiation Examinatio n of Fuel Elements at LASL - LASL # 700-999 (incomplete sequence), TWCP-25924, P2010-14 87, October 30, 1976 through February 14, 1977

• M004, Data Necessary for Post-Irradiation Examinatio n of Fuel Elements at LASL - LASL # 1000-1299 (incomplete sequence), TWCP-25928, P2010- 1491, April 24, 1978 through July 13, 1979

• M005, Data Necessary for Post-Irradiation Examinatio n of Fuel Elements at LASL - LASL # 1300-1744 (incomplete sequence), TWCP-25922, P2010- 1485, August 20, 1979 through April 198415

• M006, CMR Wing 9 RH TRU Canisters (16) Loading Summ ary, TWCP-25921, P2010- 1484, February 13, 2003

• M007, LASL Mass Spectroscopy Burn-Up Results for Ir radiated Fuel, TWCP-25927, P2010- 1490, May 14, 1984

• M008, Remote-Handled (RH) Waste Assay Results and S upporting Memoranda, TWCP25929, P2010-1492, 1990 through 1991

• M129, LANL RH Waste Cans - Passive Data, N/A, 1990-1 991

• M130, LANL RH Waste Cans - Active Data, N/A, 1990-19 91

• M162, RTR Video Tape of Twelve (12) RH Barrels (B01 -B12), N/A, November 9, 1992

• P039, Standard Operating Procedures for Disposing o f Wastes From Wing 9 Hot Cells, CMB-14-C5, February 9, 1973

• P067, Drum Loading and Handling Procedure, SOP-MST5 -W9-036, Revision 0, March 15,

1993

• P068, WIPP Canister Loading and Welding Procedure, SOP-MST5-W9-037, Revision 0, March 15, 1993

• P081, Preliminary Examination of Pins Or Capsules, 401-DE-14-3, Revision 8, July 26, 1985

• P121, Securing and Disposing of Waste from Wing 9 o f the CMR Building, 401-DE-14-66, R1QA-MST-5-W9-1, Revision 0, May 5, 1989, January 9 , 1992

• P122, Personnel Training and Certification, 401-DE- 14-70, Revision 2, March 15, 1990

• P123, Attachment # 7 to the Los Alamos TRU Waste Ce rtification Plan for the Processing of

Contact-Handled and Remote-Handled TRU Solids from the Hot Cell Operations, TRUMST14-CPA-07, R0TRU-MST-5-CPA-07, Revision 2, Septe mber 18, 1987, November 12,

1992

• P133, Emergency Plan Wing 9 CMR Building, EP-MST-5- W9-1, Revision 0, December 10,

1990

• P146, CMR Basis for Interim Operations, March 1992

• P147, A Passive-Active Neutron Device for Assaying R emote-Handled Transuranic Waste, LA-UR-89-3736, November 1989

• P149, Description of the PAN Assay System for Remote Handled Waste, LA-UR-91-125, December 15, 1990

• P207, Los Alamos TRU Waste Certification Plan For N ewly Generated TRU Waste, Attachment 3, For the Processing of Certifiable Com bustible and Noncombustible TRU Waste in MST Division, TRU-MST12-CPA-03, Revision 0 , July 7,1987

• P222, Determination of the Isotopic Compositions of Uranium and Plutonium, ANC-DE-1-MS-3, Revision 2, August 8, 1973

• P231, Radiological Characterization of LANL RH TRU Packaged in 16 WIPP Canisters, P2010-1584, June 16, 200316

• P301, Characterization and Inspection of the 16 WIP P Canisters in Shafts 236-243 and 246- 253 at TA-54, Area G, LA-UR-06-4467, June 2006

• P302, Historical Emplacement Data Review for Remote -Handled and Contact-Handled Transuranic Waste at Los Alamos National Laboratory, N/A, January 12, 2005

• P505, Peer Review, Remote Handled Waste Visual Exam ination Data Verification Peer Review Report, N/A, April 9, 2007 (note that this i ncludes procedures, plans, qualification information, data sheets and numerous supporting re ferences; see Peer Review TOC)

• U069, CMR Laboratory Notebook No. 23744 for Hot Cell Work, N/A, November 20, 1987 through February 12, 1993

• U070, CMR Laboratory Notebook No. 23741, N/A, November 20, 1987 through June 2,

1995

• U076, Waste Description Records, N/A, N/A

• U111, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA03, N/A, N/A

• U112, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA04, N/A, N/A

• U113, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA05, N/A, N/A

• U114, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA06, N/A, N/A

• U115, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA07, N/A, N/A

• U116, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA08, N/A, N/A

• U117, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA09, N/A, N/A

• U118, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA10, N/A, N/A

• U119, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA11, N/A, N/A

• U120, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA12, N/A, N/A

• U121, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA13, N/A, N/A

• U122, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA14, N/A, N/A

• U123, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA15, N/A, N/A

• U124, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA16, N/A, N/A

• U125, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA17, N/A, N/A

• U126, TRU Waste Storage Records for SN# LA18, N/A, N/A

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-03, Pu & U Isotope Rela tionships in Fuel, Revision 0

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-11, Dose-to-Curie for S teel Cans for Cs-137 and Co-60,

Revision 0

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-17, Scaling Factor Deve lopment, Revision 0

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-20, Steel Waste Can Con tents Estimates, Revision 0

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-23, Bulk-Loaded Charact erization, Revision 117

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-24, Canister Characteri zation, Revision 1

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-25, Uncertainty Analysi s of Canisters with 364 Cans,

Revision 0

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-33, Active PAN Data Vali dation, Revision not specified

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-34, Passive PAN Data Va lidation, Revision not specified

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-35, Waste Can PAN Data V alidation, Revision not specified

• Calculation Package LANL-RH-36, Evaluation of Early PAN Data, Revision 0

• CCP-TP-005 Revision 18, Attachment 3, Acceptable Kn owledge Source Document Summary, Waste Stream Number LA-MHD03.002

• LA-UR-91-125, Description of the PAN Assay System fo r Remote-Handled Waste, K. L. Coop and R.J. Estep

8.1 Acceptable Knowledge Process Overview and Analysis

(1) Waste stream definition was examined for LANL RH Wa ste Stream LA-MHD03.002.

The WCPIP defines waste stream as “waste material g enerated from a single process or activity, or as waste with similar physical, chemical, and ra diological properties.” Waste stream LAMHD03-002 is a debris waste stream consisting of si xteen canisters that were generated in the CMR Wing 9 Hot Cell Facility at LANL from 1986 thro ugh 1991. This is the only waste stream within the scope of the inspection.

At the time of EPA’s inspection, EPA tracked severa l elements of the AK Summary (CCP-AKLANL-500) and supporting references to ensure that all fuel pin testing performed in the CMR Wing 9 Hot Cells was related to the specific fuel p ins of interest. Historic AK radiological data

were examined to ensure that the waste stream defin ition was adequate, as was information pertaining to physical waste form and waste generat ing processes and procedures. EPA found that several elements of the AK Summary and a sourc e document implied that the radiological

content of the stream was broader than or different from what was used in modeling, implying that fuel pin testing was not the only activity per formed in the Wing 9 Hot Cells. For example, historic LANL AK data showed the isotopic ratio forsome containers to have uraniumplutonium ratios other than the 4:1, a ratio specif ied as being generally representative of the fuel pin (and hence waste) isotopic ratio. Language in the AK Summary suggested the existence of a CH waste stream from CMR Wing 9 that could serve as a surrogate, and, if present, should be addressed in a Surrogate Summary Form because it co uld contribute radiological

characterization data to further define the waste s tream. The EPA inspection team established

that LANL-CCP had identified a CH waste stream from the CMR Building Wing 9 Hot Cell in the 2004 Transuranic Waste Baseline Inventory Repor t (TWBIR). However, LANL-CCP representatives indicated that they were unable to locate any of the drums identified as being part of this stream. LANL-CCP representatives also stat ed that these drums would have been generated from activities other than the decontamin ation and decommissioning (D&D). Since D&D was the main activity that generated waste stre am, if any of these drums are discovered they would not be considered a true CH surrogate wa ste stream. EPA determined that, at this18

time, there is no evidence to indicate that anythin g but fuel pin testing occurred in the hot cells, so only the fuel pin material would contribute to t he isotopic mix within waste. However, additional documents were required to clarify the d ifference between what EPA considered the waste stream as presented in the TWBIR and LANL-CCP ’s understanding of the waste’s origin. This was discussed with AK personnel during the ins pection and EPA included it on an EPA Inspection Issue Tracking Form (See Attachment A.1 of this report for a copy of this form). It is

discussed below.

EPA Concern No. LANL-RH-AK-07-001: Four issues were identified during the course of the inspection related to the effectiveness of the avai lable documentation related to supporting an adequate waste stream content identification perfor med by LANL-CCP AK personnel. These four issues were combined on a single EPA Inspectio n Issue Tracking Form, and two of the issues are discussed below, and the remaining two i ssues are discussed in Sections (7) and (9), respectively. The first two issues are as follows:

1) Reference C301 addresses assembly and interpretatio n of LANL radionuclide information. The document includes LANL summary in formation pertaining to

235 U/ 239 Pu ratios that are incorrect based upon a review of the supporting can data. A summary statement indicating the error and noting t hat the data do not jeopardize the

waste stream’s identification has been added to Ref erence C301.

2) CCP-AK-500 has been modified through Freeze File ch anges (i.e., they will be edited when CCP-AK-500 is updated) that modify the text to clarify that there is no surrogate

CH waste stream from CMR. A clarification of the a ccuracy of the LANL radiological data included in the AK Summary (C301) pertaining t o incorrect or poorly supported

235 U/ 239 Pu ratios has been added. Additionally, a Freeze F ile change has been submitted that changes Section 5.4.3 to indicate the predomin ant radionuclides in fuel types that ultimately occur in waste in addition to the genera l composition of waste relative to the

10 EPA WIPP-tracked radionuclides based on historic LANL AK data.

Resolution: In response to EPA’s concern (1), LANL-CCP revise d Reference C301 as follows:

Documentation describing the method LANL used to inc orporate the PAN assay data is not available, and the reason significant v ariation exist in the LANL reported ratio of Pu-239 to U-235 could not be dete rmined, due to lack of a documented method for the LANL estimations of radio nuclides. The U-235/Pu239 ratio of 4:1 reported in canisters LA03-LA06 an d LA16-LA18 is consistent
with container estimates in source document M006, a nd the ratio of 4:1 is also consistent with the PAN assay description in source document P149. The

235 U/ 239 Pu ratio of 0.0025 reported in canisters LA07-LA15 is not consistent with any other source documentation reviewed. Additiona lly, generator estimates of

239 Pu and 235 U contents of the 1.5-gallon cans in LA07-LA15 prov ided in source document M006 generally show no correlation of less er relative amounts of 235 U

in these cans.

In response to EPA’s concern (2), LANL-CCP revised the AK Summary to state:19

As described in Section 4.1, the predominant fuel t ype examined in Wing 9 consisted of mixed oxide fuels originating from the LMFBR program. LANL assigned a nominal U-235 to Pu-239 ratio of 4:1 for these isotopes. In addition to LANL radiological proprieties, mass spectroscopy measurements were made for burn-up determinations on the fuel pins examine d throughout the period of hot cell operations to estimate the isotopic compositio n for the waste materials generated. Typically the data includes results ide ntifying isotope populations including U-233, U-234, U-235, U-236, U-238, Pu-238 , Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-241, and Pu-242. Although LANL did not utilize the mass spectroscopy data for reporting radiological properties in the RH waste ma terials, CCP has incorporated this information for determining the r adiological composition of

waste stream LA-MHD03.002 as described in Section 5. 4.3.2.

Status of Concern: Based on the information examined, the EPA inspec tion team determined that the waste stream’s designation had been approp riately assigned with respect to its

radionuclide-related characteristics. This concern is also addressed under (4), below. EPA considers aspects (1) and (2) of this concern to be closed.

The EPA inspection team evaluated the physical and radiological compositions of the waste with respect to waste stream definition to ensure it was appropriate. This is summarized as follows: LANL-CCP assessed the physical characteristics of t he waste generated in the cells to assign a waste matrix code to the material generated. The w astes consist of general hot cell debris generated through the testing process, as well as l arger pieces of waste created during D&D activities. Historic Waste Description Forms and L og Books (U076, U069) documented the physical contents of the cans within 55-gallon drum s and the direct-loaded 55-gallon drums. EPA examined Reference C300, which summarized the c ans’ contents as presented in the

historic forms. It is noted that the individual ca ns contain an array of debris material, as well as solidified particulates. Canister LA15 containing Drums 37, 38, and 39, contains relatively significant quantities of solidified liquids by wei ght. However, data presented in Reference C300 indicate that the overall weight percent withi n the canister is approximately 54% debris and 46% solidified liquids. The volume percent, wh ich determines the solid or debris status of the canister, indicates that the canister contained 50% solids and 50% debris, thus warranting further examination by LANL-CCP. LANL-CCP AK perso nnel recalculated the volumetric quantities in each can (summed to obtain drum and c anister volume percents), assuming that the one-gallon alpha cans and 1.5-gallon cans surroundi ng the waste were part of the waste stream,

and not the outer containers for the waste. LANL-C CP AK personnel also indicated that they had performed calculations to determine the percent solid fill in each can, and had determined that the cans were approximately 50% full, which di rectly reduced the calculated volume, assuming 100% fill in each can with the identified material (e.g., solid or debris). Therefore, while individual cans/drums may be considered S3000 , the canister as a whole contains greater than 50% debris and fits within the specifications for this waste stream. LANL-CCP prepared Reference C312 that documents their calculation pro cesses.

