DOCKET NO: A-98-49; II-A4-110

WASTE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT

TIER ONE CHANGE:

EVALUATION OF VISUAL EXAMINATION BY REVIEWING PREVI OUSLY

GENERATED AUDIO/VISUAL RECORDINGS OF WASTE PACKAGIN G FOR

CONTACT-HANDLED TRANSURANIC DEBRIS WASTE

AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE CENTRAL CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT (CCP) AT INL

December 9-11, 2008 and February 2, 2009

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

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

February 2009**i** TABLE OF CONTENTS

**Section Page** 

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

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

2.0 Purpose of Tier 1 Change Evaluations...............

................................................... .......... 2

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

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

4.0 Scope of Review....................................

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

5.0 Evaluation Team ....................................

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

6.0 Performance of the Review: Visual Examination.....

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

7.0 Conclusion .........................................

................................................... ............................. 9

**Attachment A EPA Concern Forms, Final**

**Attachment B Summary of Interviews with NTS Waste Packaging Personnel** **1**

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

**This report describes the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA or the Agency)’s**  **evaluation of a visual examination (VE) technique i mplemented by the Central Characterization**  **Project (CCP) to characterize contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) debris waste from the**  **Nevada Test Site (NTS) packaged in standard waste b oxes and 55-gallon drums. This is a Tier 1**  **(T1) change to the non-destructive examination (NDE ) processes implemented by CCP at the**  **Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and approved by EPA in October 2005. EPA conditionally**  **approves this VE technique (CCP-TP-163,** CCP Standard Visual Examination of Records **used in conjunction with CCP-TP-113,**  CCP Standard Contact-Handled Waste Visual Examinati on **). The conditions are presented below, in Section 6.3**  **and in Section 7.0 of the report.**

**In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8(b), from May 3–5, 2 005, EPA conducted Baseline Inspection** 

**No. EPA-INL-CCP-05.05-8 of CCP’s waste characteriza tion program located at the INL. EPA**  **approved the baseline program in October 2005 allow ing disposal of debris (S5000) and solid**  **(S3000) waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (W IPP). (See EPA Docket No: A-98-49; II-A4-**  **59, October 2005). The October 2005 baseline appro val of the CCP program at INL for contact**  **handled (CH) TRU wastes included the VE technique l imited to VE as Quality Control (QC)**  **Check of Real Time Radiography for CH retrievably-s tored TRU debris and solid waste.** 

**On November 13, 2008, the Carlsbad Field Office (CB FO) requested EPA’s approval of a**  **different VE technique to be implemented at INL-CCP (CCP-TP-163 in conjunction with CP**  **TP-113) as a Tier 2 (T2) change to characterize CH TRU waste from NTS. The alternate VE**  **technique comprises of a review of the audio/video (A/V) recordings using CCP procedure CCP** 

**TP-113 to characterize WMPs and estimated their weights** 

**. The A/V recordings were**  **prepared by NTS when packaging CH TRU debris waste according**  **to the Department of Energy (DOE) headquarters issued**  Contact-handled Transuranic Waste Packaging Instruc tions **(10/8/2008).**

**Upon review of the T2 change specific information p rovided with the approval request, EPA**  **determined that the requested approval must be eval uated by EPA as a Tier 1 (T1) change for the**  **following reasons. First, the A/V recordings of pa ckaging and waste content records for**  **individual containers were prepared by NTS, a small generator site (SGS) not approved by EPA**  **for characterizing TRU waste. Second, NTS generate d waste content information does not**  **follow EPA’s quality assurance (QA) requirements at 40 CFR 194.22, hence, the NTS-generated**  **data cannot be directly applied to WIPP-bound TRU w aste. Finally, INL-CCP was**  **implementing an alternate VE technique which EPA ha d not evaluated for adequacy previously**  **and it was significantly different from the VE technique EPA approved in Oct**  **ober 2005. Also, EPA concluded that more scrutiny and thorough evalu**  **ation of the proposed process was necessary as the process could be applied by CCP at**  **other SGSs.**

**In December 2008, therefore, EPA inspected implemen tation of the proposed INL-CCP’s VE**  **technique implemented for NTS as a T1 change. During the December evaluation, EPA was not**  **able to determine technical adequacy of the process for identifying and documenting the required**  **waste characteristics, WMPs, verification of the ab sence of prohibited items, and verification**  **that the waste matches the waste stream description for debris waste stream ID-NTLLNL-S5400.**  **Section 6.1 discusses the results of EPA inspection . EPA issued a total of seven EPA concerns,** **2**

**six of which required a response. These are includ ed in Attachment A to this report. On**  **February 2, 2009, EPA performed a follow-up inspect ion to assess how INL-CCP had addressed** 

**EPA’s concerns. The results of this evaluation are discussed in Section 6.3 of the report.**  **Additionally, EPA had a series of discussions with Department of Energy (DOE) headquarters**  **(HQ) and CBFO staff to resolve outstanding issues. The outcome of these discussions is**  **summarized in section 6.3 of the report.**

