J~"ED sTqTFS 

®p pp ~ 9 /~ pp ~ ®® ppq g q~g ®p q 

Uetl ~YE~ STATES EYi VlEdVi@aYIEA ~ AAL PR®~EC'fi®®tl PiGEFBC'l 

a 2 = a N{ASFfINGTOIV, D.C. 20480 

;E~T9 C PPOZ ~G~O 

OFEICE OE 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Elizabeth D. Sellers, Manager 

DOE-Idaho Operations Office 

P.O. Box 1625 

Mailstop 1203 

Idaho falls, ID 83415-1203 

& 

David C. Moody, PhD, Manager 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Enegry 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 

Dear Ms. Sellers and Dr. Moody: 

This letter provides results of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 

inspection of October 16, 2007, at the Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL). The EPA inspeetors, Rajani Joglekar and Ed Feltcorn, inspected 

certain elements of the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP) and the 

Accelerated Retrieval Project (ARP) supported by the Central Characterization Project 

(CCP) at INL. 

We conducted an unannouneed inspection at AMWTP and ARP under the 

authority of 40 CFR 194.21(a)(1). The purpose of the AMWTP inspection was to verify 

that AMWTP continues to implement changes necessitated by the oorrective actions to 

address disposal of an uncertified transuranie (TRU) waste container overpacked in a 

standard waste box (S WB) that occurred in June 2007. The purpose of the ARP 

inspection was to obtain waste volume information on several waste streams that were 

buried prior to 1970 and are now planned for disposal at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIPP). The enclosure details the inspection process and results. This Ietter has been 

placed in the EPA doeket (Air pocket No. A-98-49, II-A4-94) and will be posted on the 

EPA website at www.epa.eov/radiation witpp. 

Both DOE-Idaho staff and AMWTP personnel supported and cooperated with our 

inspectors and ensured that inspection needs, namely observing operational activities, 

were met and that all requested information was made available. We greatly appreciate 

their support and eooperation. We found that the corrective actions and the chain of 

custody process that AMWTP has implemented is technicaliy adequate and addresses 

Intemet Addrass (URL) ® http:!lwww.epa.gov 

RecyciedlRecyciabie . Prinietl wHh Vegetable OiI Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30 % Postconsumer) 
deficiencies that resulted in the overpaeking and disposal of uncertified TRU waste 

container at WIPP in June 2007. 

One of the corrective actions implemented to preclude recurrence of the June 

2007 incident requires that the Central Characterization Projeet (CCP) assume 

responsibility for certain aspects of the ehain of custody process. Currently, as required 

by its hazardous waste permit issued by the State of Idaho, AMWTP must electronicaily 

track all aspects of TRU waste drum movements from retrieval to disposal at WIPP 

including the ehain of custody process that EPA evaluated in July 2007 and verified 

during this inspection. It is our understanding that the CCP's chain of custody process 

has a paper-based component and as a result we are eoncerned about the compatibility of 

the two systems which may potentially reduce the robustness of the electronic process 

that has now been established with the AMWTP. EPA plans to inspect and evaluate the 

process for adequacy as AMWTP and CCP further implement the changes in the chain of 

custody process. 

Similarly, while ARP-CCP personnel made every effort to search for the 

information EPA requested, they had difficulties furnishing the information. As 

concluded in the enclosed ARP-CCP portions ofthe inspection report, EPA has identified 

this as a concern and request ARP-CCP to provide estimated volumes for TRU waste 

excavated from the pre-1970 buried waste designated as IN-ICP-002, IN-ICP-003, INICP-004, and IN-ICP-005. We understand that since the March 2006 WIPP 

recertification, the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) has been obtaining waste inventory that 

provides the basis of the performance assessment from the TRU sites on an annual basis. 

During the inspection we learned that ARP-CCP personnel were not familiar with this 

activity and how the estimates were previously generated. This suggests that 

communication between the ARP-CCP personnel and those ARP staff supporting 

CBFO's waste inventory is ineffective and should be rectified by CBFO and the TRU 

sites. In addition, the information that was provided during the inspection appears to 

contradict information in CBFO's inventory documentation. Thus, we are interested in 

getting the information from the site and reconciling that with the performance 

assessment inventory information. EPA expects DOE (ARP) to provide the appropriate 

information within a month from receiving this letter. 

If you have any questions, please contact Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462 or Ed 

Feltcom at (202) 343-9422. 