The EPA inspection team reviewed data pertaining to the radionuclide content of the waste drums that had been evaluated by LANL to ensure tha t the waste stream had been appropriately bundled and that the radiological characteristics w ere traceable to specific activities. These data were used by LANL primarily for waste management in the underground storage shafts at20

TA-54, Area G. LANL-CCP AK personnel retrieved inf ormation from the SWOON (Stored Waste Operations Oracle Network) database as well a s LANL-prepared documents [e.g., M006, Transuranic Waste Storage Records (TWSRs)] to under stand the general radionuclide composition of the wastes. The individual can or f uel pin PAN measurements, measured external dose rates, and MS data were used by the L ANL-CCP radiological characterization team to develop a model in support of radiological chara cterization that is discussed in Section 8.2. The available LANL AK radiological data beyond base measurements were not used by LANLCCP. Rather, LANL-CCP performed their own calculat ions, the results of which were used as the values of record for characterizing these waste s. There was no comparison of the older LANL AK and the CCP-derived radiological components . However, EPA noted that reference

C301 that summarized the LANL information identifie d different 235 U/ 239 Pu ratios for canisters LA07 through LA15, when compared to the expected ra tios in canisters LA03 through LA06 and LA16 through LA18. To better illustrate the cause of this difference to the EPA inspection team and to ensure that it did not indicate the presence of multiple waste streams, LANL-CCP AK personnel reexamined references, source data sheets , and other information during the course of the inspection and showed that the waste stream in question is not composed of multiple waste streams. This analysis showed that the 235 U/ 239 Pu ratios of approximately 4:1 for canisters LA03 through LA06 and LA16 through LA18 appeared to be b est supported by the AK record, and this ratio agreed within an order of magnitude with the values derived for the canisters through the radiological characterization described in Section 8.2. When individual can data for canisters LA07 through LA15 were examined, their values were relatively close to the 4:1 235 U/ 239 Pu ratio

that had been identified for other canisters. This indicated that secondary data manipulation by LANL apparently imparted the erroneous 235 U/ 239 Pu ratios to canisters LA07 through LA15, and that the waste stream generally appears to have a 235 U/ 239 Pu ratio of 4:1 based on the can-based

AK data. EPA noted that there are individual cans that do not exhibit this ratio (e.g., thorium fuel pin related cans), so this ratio applies to th e waste stream in general and may not be reflected

in the measurements for individual cans.

To evaluate whether the waste stream was appropriat ely assigned from a radiological perspective, EPA examined process information assoc iated with Wing 9 CMR activities to verify that the only activities that occurred within the C MR hot cells were related to fuel pin testing.

The available data that were reviewed did not indic ate the presence of other activities in the hot cells. Fuel pin testing dates indicate that the fu el pins used by LANL-CCP to derive scaling factors were all managed in the CMR Hot Cells durin g the 1970s and mid-1980s prior to

initiation of D&D activities. Note that while the h ot cells were used through a given time period, LANL-CCP personnel stated that the process of waste packaging did not occur sequentially throughout the hot cells’ use, so there is no appar ent correlation between waste cans/drums and time periods. The EPA inspection team concluded t hat the assignment of all containers to a single waste stream was technically justified.

(2) The identification of these wastes as TRU versu s spent nuclear fuel (SNF), high-level waste (HLW) and low-level waste (LLW) was examined.

CCP-AK-LANL-500 states that the waste “does not con tain separation or reprocessing of

constituent elements from reactor fuel and the wast e stream does not contain the irradiated fuel elements withdrawn from a reactor.” LANL-CCP perso nnel stated that HLW, by definition, is

not included in this waste stream. LLW is not rele vant to this discussion.21

(3) Sufficiency of the AK summary and implementatio n of AK as required in Attachment A of

the WCPIP were evaluated.

Attachment A of the WCPIP specifies that the follow ing be included in AK summaries:

• Executive summary

• Waste stream identification summary

• AK data and information description

• Program information

• Waste stream information

• Qualification of AK information

• Container-specific information

Attachment A of the WCPIP mandates that the data co llection and analysis process should be similar to the process that is used for CH wastes. Both the content of the AK summary and sufficiency of AK implementation were assessed, and overall, the AK Summary adequately addressed all of the required elements. EPA issued a single concern that included issues regarding content of the AK Summary, indicating tha t some changes were required to clarify the waste stream content, see AK (1), above.

(4) Data traceability was examined.

Data traceability was assessed to understand the hi erarchy of information that was ultimately used by AK personnel to identify the physical and r adiological parameters associated with this

waste stream. Note that this evaluation included th e AK data sources, but did not include the actual data used as part of the radiological charac terization (e.g., fuel pin data radiological composition was examined under the radiological ana lysis). LANL-CCP personnel provided the following information regarding traceability of rad iological data:

The PAN assay data (M008) have a one page signed sh eet for each can with the fissile grams result and standard deviation. These results are also on the summary spreadsheet for each can (M006). The dose measurements, both contact and 1 meter, are in logbooks (M069, U070). These d ose measurements are also in the summary spreadsheet (M006)... The rest of the data is in the TSWRs for each canister (U111 – U126). Each TWSR has one dat asheet for each canister (“Calculation for RH-TRU Canisters”) that shows the calculated values for each LANL reported radionuclide (... examples from U113, U 117, and U126). LANL took the values from this datasheet and entered the m on page one of the TWSR (...examples from U113, U117, and U126) and also in t he SWOON database (screen shots in C301). [Therefore]... the SWOON dat abase only confirms that these are the actual values used by LANL for storag e.... Note that the Mass Spec. data (M007) was not used by LANL and had no bearing on the LANL reported

values.

As indicated above, MS measurements for approximate ly 400 of the individual waste cans within

the waste stream are documented in Reference M007. TWSRs present the 1-meter dose rate22

measurements for each waste can. Reference M006 do cuments that the 235 U and 239 Pu contents of each can were summed to produce a canister total , and the canister totals are recorded on TWSRs (see Waste Containers , above, for a discussion of waste cans versus cani sters).

Physical form waste descriptions were obtained from Logbooks (U069) and waste description records (WDRs) (U076), both created on a per-can ba sis. LANL-CCP personnel provided the following input, verifying the hierarchy observed b y EPA with regard to physical form

information:

The description for waste contents in the cans was documented in the logbooks (e.g. U069) and also on the Waste Description Recordforms (U076). The can-todrum-to-canister loading is summarized in M006 with information compiled from the TWSRs (Transuranic Waste Storage Records) (U111 -U126). Examples of logbook pages (U069) and Waste Description Record fo rms (U076) were provided during the inspection for can #207 and dir ect loaded drum B08. Attached are excerpts from U123, including an examp le TWSRs for canister LA18, showing the specific placement for each can i n each drum in the canister

.

The fuel pins’ radionuclide composition is essentia lly the radionuclide content of the wastes in

the sixteen canisters of Waste Stream No. LA-MHD03.0 02. Accordingly, the degree to which the radionuclides assigned to the waste were tracea ble to the fuel pins that were managed in Wing 9 during the waste-generating time period was assessed. The EPA inspection team also wanted to ensure that the fuel pin data were in agr eement with the general process information within the AK Summary. The available data for each fuel pin includes: the Fuel Element Summary Sheet for ANL fuel pins prepared by LANL-CC P; weight, radiological, and other data from the origination site; safeguards and materials management report data; individual fuel pin burn up calculations; and fuel composition by AG 4 or fuel pin number.

Note that the traceability evaluation typically perf ormed for CH inspections includes measurements of waste containers (drums or Standard Waste Boxes [SWBs]) that will be made subsequent to the inspection. However, in the case of this LANL RH waste stream, subsequent measurements will not take place and traceability w as evaluated to understand the origin and hierarchy of radionuclide and physical data associa ted with each canister. Since LANL-CCP personnel did not use the summarized AK radionuclid e information presented on the LANL

TWSRs and other LANL documents to check the results of their radiological characterization, LANL-CCP did not perform a detailed analysis of the data other than what was required to ensure that the waste stream identification was app ropriate.

(5) Sufficiency of AK support documents and related document tracking was evaluated.

An AK Source Document Reference List was prepared u sing unique identifiers for the different document types following the format used by LANL-CC P for CH wastes. The listing is based on CCP-TP-005 Revision 18, Attachment 4. The listi ng is complete, and is easy to understand

because it follows the same format used for CH wast e streams. Several AK support documents

4 An AG number is an identifier assigned to fuel pin s at the Alpha-Gamma Hot Cell Facility at Argonne National Laboratory-West at the Idaho National Labo ratory.23

were referenced in the text and the references exam ined to date address the element or issue that is referenced with the AK summary, although applica bility does vary. Note that EPA only examines support documentation specific to the tech nical element referenced in the AK summary that caused that support reference to be selected f or examination.

(6) Interpretation of WCPIP was evaluated with resp ect to contents of the Certification Plan, the Confirmatory Test Plan, and the proposed characteri zation process.

EPA’s RH WCPIP framework approval letter indicated that sites must generate a Certification Plan (CP) that explains how RH waste characterizati on will take place at each site, as well as a CTP. As a result of previous RH inspections, EPA c oncurred with CBFO that combining the CP and CTP in a single document (CCP-AK-502) that comp letely described the proposed characterization process satisfies the intent of EP A’s requirement.

(7) Content and technical adequacy of the Confirmat ory Test Plan was evaluated.

The WCPIP requires a description of the following i tems to be included in the CTP:

• The waste stream or waste stream lots to which the plan applies

• The confirmatory testing proposed, including the pe rcentage of waste containers that will be subject to confirmatory testing

• The waste characterization DQOs and Quality Assuran ce Objectives (QAOs) that will be satisfied with the data being qualified

• The DQOs and QAOs that will not be confirmed with t he data being qualified and an explanation of how compliance with those DQOs and Q AOs will be demonstrated

• How the tested subpopulation will be representative of the waste stream or waste stream lot

As required above, the waste stream and the approac h used to characterize it are also described in the CTP. Characterization is based solely on AK , without “confirmatory testing” such as NDA, although AK was qualified through a demonstrati on of an equivalent QA program 5

.

Sufficient QA documentation could not be located to support the LANL PAN software and LANL-CCP chose to verify the PAN software separately using “confirmatory modeling” as described in CCP-AK-LANL-504. ORIGEN2.2 modeling wa s confirmed via “confirmatory measurement” using MS data that LANL-CCP states was obtained under an equivalent QA program, and the MS data was used to “establish the quality of the input information and to gauge the ability of the model to estimate the isot opic abundances for the waste stream.” LANLCCP also noted that the DTC process used to determi ne radiological composition of directloaded drums in canisters required some modificatio n from the process presented in Attachments B and C of the WCPIP, a deviation that is allowed a s an alternative “confirmatory testing method.” As the above implies, the characterizatio n process used by LANL-CCP was complex, but the description within the CTP provided a basic understanding of the overall characterization

5 The determination of QA equivalency for any aspect of the LANL RH WC program is not a part of this technical inspection.24

approach. The CTP addresses DQOs and QAOs and the CTP also specifies that the waste stream population includes a total of sixteen canisters, s o there are no subpopulations or lots to consider.

LANL-CCP elected to convene a peer review panel to assess the usability of the physical form information for WC purposes. The EPA inspection te am had three minor concerns with the CTP regarding clarification of the Peer Review Panel’s role and other items that were largely editorial in nature. All issues that were identified during the course of the inspection were addressed through revisions of specific documents or oral com mitments to make freeze file changes and LANL-CCP assured EPA that they will revise specific documents or make freeze file changes to complete agreed upon changes to record what was dis cussed and how it was resolved. CCP-AK-502 has been revised to correct typographica l errors pertaining to inclusion of peer review references, and other minor changes.

EPA Concern No. LANL-RH-AK-07-001: The third of the four issues identified on this concern form [see AK (1), above] centered on the fa ct that CCP-AK-502 contained typographical errors pertaining to the inclusion of references from the VE Peer Review Panel and

other minor errors.

Resolution: CCP-AK-502 has been revised and changes have been made to specific sections of

CCP-AK-LANL-502 as follows:

• Section 4.3: “Survey measurements will be taken us ing survey methods and procedures as required by the Site Health Physics Program usin g approved and controlled Site procedures.”

• Section 4.4: “The actual container-specific [radio logical] results are documented in

CCP-AK-LANL-501.”

• Section 4.6: “This is discussed in CCP-AK-LANL-500 . A peer review will be conducted to verify the AK information is of suffic ient quality to be used to meet physical form DQOs and associated QAOs.”

These changes were reviewed by EPA during the inspe ction and were found to satisfactorily

address this concern.

Status of Concern: EPA considers this issue to be closed.

(8) Content and technical adequacy of the Character ization Reconciliation Report was evaluated.

EPA evaluated CCP-TP-506, CCP Preparation of the Re mote-Handled Transuranic Waste Acceptable Knowledge Characterization Reconciliatio n Report, Revision 1, to determine whether this document reflected the assembly of inf ormation required in the WCPIP. Additionally, EPA evaluated the CRR to see whether this report reflected requirements of CCPTP-506, to ensure that the CRR addressed required e lements as specified in the WCPIP, including:25

• Specification of applicable site and waste stream

• A listing of each DQO

• Data from the AK record that addresses each DQO

• AK source document references that support/provide the data

• A listing of AK record discrepancy resolutions, if any, relevant to each DQO

• Documentation, including specific references, of ho w the AK data for each DQO were qualified, such as batch data reports, corroborativ e data, proceedings of a peer review, etc.