**Based on the information presented in this report, EPA approves the process of generating VE**  **information utilizing A/V recordings process (CCP-T P-163), for all debris waste packaged at**  **NTS (sent to INL or destined for INL for further ch aracterization and disposal by INL-CCP) that**  **are supported by A/V recordings. Using the approve d VE process, INL-CCP will generate VE**  **batch data reports (BDRs) in accordance with the pr eviously-approved procedure CCP-TP-113.**  **Any available written waste packaging records will be part of the acceptable knowledge (AK)**  **and may not be used for generating VE data. This a pproval requires that INL-CCP confirms by**  **the VE process using the A/V recordings that waste has been packaged in containers verified to**  **have been empty prior to packaging. At this time, EPA is**  not **approving the use of waste packaging records by themselves for identifying WMP**  **s and estimating their weights. EPA will separately determine whether these records may be u**  **sed for the WC purposes by CCP when characterizing CH TRU waste packaged by small gener**  **ator sites (SGSs). Such use of waste packaging records will also be evaluated as a T1 ch**  **ange.**

**In addition, upon EPA notification, INL-CCP and oth er EPA-approved CCP sites may use the**  **above approved process for characterizing CH TRU de bris waste packaged at other SGSs. When**  **characterizing SGS-generated CH TRU debris waste, C CP may only use the EPA-approved**  **waste characterization procedures.**

2.0 PURPOSE OF TIER 1 CHANGE EVALUATIONS

**Certain changes to the WC activities from the date of the site’s baseline inspection must be**  **reported to, and, if applicable, approved by EPA ac cording to the tiering requirements set forth in**  **40 CFR 194.8, regulation and incorporated in the IN L Baseline Final Report cited above.** 

**Under the changes to 40 CFR 194.8 promulgated in th e July 16, 2004,**  Federal Register **notice, EPA must perform a single baseline inspection of a**  **TRU waste generator site’s WC program. (Vol. 69, No.136, pages 42571–42583, July 16, 2004)**  **. The purpose of a baseline inspection is to approve the site’s WC program based on the demonstr**  **ation that the program’s components, with applicable conditions and limitations, can adequate**  **ly characterize TRU wastes and comply with the regulatory requirements imposed on TRU wastes d**  **estined for disposal at the WIPP. An EPA inspection team conducts an onsite inspection to ve**  **rify that the site’s system of controls is technically adequate and properly implemented.** 

**Following the EPA’s approval of WC processes evalua ted during the baseline inspection, EPA is**  **authorized to evaluate and approve, if necessary, c hanges to the site’s approved WC program by**  **conducting additional inspections under the authori ty of 40 CFR 194.24(h). Changes requiring**  **EPA notification and approval prior to implementati on (T1) and those requiring post-** **3**

**implementation (T2) notification are identified in the site-specific baseline inspection reports.**  **DOE may choose to characterize and dispose of at ri sk while EPA considers the proposed T2**  **changes. EPA may conduct continued compliance insp ections (both announced and**  **unannounced) to verify that the site continues to u se only the approved WC processes to**  **characterize approved summary waste categories and that those WC processes remain in**  **compliance with all applicable regulatory requireme nts.** 

3.0 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

**This report presents the results of the EPA’s evalu ation of a T1 change to the initial baseline**  **approval of the CH TRU WC program at INL-CCP. Spec ifically, this report addresses the**  **technical area of VE by review of previously-genera ted A/V recordings (using procedure CCP**  **TP-163 in conjunction with CCP-TP-113) of waste pac kaging that occurred at NTS using**  Contact-handled Waste Packaging Instructions **dated 10/8/2008 provided by DOE Headquarters. EPA evaluated this process to verify that it was ad**  **equate for identifying and documenting the required waste characteristics (WMPs, verification**  **of the absence of prohibited items, and**

**verification that the waste matches the waste strea m description) for waste stream ID-NTLLNL**  **S5400. The 2005 INL-CCP baseline report referenced above describes the conditions that EPA**  **had approved and documents the basis for EPA’s init ial approval decision of VE at INL-CCP.** 

4.0 SCOPE OF REVIEW

**This T1 change review included the evaluation of in formation supporting the WC technique of a**  **VE process that involves generating VE data for CH debris waste from previously recorded**  **waste packaging events.**

5.0 EVALUATION TEAM

**Ms. Dorothy Gill performed the evaluation of the pr oposed VE technique at CBFO office in**  **Carlsbad, New Mexico in December 2008 and February 2009. A complete listing of all**  **individuals who participated in both the December 2 008 and February 2009 T1 evaluations is**  **provided in Table 1. This includes personnel from NTS who were interviewed by telephone, as**  **described in Section 6.2, below.**