Sincerel f ~ 

r 

Juan Reyes, Direc r 

Radiation Protection Division 

Enclosure 
Frank Marcinowski, DOE HQ 

Don Rasch, DOE ID 

Tailey Jenkins, DOE ID 

Jerry Wells, DOE ID 

Jim Wolski, DOE ID, Lead Facility representative 

Paul Contreras, DOE ID 

Vernon Daubs, CBFO 

Casey Gadbury, CBFO 

Russ Patterson, CBFO 

Courkland Fesmire, CBFO 

J R Stroble, CBFO 

Nonna Casteneda, CBFO 

Nick Ceto, EPA Region X 

Jim Werntz, EPA Region X, ID Office 

Craig Halverson, ID DEQ 

Bruce LaRue, ID DEQ, INL Oversight 

Steve Zappe, NMED 

Eric Schweinberg, AMWTP 

Lee Sygitowicz, BBWI 

Scott Raisch, BBWI 

Doug Wale, BBWI 

Kiki Tores, BBWI 

Elvin Dumas, BBWI 

Neil Brill, BBWI 

Tom Johnsen, ICP 

Brent Burton, ICP 
DOCKET NO: A-98-49,11-A4-94 

Enclosure 

EPA's October 16, 2007 Inspection Report 

On October 16, 2007, under the authority of 40 CFR 194.21(a)(1), EPA inspected certain 

TR1I waste activities of AMWTP and ARP-CCP at INL. The sections beiow diseuss 

inspection purpose and results. 

1.0 AMWTP Inspection: 

1.1 Purpose: 

'I'he purpose of the unannounced inspection was as follows: 

• Evaluate actions taken to eomplete Corrective Actions #7, 99 and #10 from CAR 

28920 

• Examine the tracking/segregation and payload assembly process at AMWTP 

• Evaluate the interface between AMWTP's internal Waste Tracking System 

(WTS) and the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS) 

• Evaluate'the DOE-Idaho (DOE-ID) oversight related interaction with AM W'FP 

As part ofthe inspection conducted under the 40 CFR 194.21(a)(1) authority, EPA 

wanted to review relevant objective evidence and verify that AMWTP continues to 

implement changes required by the corrective actions necessitated to address an 

erroneous shipment an uncertified waste container overpacked in an SWB. 

1.2 Individuals Contacted: 

The inspection was opened with a conference call at 8:30 MST. Following 

individuals participated in the in-brief and out-brief: DOE ID - Don Rasch, 'I'alley 

Jenkins, Jerry Wells, and Jim Wolski; Paul Contreras, DOE ID, DOE CBFO -Casey 

Gadbury, Courtland Fesmire, J R Stroble, Norma Castaneda, Kenneth Lieklitter, Martin 

Navarrete, and Dennis Miehls; ID DEQ - Craig Halverson and Bruce LaRue; and BBWI 

— Paul Divjak, Lee Sygitowicz, Scott Raisch, Doug Wale, Kiki Torres, Neil Brill, Clint 

Sisson, Jeff Mousseau, and Elvin Dumas. 

1.3 Bacicground: 

In June 2007, AMWTP shipped an uncerti6ed "I'RU waste container overpacked in a 

standard waste box (S WB) to WIPP for disposal and immediately upon finding the er -ror 

voluntarily stopped TRU waste shipments to WIPP. DOE informed EPA of the incident 

and the stop shipment decision as part of the eorrective action until the site and CBFO 

completed the investigation and the site implements appropriate corrective actions. In 
early July 2007, EPA inspected AMWTP's implementation of corrective actions ranging 

from immediate to long-term to preclude recurrence. On July 16, 2007, EPA sent a letter 

to DOE concurring with DOE's decision to resume INL shipments to WIPP. EPA had 

not received objective evidence for some of the long-tenn corrective actions (completed 

sinee the EPA July inspection). 

1.4 Discussion: 

Below is the description of EPA's inspection results. 

A. Actions taken to complete Corrective Actions #7, #9 and #10 from CAR 28920 

Elvin Dumas (AMWTP-QA) indicated that CAR 28920 is elosed and provided 

documents that detail the process still underway at the site to preclude recurrence of the 

shipment of errant drum to WIPP. The documentation covers the period since the EPA 

inspection of July 2007. EPA evaluated the evidence provided and found it to be 

adequate. EPA requested the site provide updates to EPA as these actions are completed. 

Attachment A lists the AMWTP aetion items that address the CAR corrective actions #7, 

#9, and 410 completed since the EPA inspection. 