• Real Time Radiography (RTR) and/or VE summary to do cument that liquids greater than 1 percent are absent from the waste and to confirm AK concerning the physical properties of

the waste

• A summary presentation of radiological measurement data used to meet the DQOs and to

confirm AK

• A complete AK summary

• A complete listing of all container identification numbers used to generate the WSPF, crossreferenced to each batch data report

• A listing of AK discrepancies generated by an AK qu alification process and the corresponding resolutions

• Signature of the Site Project Manager (SPM)

The sample the EPA inspection team examined include d all of the above requirements. As had been observed previously for the RH WC programs at INL and ANL-E (see Docket Nos. A-98-49, II-A4-72 and A-98-49, II-A4-73, respective ly), the CRR DQO worksheet (Attachment 3 of CCP-TP-506) for this LANL RH waste stream did not similarly include a listing of the 10 WIPP-tracked radionuclides as par t of the DQO assessment process. These radionuclides must be specified, quantified, and as sessed as part of the CRR. In the past, site personnel declined to address these because the WCP IP does not specifically require their inclusion. However, EPA’s rule does specify de fac to limits for the ten WIPP-tracked radionuclides that are based on modeled quantities. At INL and ANLE, these were addressed in tiering, an option that is not available for LANL-C CP. If LANL-CCP revises the CRR, revision would include the identification and quantification of the EPA’s WIPP-tracked radionuclides.

(9) Use of a Correlation and Surrogate Summary Form was evaluated.

Completion of a Correlation and Surrogate Summary F orm is required when AK information

from a related CH waste stream is used in the RH wa ste characterization process. Revision 2 of the AK Summary implies that there is a surrogate CH waste stream that was generated in Wing 9 hot cells [see (1), above]. LANL-CCP personnel cla rified that there is no surrogate CH waste stream analogous to the RH stream, for which actual NDA data may be available. EPA requested a revision to the AK Summary to clarify t hat there is no analogous CH waste stream.26

EPA Concern No. LANL-RH-AK-07-001: The fourth issue that was tracked on this EPA Inspection Issue Tracking Form [see Sections (1) an d (7), above] was the statement in CCL-AK-500 regarding the existence of a CH waste st ream that originated within the LANL CMR facility that was a surrogate for the RH Waste Stream LA-MHD03.002.

Resolution: LANL-CCP committed to revising CCP-AK-LANL-500 us ing Freeze File changes.

While EPA did not mandate which revision of CCP-AK- LANL-500 would address this issue, EPA expects that the next version (Revision 4) of C CP-AK-LANL-500 will include this change.

Status of Concern: EPA considers this issue closed.

(10) Personnel training was evaluated.

Training records for AKEs Kevin Peters, Steve Schaf er, and Sherri Nance were examined as a random sample of those involved with the LANL-CCP A K program. Training for each was evaluated with respect to: the RH TRU WCPIP; the n onconformance and corrective action processes; the AK procedure presented in Attachment A of the WCPIP; the site-specific contents of the subject waste stream(s); and determination o f radiological contents of individual waste containers. Each person demonstrated training in t he first four areas. With respect to determination of radiological contents of each wast e container, no formal training was noted. However, EPA has observed Steve Shafer and Kevin Pe ters at several audits, and both have demonstrated proficiency with regard to assembly an d interpretation of radionuclide data commensurate with the expertise needed for these ta sks. Where detailed radionuclide analysis and expertise are required, Mr. Jene Vance performe d those tasks. Mr. Vance’s training record

was examined since he assembled and assessed AK dat a that was used to derive the scaling factors. Although Mr. Vance did not show direct tr aining with respect to this area, his resume showed considerable expertise suitable to demonstra ting proficiency. In summary, all AKEs and the radiological Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) demo nstrated the necessary level of knowledge in the area of radiological assessment through on-t he-job-training (OJT).

(11) The relationship of fuel pin content, burn up , and MS data was examined and the general isotopic composition was assessed.

LANL-CCP estimates that the fuel pin examination co nducted at the Wing 9 hot cells of the CMR facility at LANL from the early 1970s to 1986 r eceived and processed 1610 fuel pins from several sources and that 1,473 of these had post-ir radiation examination. Additionally, mass spectrometry was performed on over 500 fuel pins, a lthough the records for 400 of them were retrieved for use on this project. LANL-CCP makes the basic assumption that material from all fuel pins may be present in every waste container. As was observed previously, INL-CCP based the analyses presented in AK-INL-CCP-501 upon this assumption, and built the remainder of the analysis on fuel pin commonalities. Other sites su ch as INL and ANLE generated wastes by lots, some of which were created during the fuel pin exam ination process and required assessment for association with specific pin sets. However, the L ANL CMR Wing 9 RH wastes were all generated after the fuel pin examination process to ok place, so an association of waste cans with specific fuel pin compositions cannot be ascertaine d. LANL-CCP’s assumption that all pins contributed to the isotopic composition of the wast e is reasonable.27

(12) Discrepancy Resolution (DR) Forms were examine d.

Because measurement data were not collected for thi s waste stream and all characterization is based on AK, Non Conformance Reports (NCRs) were not created. Instead, issues identified were AK-AK in nature, so discrepancy resolution (DR ) forms were created. DR Nos. DR001 through DR005 were provided within the CRR. The fo rms provided detailed AK-AK discrepancies dealing with PCBs, waste compaction, lack of dual signatures for drum B08, chemical content of waste, and the presence of seal ed containers having a volume greater than 4 liters. This information suggests that LANL-CCP ca n adequately prepare DRs to document nonconforming items or containers, as well as the t ypes of discrepancies presented for review. During the inspection in Albuquerque, EPA was not p rovided a specific example of an AK-AK discrepancy resolution involving radiological compo sition of waste, but the 235 U/ 239 Pu ratio issue

discussed above that was associated with the identi fication of an erroneous ratio for canisters LA07 through LA15 reported by LANL would fall under this category. EPA expects that the

erroneous ratios for certain waste containers will be identified as an AK-AK discrepancy in the

AK record and will be added to the record.

(13) A waste stream profile form was examined.

An example Waste Stream Profile Form (WSPF) was exa mined for Waste Stream No. LA-MHD03.002. The form included the required items as presented in the WCPIP, Attachment 4; the CRR and RH AK summary are also re quired for submission to CBFO to allow

assessment of the WSPF. EPA understands that this form was abbreviated because it was provided for inspection purposes only, and EPA expe cts that the completed form will include all required AK data, checklists and other information, as applicable. See comments above pertaining to CRR and AK Summary for additional inf ormation.

(14) AK accuracy was assessed.

The WCPIP requires determination of AK Accuracy in three areas: reassignment of the waste to a different Summary Category Group (SCG); reassignm ent of the waste to a different waste stream; and stream-specific assessment of radiologi cal parameter accuracy. In the case of Waste Stream No.LA-MHD03.002, all characterization was bas ed on AK alone, so an accuracy determination based on comparing measurement data a nd AK is not appropriate. LANL-CCP elected to include a discussion of AK Accuracy in t he CTP. In this document, LANL-CCP cites comparisons of the confirmatory modeling/MS results and historic PAN data, fuel characteristics, and packaging records, all of whic h indicate that the AK record is accurate for the purposes of the determination of the canisters’ TRU status, RH status, and TRU radionuclide activity plus uncertainty. The DQOs for physical f orm and liquid content were met through records that were subsequently subjected to and app roved by a peer review panel. EPA agrees that it is difficult to derive an AK Accuracy asses sment when AK serves as the sole

characterization basis.28

(15) Load management was assessed.

The possibility that containers have TRU concentrat ions of less than 100 nCi/g was evaluated.

None of the canisters were determined to have TRU co ncentrations less than 100 nCi/g, although one container (No. LA04) had a value of 120 ± 40 nCi /g. The other fifteen canisters have TRU concentrations ranging from 175 ± 65 nCi/g (No. LA0 5) to 20,400 ± 3,320 nCi/g (No. LA08). In this context, load management refers to the load ing of TRU and non-TRU (i.e., less than 100 nCi of TRU alpha activity per gram of waste) CH was te containers in a ten-drum overpack (TDOP) for the purpose of meeting the TRU alpha act ivity definition. This practice has been practiced at other DOE TRU sites. The use of load management is not expected for these sixteen

canisters of RH TRU wastes at LANL-CCP.

All aspects of the LANL-CCP documentation in suppor t of LANL RH Waste Stream Number LA-MHD03.002 are technically adequate.

8.2 Radiological Characterization

EPA evaluated the method by which the required radi ological constituents for each waste

container were determined. The nature of RH TRU wa stes presents considerable difficulty with respect to obtaining meaningful measurement data, a s is routinely done with CH TRU. Apart from the obvious concerns regarding personnel worki ng in external radiation fields in excess of 200 mrem/hr, RH TRU waste containers typically cont ain concentrations of energetic photon emitters, i.e., 137 Cs and/or 60 Co that prevent a meaningful isotopic determination in the same

manner as is done for CH TRU wastes.

Overview of LANL Radiological Characterization Prog ram

The overall approach to radiological characterizati on used for the LANL wastes has several elements in common with the RH characterization app roaches EPA observed in the INL-CCP and ANLE-CCP RH programs. These programs were eval uated during EPA inspection Nos.

EPA-INL-CCP-RH-6.06-8 and EPA-ANL-CCP-RH-9.06-8 of the CCP’s RH programs implemented at INL and ANLE, respectively (see Dock et Nos. A-98-49, II-A4-72 and A-98-49, II-A4-73). During these two RH inspections, the EP A inspection team evaluated the conceptual bases of several aspects of the characterization ap proach, including:

• Development of DTC relationships as a function of w aste density using MNCP5 based on

137 Cs

• Derivation of radionuclide scaling factors using OR IGEN2.2

• Evaluation of MS data to derive adjustment factors to be applied to the scaling factors derived using ORIGEN2.2 results

These characterization techniques were evaluated in detail during the previous RH inspections cited earlier, and the reader is directed to the ba seline inspection reports for these activities for a thorough evaluation of their technical aspects. Th e radiological characterization process for RH TRU wastes at LANL used some of these techniques wi th LANL-specific variations.29

LANL-CCP’s approach consists of two components, one for the twelve canisters with historical

PAN measurements and one for the four bulk-loaded ca nisters. These are summarized below

and described in detail in the section that follows :

Twelve Canisters with PAN Measurements :

Using historical information regarding the fuels pi ns’ 235 U content, 240 Pu enrichment, U/Pu ratio and burn-up in conjunction with the appropriate rea ctor cross-sections and neutron spectra, multiple runs of ORIGEN2.2 were made for a populatio n of 400 fuel pins. This population was representative of the fuel pins that generated the wastes that were loaded in the 364 cans. Based on the ORIGEN2.2 analyses, radionuclide-specific sca ling factors were developed for the

radionuclide of interest. These results were then compared to the MS data for the same fuel pins

and correction or adjustment factors were derived for 233 U, 234 U, 235 U, 238 U, 238 Pu, 239 Pu, 240 Pu,

241 Pu and 242 Pu. These adjustment factors were then applied to the ORIGEN2.2.analyses that were made for the 400 fuel pins, and the total quan tities for each radionuclide were summed and used to develop a ratio of each radionuclide (inclu ding 60 Co) to the fuel pins’ total fissile gram content, i.e., a Fissile Gram-to-Curie scaling fact or. These scaling factors were used to derive the content of all reported radionuclides except 60 Co, which was addressed separately as

described below. The radionuclides with shorter ha lf-lives ( 241 Pu, 137 Cs and 90 Sr) were decay corrected to an assumed shipping date of June 1, 20 06. Using MicroShield®, a Curie-to-Dose scaling factor for 137 Cs was determined for hypothetical one curie 137 Cs and 60 Co sources in onegallon cans as a function of density. This was use d to determine the 137 Cs contribution to each can’s measured dose rate, assuming that the two mai n components of the measured dose rate

were 137 Cs and 60 Co. Subtracting the 137 Cs dose rate from the can’s total yields the 60 Co dose rate, which is then converted to an activity in cur ies using the Fissile Gram-to-Curie scaling factors described above. This process is illustrat ed in Figure 3, below.30Figure 3. RH TRU Radiological Characterization Flow Diagram for 12 Canisters Loaded with CansPost-Irradiation Forms for400 Fuel PinsU-235 EnrichmentPu-240 EnrichmentU/Pu RatioBurnupLocate and RetrieveRelevant RecordsCalculate FuelComposition for 400 PinsMake ORIGEN22 Runsfor 400 PinsOutputMass SpectroscopyResults for 400 PinsU and Pu RelativeAbundancesCompare Mass SpecResults to ORIGEN2.2Output for 400 PinsDetermine AverageAdjustment Factors to Applyto ORIGEN ResultsPost-Irradiation Formsfor 1473 PinsU-235 EnrichmentPu-240 EnrichmentU/Pu RatioBurnupCalculate Fuel Compositionfor 1473 Fuel PinsMake ORIGEN22Runs for 1473 PinsOutputApply Average AdjustmentFactors to ORIGEN Results1PAN Assay Results—364 CansGrams of Fissile Material-Passive Measurements-Active MeasurementsUncertainty in measurementsAdjust Assay Results forCans with PassiveMeasurements Based onNew FG/Pu-240 Ratio2Calculate Isotope/FG Ratiosfor 1473 Pins and DetermineAverage Ratios to be Used AsScaling FactorsWing 9 Canister LoadingSummaries-12 CanistersCan Numbers in CanistersCan WeightsOne-Meter Dose RatesCalculate FG/Pu-240 Ratiosfor 1473 Pins andDetermine Average FG/Pu240 RatioDevelop Dose/Curie Relationshipsfor One-Gallons Cans as a Functionof Waste Density Using MicroShieldCs-137Co-60Determine the Quantitiesin Mass and Curies inCanisters for AllReportable Nuclidesexcept Co-603456789101112Calculate Cs-137 Contentin EachWaste CanDetermine Dose RateContribution from Cs-137Using Curie-to-DoseSum the Fissile GramQuantities for all Cans ina Canister131415Determine Co-60 Content ofeach Can from Differencebetween Measured Dose Rateand Cs-137 Contribution1617Develop TotalUncertainties for Isotopes1831

Four Bulk-Loaded Canisters:

The characterization for the bulk-loaded canisters was similar to the approach for the twelve

canisters described above. Based on the DTC relati onship established for the twelve canisters (364 cans total), the relative abundances of 137 Cs and 60 Co were determined. Using MicroShield®, a dose/curie relationship was develop ed as a function of waste density for the 55-gallon (208 liter) drums. By combining the meas ured one-meter dose rates from the historical Wing 9 Canister Loading Summaries, and t he newly-derived relative abundances of

137 Cs and 60 Co and the MicroShield® dose/curie relationship, th e 137 Cs and 60 Co curies were

determined and summed for each of the four bulk-loa ded canisters. The inverse of the 137 Cs to fissile gram scaling factor described above was use d, i.e., a fissile gram-to- 137 Cs scaling factor, was applied to yield a fissile gram value for each canister. The fissile gram scaling factors that

were derived from the twelve canisters discussed ab ove were then applied to the four bulkloaded canisters to provide values for the remainin g WIPP-tracked radionuclides. This process is illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Radiological Characterization of 4 Bulk- Loaded Canisters

Using Dose-to-Curie Methodology32

Both characterization methods were evaluated in ter ms of the following:

• Technical adequacy of the approach as supported by the LANL-CCP WC program’s documents, procedures, and controls

• Knowledge and understanding of the personnel involv ed in the RH WC program

Technical Evaluation

The EPA inspection team evaluated the following asp ects:

(1) Technical Adequacy of Active and Passive PAN D ata – Twelve Canisters

The PAN data upon which this characterization appro ach was based were generated at LANL in 1990 and 1991. The PAN system itself was described in LA-UR-91-125, Description of the PAN Assay System for Remote-Handled Waste . It was modeled after a second generation PAN that had been developed at LANL for use with CH TRU wastes, and was modified by adding lead shielding and configuring it to accept 21 cm d iameter by 30 cm high steel cans as opposed

to the standard 208 liter drums used for CH wastes. The basic detector type (bare and shielded

3 He detectors), corner-mounted flux monitor, floor-m ounted collimated on-can flux monitor, and the use of pulsed thermal neutron interrogation pro duced by a Zetatron neutron generator (providing 14 MeV neutrons bursts of 5 – 10 μsecond s in duration repeating at 50 Hz) were the same, although there were fewer 3 He detectors than are typically used for CH TRU ass ays. This document provides adequate technical details regard ing the system’s components and operation, including: system description; assay algorithm and data acquisition software; active and passive assay mode operation; active mode matrix correction ; active and passive calibration standards; operator training and requirements; assay procedure s; assay precision, bias and detection limit; active and passive errors; and choice of active ver sus passive assay values. This document was adequate for describing the technical basis and ope ration of the PAN system for the LANL RH

waste stream.

Regarding the actual PAN active and passive mode da ta, four separate calculation packages were reviewed: LANL-RH-33, Active PAN Data Validation ; LANL-RH-34, Passive PAN Data

Validation ; LANL-RH-35, Waste Can PAN Data Validation; and, LANL-RH-36, Evaluation of Early PAN Data . LANL-RH-33, LANL-RH-34, and LANL-RH-35 document the process used to assess the PAN data, and they provide an adequat e record supporting the technical adequacy of the PAN values for the purpose. LANL-RH-36 is n ecessary because approximately thirtyseven cans, as well as calibration standards for bo th active and passive modes, were performed beginning in April 1990 until July 1, 1990, and the majority of the PAN assays were performed after July 1, 1990 6 . There were a total of 364 assays performed, one for each can. Upon completion of the initial 37 assays, adjustments we re made to the system’s calibration that was in effect for the remaining assays. However, the init ial 37 assays were not reevaluated in light of the changed calibration and LANL-RH-36 assessed the impact of this. The raw data from the 37 runs were reanalyzed using the recreated PAN algori thms and the old (pre-April 1, 1990) and

new (recalculated with post-April 1, 1990 calibration) values were compared. The discrepancies

6 The number of assays may include performance and/o r quality control assays or samples.33

between the two values appear insignificant, and in those cases where discrepancies exist, the reported fissile gram values are higher than would have been reported with the post-April 1,

1990 calibration.

(2) Characterization of Four Bulk-Loaded Canisters

The characterization of these four canisters relies heavily upon the calculations performed in support of the twelve canisters for which there wer e PAN measurements, described above, and is documented in LANL-RH-23. The specific components of this approach are detailed in: LANL-20 (specific abundances of 137 Cs and 60 Co); LANL-RH-17 (scaling factors for isotopes of interest); and, LANL-RH-22 (DTC correlations for 137 Cs and 60 Co). The values for all conversion factors (Specific Activity, Specific Hea t, FGE, and PE Curies) were taken from the appropriate sources (CH-TRAMPAC Document, Revision 2 and DOE/WIPP-02-3122).

(3) Radionuclide Documentation in lieu of Batch Da ta Reports

The sixteen canisters of LANL-CCP RH TRU waste were not documented in a batch data report (BDR) as is the practice at TRU waste sites when do cumenting waste characterization data for a number of containers in a batch. Instead, the form al documentation for each canister’s radionuclide values was presented in CCP-AK-LANL-50 1, Revision 1, pages 80 through 95. The EPA inspection team verified that the data shee t for each canister contained the following

information:

• Canister number

• Waste stream designation

• Net waste weight

• Fissile gram content

• Scaling factor in grams or curies per fissile gram

• Activity values and uncertainties for the 10 WIPP-t racked radionuclides in nCi/g

• TRU alpha concentration

• Plutonium equivalent curies in curies

• Fissile Gram Equivalents in grams

• Decay heat in watts

• Volume activity in curies per liter

• The data sheets in CCP-AK-LANL-501 were based on ca lculations that were derived from several calculation packages. The EXCEL spreadshee t in LANL-RH-20 uses the input provided by the CMR Wing RH TRU Canister Loading Su mmary (Reference M006-RHAK) and include: the canister number; can weight; can contact dose-rate; can one-meter dose rate; and PAN measured total fissile gram quantity with uncertainty.34

There were several minor errors in CCP-AK-LANL-501 and discrepancies between the technical information in CCP-AK-LANL-501 and specific calcula tion packages. These were discussed with LANL-CCP personnel during the inspection and E PA included them on an EPA Inspection Issue Tracking Form (See Attachment A.2 of this rep ort for a copy of this form). It is discussed

below.

EPA Concern No. LANL-CCP-RH-RC-07-002C: The issues are as follows:

• The calculation package LANL-RH-20 provides the tec hnical basis of the derivation of

the radionuclide values for each of the sixteen RH canisters. These values are presented in CCP-AK-LANL-501, Revision 0 that serves as the o fficial record of the radionuclide

values for these canisters that will be entered in WWIS.

• The 137 Cs and 60 Co values for canister LA12 shown on page 85 in CCP -AK-LANL-501 do not agree with the values for those two radionuc lides that were derived in LANL-RH20. CCP-AK-LANL-501, Revision 0 contains Figures 8 -1 and 8-2 on pages 53 and 54, respectively. These figures are different from the same plots shown in the calculation package LANL-RH-11 and the values in CCP-AK-LANL-50 1 are incorrect.

• CCP-AK-LANL-501 requires minor changes to the text

.

• Calculation packages LANL-RH-23 and LANL-RH-24 shou ld be revised to explicitly present the statistical treatment of all components of the uncertainty determination.

Resolution: CCP-AK-LANL-501, LANL-RH-23 and LANL-RH-24 were r evised appropriately.

Status of Concern: This concern is closed.

(4) RH and TRU determinations

The records addressing the determination that the s ixteen canisters met the definition of TRU wastes (TRU alpha activity concentration greater th an 100 nCi/g) and RH waste (contact dose equivalent rate in excess of 200 mrem/hr) were exam ined, as discussed below:

• TRU waste containers must have a concentration of T RU radionuclides greater than 100 nCi/g:

As stated previously, BDRs were not prepared for th e sixteen containers in this waste

stream. The radionuclide values that were determin ed for the canisters are contained in CCP-AK-LANL-501, pages 80 through 95. All sixteen containers indicate TRU concentrations greater than 100 nCi/gram, although the listing for one container (LA04) indicates a TRU Alpha Activity Concentration of 120 ± 40 nCi/g. The error is a onesigma value and, expressed a little differently, th e range of this container’s true value at the one-sigma confidence interval lies between 80 a nd 160 nCi/g. Alternately, several other containers (LA08 through LA14) have TRU Alpha Activity Concentrations in excess of 12,000 nCi/g with one-sigma errors on the order of 25%.35

• RH TRU containers must have a contact external dose equivalent rate in excess of

200 mrem/hr:

The external exposure rate (dose rate) measurements of each of the steel cans were made at the time the cans were weighed, and the measured values are recorded in the CMR Wing 9 RH TRU Canister Loading Summary. All measur ements were made at a distance of one-meter at the midpoint of the cans and the va lue that was recorded for each can was the highest value observed as the can was turned (r otated). The measurements were made with the appropriate instruments, i.e., an RO- 3C meter for lower radiation fields and a PIC-6B for the higher radiation fields. The measurement records for the cans indicate external dose rates greater than 200 mrem/ hr in all cases. For the four bulkloaded canisters, the values taken from the LANL re cords were obtained at the time the drums were packaged on November 18, 1991. All of t hese measurements indicate onemeter external dose rates in excess of 200 mrem/hr.

8.2.1 Scaling Factor Development

Development of the fissile gram and dose rate based scaling factors is a complex task that incorporated various types of information related t o the fuel pins that were processed in Wing 9 of the CMR facility, including the following:

• Fuel pin type and characteristics

• 235 U enrichment

• 240 Pu enrichment (for mixed oxide fuels) and burnup

• U/Pu ratios (for mixed oxide fuels)

• Mass spectrometry results for destructive assay (DA ) of 400 fuel pins

The scaling factors were incorporated in a drum cha racterization spreadsheet based on the output from the ORIGEN2.2 computer runs from the 1,473 fue l pins that were extracted using the ORIOUT00.EXE program, as documented in Calculation LANL-RH-15. The isotope quantities that were derived in this manner were adjusted usin g the factors developed with the MS data, as documented in LANL-RH-16, to derive scaling factors that allowed the calculation of mass or curie quantities for each fuel pin. These were sum med to yield fissile gram quantities (based on

the 235 U and 239 Pu values), which were used to derive radionuclide- specific scaling factors. This process was essentially the same in concept as what was observed previously for the INL-CCP RH WC program. The difference was that these scali ng factors were based on each can’s measured fissile gram content, whereas with INL RH waste the radionuclides were scaled to each container’s measured external dose, assuming t hat each container’s measured dose rate consisted predominantly of 137 Cs. Specifically, the LANL approach is a Fissile G ram-to-Curie scaling factor.

A DTC scaling factor was also developed for the ste el cans, as documented in LANL-RH-11. However, the purpose of the DTC was to convert the activity in curies of 137 Cs to a one-meter

dose rate and then to convert the measured dose rat e into activity (curies) of 60 Co, both of which were done using MICROSHIELD 7.00. This DTC was bas ed on the following:36

• Can density, calculated for each can, that ranged f rom 0.3 to 2.5 g/cm 3

• Paint can and steel can outside diameters, height, and wall thickness

• Internal volume

Two series of calculations were performed, one for 137 Cs and one for 60 Co. These produced the plots shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively.

Figure 5. 137 Cs Dose Rate versus Density for 11⁄2-Gallon Cans37 Figure 6. 60 Co Dose Rate versus Density for 11⁄2-Gallon Cans

Scaling Factor Technical Evaluation

The technical basis and degree to which the scaling factors are representative of the RH TRU wastes for which LANL-CCP requested approval were e valuated during this inspection. The following elements were evaluated and verified:

(1) Waste stream definition

This inspection focused on a group of wastes that L ANL-CCP stated were contained in a single waste stream, which included fuel pins that were di ssimilar with respect to their radionuclide content. Specifically, they consisted of three fue l types: U, low enriched U (LEU), and highly enriched U (HEU); U and Pu; and, thorium. The EPA inspection team concluded that the assignment of all containers to a single waste stre am was technically justified and technically supportable.38

(2) Technical aspects and derivation of scaling factors

The EPA inspection team evaluated the following asp ects:

• Activity values that are used are derived from mode ling and statistical metrics that support their use, and the statistical metrics incl ude mean and standard deviation values

for each measured radionuclide.