B. Examine the tracking/segregation and payload assembly process at AMWTP 

AMWTP personnel made available an OPS I'ech (operations technician), Mr.Doug 

Pearson, to demonstrate the tracking and segregation of containers in building WMF-630. 

The EPA inspector requested Mr. Pearson barcode scan eontainer # 1020565. "I his 

eontainer had an NCR (Non-Conformance Report) associated with it because it contained 

prohibited liquids. The NCR is shown below: 

When the barcode for container 10020565 was scanned the display showed the following: 

2 
When this sereen opens the ops tech muet aeknowledge the warning to elear the screen. 

Any attempt to move this container would be denied by the WTS (Waste Tracking 

System). 

EPA then requested that a fully characterized but not W WIS certified container be moved 

to the payload assembly area of building WMP-630 using the barcode scanner and WTS 

interface. The following was displayed by the scanner: 
container is not 

This is adequate to ensure that uncertified containers cannot be moved to an area where 

WIPP certified containers can be staged. 

C. Evaluate the interface between AMWTP's internal Waste Tracking System 

(WTS) and the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS) 

EPA requested to meet with a TCO (Transportation Certification Officer) who gives final 

approval for the payload assembly interfacing with both the WTS and W WIS systems. 

TCO Randy Richmond was interviewed. Mr. Richmond described that the W WIS 

system provides a population of containers eligible for disposal at WIPP. From this 

popuiation he selects containers based on waste stream, weights, and other transportation 

criteria. He then places move orders into the WTS (Waste Tracking System) that allows 

the containers to be moved to a special roped off and marked area in building WMF-630. 

The eontainers are moved by the OPS Tech after the bareode of the individual containers 

are scanned and the destination of the certified row is placed in the system, with the final 

eheck being that no system flags are displayed by the barcode scanner. Examples of the 

documentation for this process are Attachinents B and C. EPA was satisfied that the 

WTS/WWIS interface and the associated review process was adequate. 
As a result of the Item 10 under the heading Actions to Preclude Recurrence of CAR 

28920, certain chain of custody activities will be taken over by the Central 

Charaeterization Project (CCP) in coming months. During discussion with AMW'TP 

personnel it was apparent that the AMWTP's and CCP's ehain of custody procedures 

differ. For example, AMWTP uses WTS, an internal electronic system that tracks CH 

"I'RU waste containers through the characterization processes up to and including loading 

direct loaded or overpacked containers that are loaded into TRUPAC IIs or half-pacs. 

AMWTP must maintain the WTS component as it is part of the AMWTP's hazardous 

waste permit issued by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. CCP uses a 

non-electronic (paper based) container management system. EPA is concerned that the 

CCP system may not be directly compatible with the WTS implemented by AMW'I'P 

thereby requiring extra steps that to interface with and integrate the AMWTP's waste 

container tracking and movement system when CCP takes over portions of AMWTP's 

existing cllain of custody processs EPA, therefore, intends to inspect and evaluate the 

process for adequacy as AMWTP and CCP implements changes stemming from Item 10 

under the heading Actions to Preelude Recurrence of CAR 28920. 

D. Evaluate the DOE-ID oversiEht related interaction with AMWTP 

EPA received from DOE-ID a listing of all weekly meetings held between the DOE-ID 

office staff and the AMWTP staff. (See Attachment D) Mr. Jim Wolski, a Facility 

Representative (FR) from the DOE-ID office to the AMWTP facility described the FR 

program and how it provides day-to-day operational oversight to the AMWTP facility. 

Mr. Wolski stated that there are three FRs atthe AMWTP site. He stated that a minimum 

of 40% of their time is spent in the field observing operations. EPA was provided a 

listing of all FRs in the DOE compiex and the DOE Standard for Facility Representatives 

(DOE-STD-1063-2006 of Apri12006) which describes the FR program in detail. EPA 

was satisfied that the interface between the site and the DOE-ID office was adequate. 

1.5 Conclusion: 

Based on the information obtained and evaluation of the implemented procedures, EPA 

concludes that AMWTP's eurrent operational activities will ensure that oniy fully 

characterized and certified TRU waste containers (direct loaded and overpacked) will be 

shipped to WIPP for disposal are for WIPP disposal. 