• The appropriateness of the choice of physical const ants and radionuclide-specific attributes (specific activity, physical half-life, neutron cross sections, photon transition probabilities, etc.) and the technical correctness of the values assigned to each attribute.

• Isotopic activity values are normalized to each con tainer’s PAN-based fissile gram determination or the major radionuclide(s) responsi ble for the container’s external dose rate, i.e., 137 Cs and 60 Co.

• The calculated results used to develop the factors and convert the measured fissile gram quantities and external dose rates to radionuclide activity levels.

• Calculations supporting the scaling factors are per formed using appropriate shielding analysis techniques, i.e., MCNP5 and Microshield 7. 00.

• Computer programs (ORIGEN2.2) used for calculations of the activities of the WIPPtracked radionuclides account for the following:

o The beginning conditions of the fuel used to produc e the TRU isotopes

o Exposure of fuel to neutron fields in a nuclear rea ctor (fission)

o Change in radionuclides following irradiation

o Reactor neutron energy spectrum is known or calcula ted in order to determine the effective cross-sections of radionuclides leading t o the creation of WIPP-tracked

radionuclides

o Appropriate cross-sections are used or generated fo r each reactor condition

o Fuel exposure history is used to calculate isotope generation and depletion

(3) Documentation of technical aspects

Development of the scaling factors is documented in calculation packages that were prepared and reviewed by Jene Vance and Jim Holderness. The se packages address a variety of aspects, including:

• Verification of MCNP5, Microshield 7.00 and ORIGEN2 .2

• Evaluation of all potential contributors to a conta iner’s dose rate, specifically 137 Cs and

60 Co, plus other gamma emitting members of the 232 U decay series, e.g., 228 Ac and 208 Tl

• U and Pu relationship in the fuel pins from which t he wastes originated

• The nature and history of the fuel pins, reactor cr oss-sections, and operating histories

• Potential sources of uncertainty, discussed below39

The EPA inspection team members reviewed a subset o f these packages in detail and discussed them with the documents’ authors and Mark Doherty ( CCP/WTS ) . During these discussions, EPA questioned several aspects extensively and modi fications to the calculation packages were made in response to the EPA inspection team’s conce rns. All potential concerns were resolved and, apart from minor discrepancies with respect to specific documentation details, the calculation packages were found to be technically a dequate.

(4) Evaluation of Total Measurement Uncertainty (TMU)

The development of TMU for Waste Stream Number LA-M HD03.002 is based on the propagation of uncertainties present in all aspects of the determination of the radiological

constituents of RH TRU waste. The TMU determinatio n included the contributions of:

• Drum weight measurement

• PAN measurement uncertainty

• MCNP5 issues

• MicroShield issues

• Other gamma emitters

• Individual pins to the total

• Burnup history

• Reported burnup

• Internal code issues

• Modeling

The EPA inspection team did not have any open techn ical issues or concerns relative to the development and application of radionuclide scaling factors based on the objective evidence reviewed during this inspection.

8.3 Mass Spectrometry Data to Support ORIGEN2.2

The purpose of the ORIGEN2.2 modeling was to develo p technically based scaling factors to allow a waste container’s activity values for each of the 10 WIPP-tracked radionuclides to be correlated with another measured quantity, i.e., an external gamma dose rate or neutron-based fissile gram determination. While this is essentia lly a modeling exercise, there was a verification or validation of the ORIGEN2.2 output that was perf ormed using data from 400 fuel pins that were sampled and assayed using MS. The use of MS d ata in support of the ORIGEN2.2 derived scaling factors had been assessed during EPA Inspec tion No. EPA-INL-CCP-RH-6.06-8. Based on that inspection, EPA determined that there is su fficient information and data available to demonstrate that the isotopic data used to verify t he ORIGEN2.2 output were technically sound. Specifically, EPA determined that the data were gen erated by an analytical system with acceptable accuracy, precision, and bias to support its use in providing an objective check on the radionuclide scaling factors that were derived usin g ORIGEN2.2 for LANL-CCP RH TRU wastes (see Docket No. A-98-49, II-A4-72).

All aspects of the LANL-CCP documentation in suppor t of LANL RH Waste Stream Number LA-MHD03.002 are technically adequate.40

8.4 Technical Evaluation: Physical Form and Prohibited Item Characterization

All 16 canisters were packaged and sealed by 1991 i n accordance with LANL procedures and practices in place at that time. These procedures addressed waste identification and packaging, and personnel training. As a result of these pract ices, individual can contents are presented and recorded in both logbooks and Waste Description Rec ords. Because the individual cans are in permanently sealed canisters that are not amenable to NDE, confirmation of waste contents via VE or RTR as presented in the WCPIP is not practica l. As a result, LANL-CCP chose to examine the use of an equivalent QA qualification p rocess to meet requirements within the WCPIP. Complete examination of the Waste Descripti on Records and Log Books (AK record)

further led LANL-CCP to conclude that a demonstrati on of QA equivalency may not be an appropriate confirmation tool due to incompleteness of the available records and, in some instances, it did not fully support the implementat ion of specific processes. Therefore, LANLCCP chose to implement confirmation through a Peer Review process with the scope discussed

in the seven sections shown below.

(1) Description of physical parameters in the AK Summar y and related supporting documents was examined for physical characteristic descriptio n adequacy and discrepancy resolution.

The AK Summary, CCP-AK-LANL 500, Revision 2 indicat es that the waste is composed of approximately 11.7% organic and 88.30% inorganic wa stes. The Waste Matrix Code (WMC) assigned was heterogeneous debris, S5400, as obtain ed by reviewing individual can waste description records and accompanying log books. No te that the waste included three drums that contained approximately 50% S3000 solidified sludge s (drums 37, 38, and 39 in Canister LA15).

LANL-CCP asserted that when taken on the canister l evel, the waste within the subject canister was still considered debris, by definition. Given that the canisters are permanently sealed and loaded in drums, it is not reasonable to require co nsideration of the drum as a separate waste stream. Reference C300 is the primary reference th at documents how Waste Material Parameters (WMPs) were assessed. As the EPA inspec tion team verified, none of the waste description records of log book entries identified the percentages of specific wastes within the containers. LANL-CCP therefore assumed an equivale nt weight distribution of the various components, and this is a reasonable assumption giv en the type of data available.

In addition to the above written records, in the ea rly 1990s, LANL performed an RTR

examination of all sixteen RH canisters. This effo rt is part of the AK record and examination of the tape indicated the potential presence of sealed containers having a volume greater than 4 liters within drums inside canisters LA04, LA05, and LA06. Because identification was based on an AK record discrepancy (e.g., old RTR tapes ve rsus Waste Record Descriptions/Log books), the issue was documented on an AK Discrepan cy Resolution form. There were three subject canisters identified as ineligible for ship ment to WIPP pending resolution of this discrepancy. During the inspection, it was noted t hat the waste transfer cans that RTR had identified as sealed containers had an “O” ring at the container lip to seal the containers, but Log/Description records specifically stated that th is “O” ring was removed to vent the containers, thus indicating that the containers are not, in fac t, sealed. LANL-CCP examined this more thoroughly following the EPA inspection, and verifi ed that removal of the “O” rings adequately41

vented the containers. LANL-CCP revised CCP-AK-LAN L-500 appropriately to address this

issue and EPA considers this issue to be closed.

(2) Procedures used to perform VE were examined for comparability with the WCPIP and attainment of DQOs/QAOs.

References P121 and P123 reflect the waste packagin g and record keeping mandates that were in place at the time the subject wastes were packaged. Reference P121 (Securing and Disposing of Waste from Wing 9 of the CMR Building) required tha t an operator complete a Certified Waste Storage Record (CWSR) for each waste container that was loaded. Alternatively, a Radioactive Solid Waste Disposal Form with Supplemental Data Sh eet could be provided. Procedures specified curie content calculation methodologies a nd determination of fissile components in TRU contaminated bulk waste. Reference P123, Attac hment #7 of the LANL TRU Waste Certification Plan for the Processing of CH and RH TRU Solids from the Hot Cell Operations, also addresses the waste packaging and documentatio n requirements. Reference P123 includes a description of the waste generating processes and a requirement that the absence of liquid be verified through VE. Reference P123 requires that the operator complete a CWSR, including a waste package identification/serial number, when th e waste is placed in a canister or drum. The procedure requires that the completed form be signe d by a second person whose signature is

recorded in the MST-5 record book.

EPA interviewed LANL-CCP AK personnel and examined historic records. These records included data and processes, the results of the pee r review panel, and supporting information to assess whether the required processes for AK data v erification had been followed and if the objective evidence documents that the WCPIP DQOs fo r liquids and physical properties had been met. The DQOs include:

1) Confirmation of the absence of residual liquids in excess of one percent 2) Determination of the waste’s physical form (i.e., C PF, ferrous metals) as required by the

final certification rule

Note that EPA requires physical form identification to include verification of the waste stream, as well as identification of the physical character istics/form of the waste. In addition to DQOs, the following QAOs specific to the waste’s physical form as specified in WCPIP must also be

met:

1) Precision: maintained by reconciling any discrepan cies between two operators...with regard to the identification of important waste cha racteristics

2) Accuracy: maintained by requiring operators to pas s a comprehensive examination with a score of 80% and demonstrate satisfactory perform ance in the presence of the VE expert during their initial qualification and subse quent requalification

3) Representativeness: contents placed in containers will be described on the data forms42

4) Completeness: [to ensure completeness] The relevan t information must be collected [and documented]...on a videotape and/or data form, or oth er unalterable media

5) Comparability: is ensured by ...meeting the training requirements and complying with the minimum standards used to implement the charact erization process

The WCPIP specifies:

If a site intends to use records of visual examinat ion performed prior to implementation of this WCPIP to demonstrate complia nce with a DQO, it must demonstrate that the information collected regardin g the waste stream and individual containers is sufficient to meet the QAO s and the programmatic DQOs that can be satisfied using VE.

Based on the above information and requirements, EP A began by obtaining and reviewing several references. All references reviewed for pe rtinent information by EPA are listed above. Of these, the following were particularly pertinent to waste physical form, prohibited item identification, and LANL-CCP’s evaluation process:

• C002, C015, C016, C017, C300, C303, C306, C307, C30 9

• M162

• U076, U069, U111, U112, U113, U114, U115, U116, U11 7, U118, U119, U120, U121, U122, U123, U124, U125, U126

• P067, P068, P121, P122, P123, P207, P505

• WCPIP

• CCP-AK-LANL-500, Revision 2

• CCP-QP-002

A comparison of requirements in place at the time o f waste packaging indicate that while several

of the basic elements are included in the historic procedures, exact duplication of WCPIP requirements was not performed. The procedures ind icated that the general DQOs of physical form be identified, but the specific waste material parameters, WMC, Code Group, or SCG was not required for identification. Although inferred , the data sheets do not require verification of waste stream. However, the EPA inspection team mem ber was unable to verify that the QAOs related to physical form identified in the WCPIP we re met by the historic processes and procedures used to package these wastes. LANL-CCP determined independently that the available information did not support an equivalent QA determination as a means of verification. Therefore, LANL-CCP elected to subject the availabl e data to a peer review to establish whether the information would satisfy DQOs even if, for exa mple, dual signatures were not apparent on all data forms. Based on the limited data sample s et examined during the inspection, EPA assesses that this approach is reasonable.43

(3) Training procedures and records for LANL person nel that performed the VE were examined.

Reference P122, Personnel Training and Certificatio n, 1990 indicates the minimum required training for hot cell operators, including radiatio n training, safe operating practices, and ALARA. However, the procedure examined did not include req uirements for VE training. References P121 and P123 were read by the VE operators, as evi denced by signature pages at the end of each document. However, information was not clear in the materials reviewed to demonstrate that all the requirements for VE training that are specified in WCPIP, Section 4.1.1.2, had been met by VE personnel during the waste-packaging oper ations.

(4) Data Records were examined with respect to Phys ical Form and prohibited item information

to assess contents.

Physical waste data were historically recorded on v arious forms. The contents of individual waste containers, either 1-gallon cans and direct l oad 55-gallon drums, were recorded on Waste Description Records (WDRs) that included the number of the individual 1-gallon can, the plastic can into which the 1-gallon can (called alpha cans , see page 42, above) was placed, and the 11⁄2- gallon steel can into which each plastic can was pl aced, the top of which was welded shut.

Available records indicated an itemization of each piece of debris or material that had been placed in each can, although neither the weights no r the volume percentages were included. SCG and other physical identifiers were not include d on the form. The VE results were also documented in log books that offered the same detai l as WDRs regarding physical form descriptions. Each non-direct load 55-gallon drum contains cans and each can’s contents are

recorded on WDRs. Each canister contains a maximum of three drums. The contents of each canister are presented on TRU Waste Storage Record. Reference M006 is a summary of the canister loadings that presents the specific cans a nd drums within each canister, so the contents

of each can be traced. Based on the above informat ion, LANL has information pertaining to the physical form of wastes in each can in each drum, w hich is subsequently placed in a canister. The information provided does not include detailed weight or volume percentages, waste material parameter identification, SCG identificati on, and other information typically available through VE as performed in compliance with the WCPI P. The TA-55 TRU Waste Storage or

SWOON database was accessed to obtain the LANL cani ster information. Based on this information, it can be concluded that physical form data that can be correlated to each can does exist. Note that procedures required the identific ation of any liquid present within cans, and each can’s contents were recorded with respect to the sp ecific type of absorbent that was used, if any, as well as the potential presence of liquids. LANL -CCP did not use the CAR Tracking System (CTS) or Project Tracking System (PTS) because all characterization data was derived through AK and batch data reports were not prepared.

(5) Data compilation by LANL-CCP was examined with respect to VE-related data including physical form and prohibited item identification.

LANL-CCP assembled both radiological and physical f orm information, with physical form information assessed at a can level. Specifically, each can in each drum, subsequently placed in each canister, was evaluated to determine the conte nts, to assign material parameters to the identified wastes, and to estimate or approximate t he waste material parameter weight44

percentages. LANL-CCP’s data evaluation process al so included examination of records to identify the presence of free liquids, as well as t he use of potential absorbents within cans. Data pertaining to physical form is contained in Referen ces U076 and U069. Records did not indicate waste material parameters or their percentages, so LANL-CCP assessed these by assigning all parameters an equal relative mass value [see item ( 1), above]. Additionally, LANL-CCP examined several records, some of which were also e xamined by EPA (e.g., P123), that addressed the management of liquids that might be p resent in this waste stream. Typically, liquids were either absorbed using vermiculite, Env irostone, or Portland cement, or were discarded via the drain system. None of the availa ble information examined by LANL-CCP and subsequently checked by EPA indicated the presence of liquids within waste. See Item (1), above, for information pertaining to sealed contain ers greater than 4 liters.

(6) Physical Form Data Information Transfer to the WWIS was evaluated.

LANL-CCP personnel were interviewed regarding data input into the WWIS. The SPM stated that all information pertinent to radiological and physical form would be manually input into the

WWIS based on the values contained in CCP-AK-LANL-5 01. The WWIS requires entry of the following data pertinent to physical form:

• Waste material parameter

• Waste material weight

• Waste matrix code

• Waste matrix code group

Examination of this reference indicates that radiol ogical parameters are present in the document, but there is not a specific reference to the waste material parameters, waste material weights, WMCs, and waste matrix code group(s). CCP-AK-LANL- 500 contains this information and it

will be used as the official source for this inform ation. LANL-CCP assumes that the entire drum is considered CPR for all canisters containing debr is as per the WCPIP.

(7) Results of the Peer Review Panel were evaluated

.

A peer review panel (Panel) was convened from April 9-12, 2007, for the purpose of verifying VE data that were generated at LANL in the 1990s. The panel was tasked with determining if the VE data were technically robust to support deci sions regarding the residual liquid content and physical form of the wastes. EPA examined the Pane l’s report in the context of its technical scope and results to understand the process that wa s followed and its relevance to this inspection. To document their review process, the Panel develop ed a DQO and QAO checklist based upon WCPIP requirements for physical form and liquid ide ntification that addressed data precision, accuracy, representativeness, and comparability. T he DQOs and QAOs used by the peer review panel are noted to be consistent with the WCPIP. T he Panel did not address specific WCPIP requirements and instead attempted to assess whethe r the DQOs and QAOs had been achieved, noting that exact replication of WCPIP requirements would not be possible. EPA’s review indicates that the results of the peer review proce ss are reasonable.45

EPA noted that the Panel indicated that wastes deri ved from a Sodium Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) at DOE’s Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, South Carolina, were included in the data set, and thus were inconsistent with the AK Summary for this waste stream. Further investigation by LANL-CCP indicated that this was a simple typographical error, and that the wastes in question were generated in a Size Reducti on Facility (SRF) in Wing 9 of the CMR at LANL. The Panel initially rejected containers with the SRF association because they believed the waste to have originated from SRS, and were thu s ineligible for inclusion in the waste stream. However, because the SFR was, in fact, pre sent at LANL in the Wing 9 Hot Cell, rejection of the containers was unnecessary.

All aspects of the LANL-CCP documentation in suppor t of LANL RH Waste Stream No. LA-MHD03.002 are technically adequate.

8.5 Technical Evaluation: Attainment of Data Quality O bjectives (DQOs)

(1) Verification methods for each DQO were assessed

.

LANL-CCP representatives indicated that AK will be used as the basis for all characterization, and AK will be verified predominantly through demon stration of an equivalent QA program. This approach could not be used for some elements, so various aspects of the radiological characterization required the application of concep tual models, and aspects of the physical form characterization required the use of peer review. This approach taken by LANL-CCP to verify each DQO were consistent with the requirements in t he WCPIP.

(2) Attainment of DQOs was evaluated.

As a result of the analysis presented in items (1) through (15) in Section 8.1, above, the EPA inspection team was able to assess how each DQO wil l be addressed. As required in the WCPIP, the following DQOs must be addressed:

• Defense determination

• TRU waste determination

• RH waste determination

• Activity determination (TRU Alpha Activity per cani ster, including identification and quantification of 10 WIPP-tracked radionuclides)

• Residual liquids

• Physical form, including metals and CPR

All DQOs are based on AK that is verified through d emonstration of an equivalent QA program, limited confirmatory modeling, and/or peer review. EPA concludes that LANL-CCP has adequately presented how the DQOs were achieved.46

9.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

By the end of the comment period (October 9, 2007), EPA received one set of public comments. (Comments are available from EPA Docket ID No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2007-0643). EPA received

a late set of comments from the same commenter on N ovember 8, 2007. EPA evaluated those comments and revised the report accordingly. Attac hment B provides the public comments and EPA’s response.

10.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

10.1 EPA Findings and Concerns

The two concerns identified during the inspection, as well as LANL-CCP’s responses, are discussed in the preceding sections of this report. Copies of the EPA Inspection Issue Tracking Forms that capture these issues are included in Att achments A.1 and A.2. All issues were adequately addressed prior to the inspection closeo ut in Albuquerque, New Mexico. No EPA issues remain open at this time.

10.2 Conclusions

EPA’s inspection team determined that LANL-CCP’s RH WC program activities were technically adequate. EPA is approving the LANL-CC P-RH WC program as supported in the documentation examined during this inspection as de scribed in this report. The approval includes the AK process for RH retrievably-stored T RU debris waste stream, LA-MHD03.002,

that consists of sixteen canisters as described in this report. All aspects of the LANL-CCP documentation in support of this RH waste stream ar e technically adequate.

There are no outstanding issues related to the LANL RH WC program that was evaluated during this inspection. Each of the parts of Section 7 de scribes the documents that EPA reviewed during the inspection. EPA determined that the doc umentation available to the inspection tem adequately supports the characterization of LANL RH Waste Stream No. LA-MHD03.002. The waste stream that is approved is of a finite nature (i.e., 16 sealed canisters) and no additional waste containers belonging to this waste descriptio n exist at LANL or would be subjected to the waste characterization techniques described in the report in the future. Hence, this baseline approval will not be implemented to characterize an y additional waste containers belonging to

this LANL RH waste stream.

Also, as stated earlier in this report, there is no tiering of the LANL-CCP WC elements since no additional WC activities are expected for LANL-CCP relative to these RH TRU wastes.47

11.0 REFERENCES

U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Field Offi ce, “Contact-Handled Transuranic Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot P lant (CH-WAC),” Revision 3, DOE/WIPP-02- 3122, Carlsbad, New Mexico, April 25, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s Compliance with the D isposal Regulations: Certification Decision; Final Rule,” Federal Register , Vol. 63, No. 95, May 18, 1998, pp. 27354, 27405.

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40

, Protection of Environment , Part 191, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and D isposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level

and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes.”

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40

, Protection of Environment , Part 194, “Criteria for the

Certification and Re-Certification of the Waste Iso lation Pilot Plant’s Compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations.”

U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Field Offi ce, “Remote Handled TRU Waste Characterization Program Implementation Plan”, DOE/ WIPP-02-3214, Revision 0D, Carlsbad, New Mexico, October 30, 2003.

U.S. Department of Energy, Title 40 CFR Part 191, C ompliance Certification Application for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, DOE/CAO 1996-2184, Car lsbad, New Mexico, 1996.

U.S. Department of Energy, Title 40 CFR Part 191, S UBPART D AND C, Compliance Recertification Application 2004, DOE/WIPP/2004-323 1.

U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Field Offi ce, “Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD)”, DOE/CBFO-94-1012, Revision 7, Carlsbad, New Mexico, July 2005.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Contact-Handle d Transuranic Waste Authorized Methods for Payload Control (CH-TRAMPAC).”Attachments A.1 and A.2 EPA Inspection Issue Tracking FormsA-1 Attachment A.1 EPA Inspection Issue Tracking Form, EPA Issue No. LANL-CCP-RH-AK-07-001C

Inspection No. EPA-LANL-RH-CCP-05.07-8 Issue Number : LANL-CCP-RH-AK-07-001C

Date : May 10, 2007
Inspector: C. Walker

Attachments? YES NO Sample Size: Various Population size (if known): 16 canisters

Description of Issue: Several issues were identified during the course of the inspection, all of which were addressed through revisions of documents or freeze file commitments. The issues that were identified and

resolved include:

1) Reference C301 addresses assembly and interpretatio n of LANL radiological information. The document includes LANL summary information pertaini ng to 235 U/ 239 Pu ratios that are incorrect based upon review of supporting can data. A summar y statement indicating the error and noting that the data do not jeopardize waste stream identificat ion has been added to C301. 2) The Peer Review report pertaining to physical form and liquid identification in the 16 canister LAMHD03.002 LANL RH waste stream has been added to th e AK source document reference list as reference P505. The Peer report includes a typogra phical error pertaining to inclusion of SFR waste (there is no such waste in the waste stream invento ry), and the AK Document Summary has been prepared that identifies this information limitatio n. 3) CCP-AK-502, the Certification Plan/Confirmatory Tes t Plan has been revised to correct typographical errors pertaining to inclusion of Pee r Review references, and other minor changes. 4) CCP-AK-500, the AK Summary, has been modified throu gh Freeze File changes (i.e., will be edited in the future when the Summary is updated) that mod ify text to clarify that there is no surrogate CH waste stream from CMR, and to also clarify the accu racy of the LANL radiological data included in the AK Summary (sourced from C301) pertaining to ap parently anomalous 235 U/ 239 Pu ratios. Additionally, a Freeze File change has been submitt ed that changes Section 5.4.3 that indicates the predominant radionuclides in fuel types that ultima tely occur in waste, and the general composition

of the waste relative to the LANL identification of the 10 WIPP-tracked radionuclides based on

historic AK data.

B. Regulatory Reference: 40 CFR 194.24(c)

C. Site requirement(s): WCPIP

D. Discussed with: Kevin Peters, Mark Doherty, Steve Schafer, and Cour t Fesmire

E. Additional Comments: Draft responses to these items were provided prior to the inspection closeout and the issues have been resolved. LANL-CCP agreed to formalize these changes and submit the revised documents to EPA before EPA completes the proposed inspection report for the Federal Register notice.

F. Site Response Information: Site Response Required? YES NO Site Response Due Date: NAA-2 Attachment A.2 EPA Inspection Issue Tracking Form, EPA Issue No. LANL-CCP-RH-RC-07-002C

Inspection No. EPA-LANL-RH-CCP-05.07-8 Issue Number: LANL-CCP-RH-RC-07-002C

Date: May 10, 2007
Inspector: P. Kelly

Attachments? YES NO Sample Size : All RH samples, 16 canisters Population size (if known): All 16 canisters

Description of Issue: The calculation package LANL-RH-20 provides the t echnical basis of the derivation

of the radionuclides values for each of the sixteen RH canisters. These values are presented in CCP-A KLANL-501, Revision 0 that serves as the official re cord of the radionuclide values for these canisters that

will be entered in WWIS. The 137 Cs and 60 Co values for canister No. LA12 shown on page 85 in CCP-AKLANL-501 do not agree with the values for those two radionuclides that were derived in LANL-RH-20.

CCP-AK-LANL-501, Revision 0 contains Figures 8-1 an d 8-2 on pages 53 and 54, respectively. These figures are different from the same plots shown in the calculation package LANL-RH-11 and the values i n CCP-AK-LANL-501 are incorrect. Additionally, CCP-A K-LANL-501 requires minor changes to the text.

Calculation packages LANL-RH-23 and LANL-RH-24 shou ld be revised to explicitly present the statistical treatment of all components of the uncertainty dete rmination. B. Regulatory Reference: 40 CFR 194.24(c)

C. Site requirement(s): WCPIP

D. Discussed with: Jene Vance, Mark Doherty, Larry Porter, Court Fesmi re

E. Additional Comments: Draft responses to these items were provided prior to the inspection closeout and the issues have been resolved. LANL-CCP agreed to formalize these changes and submit the revised documents to EPA before EPA completes the proposed inspection report for the Federal Register notice.