As discussed under Section ].4.0 above, EPA wants to be informed and intends to 

inspect, evaluate, and verify procedure(s) implemented when CCP takes over from 

AMWTP certain of the chain of eustody components as required by Item 10 under the 

heading Actions to Preelude Recurrence of CAR 28920. 
2.0 ARP-CCP Inspection 

2.1 Purpose: 

The purpose of the inspection was to obtain information about the TRU waste belonging 

to four waste streams (IN-ICP-002, IN-ICP-003, IN-ICP-004, and IN-ICP-005) from pre1970 buried waste at INL. These waste streams were included in the 2004 Compliance 

Reeertifieation Application documentation as potential TRiJ waste for which detailed 

characterization data were lacking at that time. They were included in the subsequent 

Performance Assessment (PA) calculations required by EPA for the WIPP recertification. 

The intent of the inspection was to understand TRU waste volume estimates used in the 

"I'RU waste inventory for the WIPP perlormance assessment required to support the CRA 

II due to EPA March 2009. "I'he Central Characterization Project (CCP) supports ARP's 

TRU waste characterization activities at INL. EPA expected ARP-CCP to gather more 

recent infoimation about the projected volumes of TRU waste from these waste streams 

as part of the acceptable knowledge process. 

2.2 Individuals Contacted: 

EPA staff inet with Paul Contreras (208-526-5699, contreph(cr)id.doe. g,ov), Manager, 

DOE INL Accelerated Retrieval Project, and Tom Johnsen (208-533-0559, 208 51- 

8357, Thomas.johrnsen(cr~ icp.doe.gov), and Brent Burton (208-526-8695, 208-520-0420, 

Brent.Bur ), INL Contractor staff, to gather information on buried waste 

being excavated as part of the Accelerated Retrieval Project (ARP) activity. Also present 

at the meeting were Chuck Ljundberg, DOE Idaho and Bruce LaRue, Idaho Department 

of Environmental Quality. 

2.3 Background: 

The Idaho Cleanup Projeet (ICP) is responsible for cleanup of waste from the subsurface 

disposal area and the Advanced Retrieval Project (ARP) identifies, retrieves, and 

prepares targeted waste for characterization and shipment to the WIPP. The Central 

Characterization Project (CCP) is responsible for characterization of waste excavated 

from ARP and AMWTP is responsible for its disposal at WIPP. In November 2005, EPA 

approved CCP's waste characterization program for the TRU component of the 

excavated waste from Pit 4(ARP I) and Pit 6(ARP II). Since 2005 the waste from these 

two pits has been disposed of at WIPP. TRU waste from ARP areas other than ARP I 

and ARP Il will require EPA approval for disposal at WIPP. 

2.4 Discussion: 

Below are the highlights of the discussion: 

• Since 2004, these waste streams have been regrouped and classifred into three 

summary eategory groups (SCGe), namely, IN-ICP-002 (inorganie solids) and INICP-003 (organic solids) as homogenous solids (S3000), 1N-ICP-004 (graphite) 

6 
and IN-ICP-005 (filters) as debris (S5000), and soils/gravel (S4000). The 

eategorization of roasted oxides into one of these SCGs is remains to be done. 

[The SCGs are the waste categories different waste streams are grouped into when 

characterizing TRU waste for the disposal at WIPP.] 

A new baseline plan (available for publie comment) for the CERCLA/Superfund 

Cleanup activity at INI, estimates that the area requiring excavation will be 

approximately 4.8 acres as opposed to the original estimate of the ARP targeted 

area of 2.8 acres. Currently waste covered under the ARP is being excavated as 

TRU waste for WIPP disposal. The ARP activity is expected to be completed 

around 2012. 

According to the current estimates more than 90% of the excavated waste is 

anticipated to be TRU with the remaining waste ciassified as low-level waste or 

mixed TRU waste. 

ARP will begin excavating waste from Pits 3 and 6 followed by Pits 1 and 2. 

ARP-CCP expects that next Spring characteriz.ation of the newly excavated waste 

from these pits will begin. 

2.5 Conclusion: 

During the EPA inspection ARP-CCP was not able to provide sufficient information 

specific to the main issue. Therefore, DOE (ARP) needs to provide the following 

information to EPA to resolve the concern. 

• Provide the process used for regrouping the four waste streams into broad SCGs. 

• Provide the new volume estimates for TRU, mixed TRU and low-level waste 

(LLW) per pit as shown in the Attachment E diagram and for each SCG. 

• Explain the basis for determining if the waste is TRU or LLW when developing 

TRU waste volume estimates and compiling acceptable knowledge for these 

waste streams. 

7