F. Site Response Information:

Site Response Required? YES NO Site Response Due Dat e: NAAttachment B EPA’s Response to Public CommentsB-1 EPA’s Response to Public Comments

EPA received one set of public comments on October 8, 2007, from Southwest Research and Information Center (SRIC) in response to the August 22, 2007, Federal Register notice that proposed EPA’s decision to approve various componen ts of the LANL RH TRU waste characterization program implemented by CCP (See FR Vol. 72 No.162 47023-47026, August 22, 2007). (See EPA Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-O AR-2007-0643-003). The comments have been included verbatim below along with EPA’s response. For some comments (i.e., those specific to the canisters discussion in the AK Summ ary Report), EPA requested CBFO/CCP provide information to include in a response. CBFO /CCP provided this information in a memorandum, which we have docketed as supporting do cument along with the EPA letter approving LANL-CCP’s RH WC program and sixteen LANL RH canisters for WIPP disposal. (See EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0643-0006 and 000 7.) We evaluated the CBFO/CCP responses to comments and, based on that, we have provided our responses. Please

note that wherever EPA has modified the text from t he proposed approval report to address a specific comment, the modified text presented in th is attachment is underlined for emphasis. The text in the actual report is not underlined. We al so have included the CBFO/CCP responses to public comments where applicable. CBFO/CCP will re ference this memorandum in the AK Summary Report (AKSR) and will submit the revised A KSR to EPA, documenting the revisions to the AKSR upon completion of the LANL-CCP review and sign off process.

In the course of responding to the October 8, 2007, comments from SRIC, EPA received

additional information from CBFO that resulted in a draft response. SRIC commented on CBFO’s draft response and then submitted to EPA an additional set of comments (See EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0643-0008) that clari fied their initial submission. Upon

closer examination EPA determined that these new co mments did not warrant additional responses because they were determined to be a rest atement of the original comments. However, the late comments are also included in our response to comments. Some of EPA’s responses

address both the initial and late comments while ot her responses were directed to only the initial comments. EPA’s responses are labeled accordingly. The CBFO/CCP response, when provided, addressed only the initial comments.

General Comment No. 1: The commenter opposes EPA’s proposed approval “ . . . based on the current, inadequate Acceptable Knowledge (AK).” Fu rther, the commenter contends that “EPA has overlooked various problems with AK. . . . . al so objects to a baseline inspection that does not include a site inspection and that is based sol ely on a document review at another site.”

EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. Where necessar y, EPA asked CBFO/CCP to clarify issues raised by the commenter. EPA bel ieves that for most RH waste characterization inspections, a site visit is not necessary. These sixteen RH containers were not subjected to recent radiological analysis, visual examination an d/or evaluation of audio/video recordings that required EPA to evaluate equipment and personn el proficiency to confirm AK as is customarily done for contact-handled waste. As par t of the LANL RH inspection, EPA evaluated AK documents, models and algorithms that were devel oped and used to perform dose-to-curie conversions, and old audio/video tapes. Since thes e evaluations were based on reviewing documents as opposed to observing current WC operat ions, none of these evaluations required aB-2

site visit at LANL. For this inspection, no additi onal knowledge would have been gained by looking at the pad holding the sixteen preloaded ca nisters stored in the underground shaft at

LANL.

General Comment No. 2: In summary, SRIC believes that the errors and dis crepancies discussed are more than sufficient to preclude appr oval of the baseline inspection at LANL CCP RH Waste Characterization Program. At a minimum, a dditional documentation is required. When such documentation is provided, EPA must revis e the Inspection Report and allow additional public comment before making a final app roval decision. Potentially, EPA must deny approval and require a new characterization program for the entire waste stream.

EPA Response: EPA has obtained additional documentation from CB FO/CCP and upon its

evaluation has determined that this documentation m erely clarifies information already in the record. It does not provide significant new inform ation about which the public lacked adequate notice. EPA has revised the Inspection Report wher e needed. Since no new information has been provided by CBFO/CCP and all information given has been docketed as it was received, there is no need to repropose the approval decision . We note that the CBFO/CCP submission was placed in the docket when we received it. We r eceived a set of late comments on it. These essentially did not identify new issues arising out of the CBFO/CCP submission. We have included responses to this set of late comments, wh ere applicable.

Specific Comments:

Initial Comment No. 1: What happened to the 17 th drum in this RH waste stream?

The Acceptable Knowledge Summary Report (AKSR), CP- AK-LANL-500, Rev. 2, states that

the Waste Stream is LA-MHD03.002 with 16 RH caniste rs with volumes of 0.89 cubic meters (Page 19 of 85), or a total volume of 14.2 cubic me ters. The TWBIR ID number is LA-TA-03-27. Page 9 of 85. In contrast, TWBIR ID LA-TA-03-27, submitted as part of the EPA Recertification Application, shows that waste s tream to be 72.8 cubic meters of stored RH waste. Appendix DATA, Attachment F, Annex J, J-LA- 21. LA-TA-03-27 included former waste stream LATR04. Appendix DATA, Attachment F, Annex J, J-LA-22. LA-TR04 was “17 RH Canisters.” TWBIR, P-LA-20, December 1995, Inve ntory Date 12/31/91. The AKSR also

states that waste stream LA-MHD03.002 includes 17 R H canisters, but that “[o]ne canister (LA19) has been excluded...due to radiological issues that may result in this container being recharacterized as contact-handled (CH) TRU or low- level waste.” Page 7 of 85. Clearly, from the time of its initial creation in 1991, the waste stream has been 17 RH canisters, yet it has now been reduced to 16 canisters with incomplete and in adequate information about the problems

with that 17 th canister, and why, whatever the problems, they do not implicate some of the remaining canisters and the overall adequacy of the AK. At a minimum, there needs to be a fuller explanation of why that canister has always been included as part of the waste stream, but now is not. Potentially, all 16 RH canisters need to be fully characterized without reliance on the past AK characterization.

CBFO/CCP Response: We [CBFO] assume the commenter is referring to th e 17 th
canister (LA 19), not the 17 th drum. AK documentation did not confirm canister L A 19B-3

was part of the same waste stream as the other 16 R H canisters. Canister LA 19 has been traditionally included in the Transuranic Waste Bas eline Inventory Report (TWBIR)

LANL waste stream. The waste stream delineations i n the TWBIR are different than waste streams that result when applying the require ments for delineating waste streams in Attachment A of the WCPIP. The criteria specified in the WCPIP are used to delineate waste streams and this delineation may not coincide with any historical waste stream

delineation.

Late Comment No. 1: On page 1 (unnumbered) of its response CBFO agrees that AKSR must

be revised to include the information as to the exc lusion of canister LA19 from the waste stream. That revision is required, as are others.

In addition, the references for excluding canister LA19 include two references (M165 and U127) that SRIC does not have. Moreover, M165 is not lis ted as a source document in Section 9.0 of the AKSR, so that requires an additional revision o f the AKSR. For SRIC and other members of the public to adequately comment, the references an d source documents must be publicly available from DOE. EPA should require that those documents are publicly available, preferably

on the WIPP website.

EPA Response to Initial and Late Comments No. 1: EPA agrees that AKSR report could have provided specific information supporting the decisi on that the 17 th RH canister did not belong to the waste stream proposed for approval. However, th is information was not necessary since 17 th
RH canister was not proposed for disposal at WIPP. The TWBIR and actual waste stream designations do not always coincide when the WCPIP waste stream definition is applied.

Documentation available on the17 th RH canister (LA 19), which LANL-CCP evaluated, indi cated that the contents of that canister did not meet the WCPIP definition and therefore, LANL-CCP excluded the canister from the waste stream propose d for approval. Because this container was not included in the proposed waste stream, informat ion regarding it was not provided to EPA for evaluation. Thus, this container was out of the ins pection’s scope. Regarding the rest of the
sixteen canisters, EPA has concluded that these con tainers meet the definition of TRU and RH

waste. In this instance EPA does not believe that it is necessary for EPA to make these references available to the public in the EPA Docket because both CBFO and EPA could provide them to the interested public if requested. In the future, when appropriate, EPA may docket specific source documents for public review.

Initial Comment No. 2: Why are three canisters (LA16, LA17, and LA 18) dif ferent from nine

other canisters and what else is in those three can isters?

Canisters LA07, LA08, LA09, LA10, LA11, LA12, LA13, LA14, LA15 each contain three 55-gallon drums with 12 steel cans in each drum. C anisters LA16 and LA 17 each have one 55-gallon drum with 12 steel cans. What is in the rest of those two canisters – air, dunnage, or something else? Canister LA18 contains one drum wi th 12 steel cans and one drum with 4 steel

cans. What else is in drum B43 in addition to the four steel cans? A drum with the configuration of just four steel cans is not described. And what else is in the canister in addition to the two drums? The AKSR should provide the information, an d it does not, and SRIC has not foundB-4

another document that provides the information. At a minimum, the characterization information is incomplete. Potentially, those three canisters must be opened to determine what they contain.

CBFO/CCP Response: The AK record provides no information as to why L ANL chose to place different amounts of waste in canisters LA 16, LA17, and LA18 than was placed

in the other canisters.

The review of the AK record has indicated that in a ddition to the single drum identified in Canister LA16, this canister also contains three al uminum spacers (array bundles). Although documented in the AK record, the identific ation of the three bundles in the canister was not clearly documented in the typical waste description records. This discrepancy in AK information is being evaluated us ing the discrepancy resolution process and does not affect compliance with the DQO s defined by the WCPIP.

The review of the AK record concluded that canister s LA 17 and LA 18 do not contain any additional material.

Late Comment No. 2: On page 3 (unnumbered) of its response, CBFO states that missing information about Canister LA16 “is being evaluated using the discrepancy resolution process.” SRIC believes that the process should be completed and reported to EPA before EPA can take further action on approving the Baseline Inspection Report, since there is an acknowledged problem in the waste description records that are a n essential part of the AK record and an

essential basis of the AKSR. The AKSR should also be revised to include complete, accurate

information about canister LA16.

On page 3 (unnumbered) of its response, CBFO states that “canisters LA17 and LA18 do not contain any additional material.” CBFO has not res ponded to the basic issue raised by SRIC – why do the three canisters (LA16, LA17, and LA18) h ave different amounts of waste than the other nine canisters? In addition, the response do es not answer the question posed as to what

else is in the canister in addition to the steel ca ns. There is no response to the question as to wha t
else is in drum B43 in addition to the four steel c ans. The AKSR does not accurately describe the contents of the three canisters, nor does CBFO cite source documents that provide that information. Thus, those problems raised by SRIC h ave not been addressed, and the AK has not been shown to be reliable or complete.

EPA Response to Initial and Late Comments No. 2: CBFO/CCP has stated that Canister LA 18 (which contains Drum B43) does not contain additi onal material. Reference M165 is the RH Canister Loading Logbook and Assay Bundle/Insert Dra wings and it addresses canister loading. This reference has been provided to EPA and placed in the AK Record and will be part of the revised AKSR. The presence of aluminum spacers (ar ray bundles) does not impact compliance with the WCPIP. EPA does expect that any AK-AK dis crepancies identified by LANL-CCP will be addressed through the formal CCP Discrepancy Reso lution process and a copy of DR006 that addresses this issue has been provided to EPA EPA accepts that the CCP Discrepancy Resolution Process will be effective at addressing this issue and should this process identify other issues relevant to waste isolation, EPA expe cts LANL-CCP to perform the appropriate actions. These canisters do not need to be opened because the AK record identified that canisterB-5

LA 16 contains array bundles while LANL-CCP states that canisters LA 17 and LA 18 do not contain array bundles. The AK record was re-examin ed by LANL-CCP specifically for the purpose of identifying the presence of array bundle s. As CBFO/CCP has stated, EPA agrees that the presence of array bundles does not impact debris waste characterization for RH waste in

accordance with the WCPIP.

Initial Comment No. 3: The AK documentation does not necessarily demonstra te the accuracy

of the information as to what each steel can contai ns.

The AKSR, in Attachment 4, provides the inventory o f the 16 RH canisters, including a listing of 364 Steel Cans by number and by package date. The actual Waste Description Records (WDRs) (Document U076) contain some substantially differen t information. A couple of the several examples include:

Steel Can #194 is packaged on 2-29-88 (as in AKSR), but the bottom of both pages states it was

“Loaded & Welded 1/11/90.”

Steel Can #173 is packaged on 1/19/88 (as in the AK SR), but the bottom of each of the three pages states it was “Loaded & Welded 1/4/90.”

Given the nearly two years that elapsed between the two steel cans being “packaged” and “loaded and welded,” there must be an explanation a nd documentation of why and how it is known that the WDRs are accurate and why other or d ifferent items might not be in those steel

cans. There are numerous other steel cans that hav e different “packaged” and “loaded and welded” dates, so this is a much bigger discrepancy than just two steel cans.

Additionally, there is no documentation that the tw o persons who “loaded” and “verified” the

information on the WDRs were also involved in the l oading and welding. Once again, these many discrepancies must be explained and documented

.

There are also other discrepancies in the AK record s. For example, the WDRs for Steel Cans #291, 292, 415, 416, 112, 111, 414, are blank in th e “verified by” section. For Canister B08, a discrepancy report was done when there were no init ials in the “verified by” section. But there are no discrepancy reports for those steel cans tha t are missing a second initial for the verifier.

Some of the WDRs show that steel cans were “re-load ed,” “emptied and re-loaded,” “repacked,” or some of the contents were “removed.” S ee, for example, steel cans 111, 112, 116, and 131. Again, these discrepancies are not noted in the AKSR, nor is there apparently any documentation to substantiate the specific items in those and other steel cans.

Since SRIC only did spot checking of the WDRs, it i s likely that there are similar and other discrepancies. Those discrepancies are from the or iginal AK records and were apparently not noted by CCP, since there are no discrepancy record s for those matters in the references or in the five discrepancy reports noted in the EPA Inspectio n Report. For SRIC, these discrepancies cast significant doubt on the accuracy and reliability o f the AK. Further, the discrepancies call into serious question the accuracy and reliability of th e CCP review of those records, since the errorsB-6

are not noted or explained by CCP. SRIC does not b elieve that an AK with those and other errors meet the requirements of 40 CFR 194.8. At a minimum, additional explanation and documentation is required. In the absence of such additional information, the baseline approval cannot be granted.

CBFO/CCP Response: The AK record is accurate and the cited examples are explained

in the AK record as described below.

Steel Can #194 – Drum B14 – Canister LA07: Pg. 53 of logbook (U069) – Loaded and Verified (bot h initialed on 1/11/90).

Steel Can #173 – Drum B14 – Canister LA07: Pg. 51 of logbook (U069) – Loaded and Verified (bot h initialed on 1/4/90).

Steel Can #291 – Drum B13 – Canister LA07: Pg. 69 of logbook (U069) – Loaded and Verified (bot h initialed on 3/16/90).

Steel Can #292 – Drum B20 – Canister LA09: Pg. 69 of logbook (U069) – Loaded and Verified (bot h initialed on 3/16/90).

Steel Can #414 – Drum B18 – Canister LA08: Pg. 96 of logbook (U069) – Loaded and Verified (bot h initialed on 9/25/90).

Steel Can #415 – Drum B19 – Canister LA09: Pg. 96 of logbook (U069) – Loaded and Verified (bot h initialed on 9/25/90).

Steel Can #416 – Drum B19 – Canister LA09: Pg. 96 of logbook (U069) – Loaded and Verified (bot h initialed on 9/25/90).

Steel Can #111 – Drum B19 – Canister LA09: Pg. 41 of logbook (U069) – Notes that can had been unpacked and reloaded by 11/3/89 and to see MST-14 for date (10/19/89) Pg. 42 of logbook (U069) – Loaded and Verified (bot h initialed on 12/13/89).

Steel Can #112 – Drum B19 – Canister LA09: Pg. 46 of logbook (U069) – Motor removed from #112 packaged into #104 (in Drum B28, Canister LA012) on 10/27/89 (both initialed on 10/27/89). Logbook U070 (pg. 93) verifies the loading of the motor into #104 (can 14 -2). MST-14 Waste Description Record (U076) verifies this date. Pg. 47 of logbook (U069) – Loaded and Verified (bot h initialed on 12/8/89).

Steel Can #116 – Drum B14 – Canister LA07: Pg. 47 of logbook (U069) – Emptied and repackaged o n 12/8/89 – Loaded and Verified (both initialed on 12/8/89).

Steel Can #131 – Drum B14 – Canister LA07:B-7

Pg. 37 of logbook (U069) – Loaded and Verified (bot h initialed on 11/3/89).

Dates of the activities associated with the managem ent of the waste cans after they were initially packaged (e.g., reloading, welding, and r emoval of particulates) are documented on the WDRs and logbooks. The fact that the time b etween initial packaging and final closure (welding) may have been performed months or years apart is not uncommon for RH waste operations nor is it considered a discrepa ncy.

In the case where the WDRs did not include a verifi cation signature for a given can, the log books were reviewed to confirm that a loader an d verifier were present during packaging. Dual signatures and/or initials were ve rified in all cases, with the exception of drum B08. For this container an AK discrepancy report was developed to address the absence of a verifier’s signature. The records rel ating to the specific packaging operations conducted for this container provide evi dence that two operators were working together on the day B08 was loaded.

Canister LA19 is segregated by storing it in an ind ependent shaft. These shafts are described in Section 4.1.1 of the AK Summary Report

.

Late Comment No. 3: On pages 3 and 4 (unnumbered) of its response, CBFO states that source document U069 (Logbooks) provides the information t hat is incomplete in Waste Description Records (WDRs) that SRIC cited. However, the AKSR includes Attachment 4 to provide “container specific information” and source documen t U076 is the only citation given for that

information. That is the source document that SRIC used to point out some inaccuracies – and we noted that it was based on a spot check, so ther e are likely additional problems. CBFOs response shows another inaccuracy in the AKSR and a n additional revision is needed. The WDRs are not fully complete and accurate informatio n on the materials in each container. Rather, one has to compare the WDRs to other source s, which are not cited for that purpose in the AKSR. Thus, the AKSR also needs to be revised to clearly describe that source document U069 (and other documents?) provide accurate inform ation, when such information is missing

from the WDRs.

As a related matter, SRIC does not have source docu ment U069, so it is not possible to fully comment on the AKSR or the Baseline Inspection Repo rt, which also does not state that the logbooks must be consulted to supplement incomplete or inaccurate WDRs. For the LANL Baseline Inspection, and any future baseline inspec tions, CBFO must make all references and source documents upon which it relies publicly avai lable. EPA must require such documents to be publicly available so that the public can fully comment.

Late Comment No. 5: On page 4 (unnumbered) of its response, CBFO states that logbooks were

used in various cases to “confirm that a loader and verifier were present during packaging. Dual signatures and/or initials were verified in all cas es, with the exception of drum B08.” DR0[0]3 provides that verification information only for dru m B08 and not for the various other drums, nor has CBFO cited any other document for that more ext ensive logbook verification process. SRIC believes that such documentation should be provided and that the AKSR should be revised to

address that issue.B-8

EPA Response to Initial Comment No. 3 and Late Comme nts No. 3 and 5: EPA has evaluated the CBFO/CCP initial response and believes it to be adequate. In addition, EPA evaluated the drum loading procedures presented in P067 and Discre pancy Resolution DR003, both of which are referenced in the WCIR. The data reviewed pres ents detailed procedures that were implemented for drum loading as well as information pertaining to drum B08. EPA’s inspection process involves sampling of data to assess the val idity of information with respect to compliance with the WCPIP. EPA determined that LAN L-CCP relied upon the process of Peer Review to assess the physical characteristics data, as allowed by the WCPIP. The Peer Review

Panel concluded that the material in the AK Record was sufficient to make appropriate technical determinations. EPA’s inspection did not directly assess the technical adequacy of the Peer

Review.

Source document U069 was made available to EPA duri ng the inspection process and it is included in the EPA inspector’s records. Also, the AKSR has been sufficiently revised to reference information from U069. This document can be obtained by contacting Quality Assurance Manager, USDOE/Carlsbad Field Office, P.O. Box 3090, Carlsbad, NM 88221. In

this instance EPA does not believe that it is neces sary for EPA to make this reference available to the public. In the future, when appropriate, EP A will docket specific source documents for public review.

CBFO/CCP did provide documentation for a logbook ve rification process in the revised AKSR and EPA has determined it to be adequate.

Initial Comment No. 4: In addition to the problems with the AK, which are not discussed, there

are inaccuracies in EPA’s Waste Characterization In spection Report (WCIR), Docket A-98-49,

II-A4-89.

Initial Comment No. 4a: The WCIR states: “In the early 1990s, waste derive d from these fuel pins were loaded into 364 1-1/2-gallon steel cans t hat were welded shut.” Page 1. Since the

AKSR Attachment 4 shows that more than 100 of the s teel cans were “packaged” (loaded) between 1986 and 1989, and some steel cans were wel ded as early as 1986, the use of the date “early 1990s” is inaccurate and is not based on the AK records.

EPA Response to Initial Comment 4a: EPA Agrees with the Commenter and the text in question and in other places throughout the report has been revised as follows:

From 1986 through the early 1990s, wastes derived f rom these fuel pins were loaded into 364 11⁄2-gallon steel cans that were welded shut.

Late Comment No. 4: SRIC comments stated that the d ifferences in loading and welding dates must be explained. The CBFO response is the first, partial, discussion of that matter, which also should be included as a revision to the AKSR, along with any source documents for that process.

EPA’s Response to Late Comment No. 4: In the revis ed AKSR, CBFO/CCP states the reasons for differences between the loading and welding dat es. The differences are due to the need to fillB-9

drums with sufficient waste materials, which were g enerated over time, causing a delay in welding the drums until they contained enough waste to reach the desired fill height.

Initial Comment No. 4b : The WCIR accepts the adequacy of the Active and Passive PAN Data for the 12 canisters with steel cans. Pages 31-32. However, after reiterating that there are 364 steel cans, there are only 359 PAN assays discussed (37 assays from April 1990 to July 1, 1990 and 322 assays after July 1, 1990). There is no di scussion as to whether all 364 steel cans were actually assayed and if they were not, why there is any reliable PAN data on the steel cans that were not assayed, nor any identification of the spe cific cans that were not assayed.

EPA Response to Initial Comment 4b: EPA agrees with the Commenter. The text incorrec tly states that there were 359 PAN assays performed aft er July 1990, however the correct total number of assays is stated as 364 in several docume nts, e.g., CCP-AK-LANL-500 and CCP-AKLANL-501. Accordingly, the report text has been re vised as follows:

Page 33: LANL-RH-36 is necessary because approxima tely thirty-seven cans, as well as calibration standards for both active and passive m odes, were performed beginning in April 1990 until July 1, 1990, and the majority of the PA N assays were performed after July 1, 1990. There were a total of 364 assays performed, one for each can. Upon completion of the initial 37 assays, adjustments were made to the system’s calib ration that was in effect for the remaining

assays.

Initial Comment No. 4c: The WCIR states that there are “up to 12 welded-s hut cans” (page 8), or “to a maximum of 12 cans per drum” (page 10), or “up to 12 cans” (page 42), which leaves the impression that the 55-gallon drums contained d iffering numbers of steel cans. However, according to the AKSR, each of 30 drums had exactly 12 steel cans and one drum had 4 steel cans. The WCIR report language should be changed t o correctly state the actual configuration.

EPA Response to Initial Comment 4c: EPA agrees with the Commenter and the sections of the

text that were cited in the comment have been revis ed as follows:

Page 8: Figure 2 presents the assembly of the RH c anister containing up to three drums, each of

which contains 12 welded-shut cans.

Page 10: These 11⁄2-gallon cans were loaded into 55- gallon (208 liter) drums (12 cans per drum) and the drums were transferred to a total of twelve RH canisters, with each canister containing up to three drums.

Page 42: The VE results were also documented in lo g books that offered the same detail as WDRs regarding physical form descriptions. Each no n-direct load 55-gallon drum contains 12

cans and each can’s contents are recorded on WDRs.

Initial Comment No. 5: In the absence of a physical inspection and revie w of procedures at LANL, EPA cannot rely on the assurance that the was te stream will be properly handled and shipped to WIPP.B-10

The 17 th canister (LA19) is apparently still being stored a s part of the waste stream. SRIC believes that EPA must inspect all 17 canisters and verify the procedures as to how they will be managed and shipped to WIPP. Such an inspection an d approval of actual procedures is necessary to ensure, among other things, that there is physical segregation of canister LA19 so that it could not be inadvertently shipped to WIPP, as was done in June 2007 with an uncharacterized drum from the AMTWP. Even though t he AMTWP shipment was a standard waste box and not an RH canister, SRIC believes tha t EPA must make a physical inspection and ensure that the procedures at LANL would preclude t hat 17 th canister, or any other canister that has not been approved, from being shipped.

Therefore, SRIC objects to the baseline inspection approval based on document review in Albuquerque and no actual inspection of the waste s tream at LANL. SRIC further believes that it is an inappropriate practice for any site to be given a baseline approval without EPA physically inspecting the site and the waste streams for which approval is to be given.

Late Comment No. 6 : On page 4 (unnumbered) of its response, CBFO stat es that “Canister LA19 is segregated by storing it in an independent shaft.” There is no source document cited. Section 4.1.1 of the AKSR, which is referenced in t he response, includes two source documents (P301 and P302), but SRIC does not have those docum ents. Once again, SRIC believes that CBFO must make those source documents publicly avai lable and that EPA should require such availability. In addition, SRIC believes that the AKSR must also be revised to address this

matter.

EPA Response to Initial Comment No. 5 and Late Comme nt No. 6: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter. As stated earlier, EPA determined that these canisters do not need to be opened because the AK record identified that canister LA 1 6 contained array bundles while canisters LA

17 and LA 18 did not. The AK record was re-examine d specifically for the purpose of identifying array bundles. The presence of array bundles in ca nister LA 16 does not impact RH debris

waste characterization in accordance with the WCPIP . EPA agrees, however, that since the disposition of the 17 th canister is indeterminate at this time, any time i n the future when CBFO/CCP decides its disposition, CBFO/CCP must not ify EPA and provide the appropriate

documentation.

The CBFO/CCP has revised the AKSR to include ration ale for the need to segregate canister LA19 in an independent shaft. As stated previously EPA will make source documents available to the public when necessary.

Late Comment No.7: Thus, SRIC believes that CBFO has not yet provide d essential

information that EPA must have in order to make a f avorable baseline inspection determination. Further, there are numerous revisions that should b e made in the AKSR. That revised document should be made publicly available for an additional public comment period and EPA should also issue a revised Waste Characterization Inspection R eport that should also be subject to additional public comment.

Please provide SRIC with any additional corresponde nce with or responses by CBFO, as well as any future developments in this Baseline Inspection Report process.B-11

EPA Response to Late Comment No. 7: EPA disagrees with the commenter

. The additional information provided by CBFO/CCP at EPA’s request d oes not contain new information and consists mainly of clarifications of the previously submitted responses to the initial public comments. The CBFO/CCP-provided information at EPA ’s request in response to the public comment is sufficiently detailed and it supports it s baseline approval of the CCP-LANL RH WC

program.