Table 1. T1 Evaluation Participants

Inspection Team Member Affiliation Area of Expertise

**Dorothy Gill S. Cohen & Associates, Inc. EPA Inspec tor** 

**Rhett Bradford CTAC Technical Specialist VE**

**Dave Kimbro CTAC Lead Auditor QA**

**Shane Miles CCP VEE/VPM**

**Michael Walentine CCP SPM 4** 

**A.J. Fischer CCP CCP Support**

**Tim Hall NMED Observer**

**Alyca Attwood CCP Records**

**Jon Tanaka*** **NTS Waste Handler**

**Sherry Peczka* NTS Waste Examination Expert (WEE)**

**Laura Kinstad* NTS Waste Handler**

**Mike McCullough* NTS Waste Operations Manager**

**Rick Wagner* NTS Division Manager**

**Casey Gadbury CBFO NTP Manager**

**Court Fesmire CBFO NTP co-ordinator**

**Patsy Gilbert CBFO Site Documents staff**

***NTS personnel were interviewed by telephone.**

6.0 PERFORMANCE OF THE REVIEW: VE BY REVIEW ING AUDIO/VISUAL

RECORDINGS

6.1 December 2008 Evaluation

**On December 9 – 11, 2008, EPA conducted a limited s cope evaluation of INL-CCP’s modified**  **process for generating VE data for CH TRU debris wa ste from previously-recorded waste**  **packaging events at NTS. NTS personnel made the or iginal A/V recordings and also prepared**  **physical waste content records for each container d uring packaging. NTS used a waste**  **packaging procedure** Contact-handled Waste Packaging Instructions **dated 10/8/2008 provided by DOE HQ. EPA had not previously evaluated this p**  **rocess for CH waste. Because the NTS does not currently have an EPA-approved WC program,**  **any WC activities completed by NTS and data generated from those activities may not be**  **used for WIPP certification without the application of approved waste characterization proc**  **esses by an approved site.**

**The process observed during this inspection and fol low-up allows INL-CCP personnel to**  **visually examine existing A/V recordings and genera te**  **VE data under CCP’s EPA-approved waste characterization program. At the time of the**  **review, CCP had generated three Batch Data Reports (BDRs), which contained a total of six Stan**  **dard Waste Boxes (SWBs). Revision 1 of CCP-TP-163 was used to assess the acceptability of**  **the A/V recordings prior to CCP beginning VE data generation. The VE process to identify WMP**  **s and estimate their weights on a container basis was performed in accordance with a previous r**  **evision of CCP-TP-113 (Revision 11, November 12, 2008).** 

**Prior to and during the inspection, EPA reviewed th e following documents and records:** 

• **CCP-TP-113, Revision 12,** Standard Contact-Handled Waste Visual Examination

**, December 1, 2008** 

• **CCP-TP-163, Revision 1,** Standard Visual Examination of Records **, November 12, 2008 5** 

• **CCP-AK-INL-009, Revision 0,** Acceptable Knowledge Summary Report for Idaho National Laboratory, Nevada Test Site, Lawrence Liv ermore National Laboratory Waste,

Waste Streams ID-NTLLNL-S5400 and ID-NTLLNL-S3900 **, November 19, 2008**

• **Non-conformance report NCR-INL-0516-08**

• **Training Attendance Sheet for VE personnel for CCP- AK-INL-009, November 19, 2008** 

• **PowerPoint slides used for training in procedure CC P-AK-INL-009** 

• **List of Qualified Individuals (LOQI), Small Quantit y Site (SQS) Program** 

• **Addendum H – Small Quantity Site (SQS) Waste Charac terization at the Idaho National**  **Laboratory (INL) for VE personnel: Jason Struchen, November 18, 2008; (Richard)**  **Shane Miles, November 17, 2008; Donald Blunn, Novem ber 17, 2008; and Wes Root,**  **November 17, 2008**

• **Original packaging records for SWBs NT070702R, NT07 0705R, NT070682R,**  **NT070699R, NT070694R and NT070722R**

• **BDR Nos. NTVE080001, NTVE080002, and NTVE080003**

• **A/V recordings for packaging of the six SWBs listed above** 

**EPA reviewed training records for INL-CCP VE person nel listed on the CCP LOQI for this**  **process. As evidenced by the signature and date on the Addendum H for each operator, the**  **training records demonstrated that these personnel were considered to be qualified before they**  **had received the required AK training. EPA Concern No.INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-001C was**  **generated to address this issue.**

**EPA reviewed procedure CCP-TP-113 used to generate VE data and complete data forms, and**  **CCP-TP-163 used to determine if A/V recordings were adequate for the process. EPA Concern**  **No.INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-002CR was generated because the se two procedures do not adequately**  **reference each other and do not clearly state how t hey are used together.** 

**The A/V recordings reviewed were fragmented and loc ating the complete records for each**  **container was difficult and burdensome. During rev iew of the A/V recordings, original**  **packaging records and INL-CCP’s written record of V E data, EPA identified five concerns with**  **regard to the VE process used by INL-CCP which are included in Attachment A. These are** 

**summarized below:**

• **EPA Concern No. INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-003CR: The visual record did not clearly show**  **that several of the SWBs were empty at the start of the packaging activities. Without this**  **information, INL-CCP operators are unable to determ ine that prohibited items are not** 

**contained in each SWB.**

• **EPA Concern No. INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-004CR: INL-CCP VE operators did not always**  **correctly identify WMPs. SWB No. NT070694R include d “Gloves, Gaskets” as WMPs**  **Iron-based metals/alloys but the A/V clearly showed these items to be rubber. This error**  **was not identified by the two INL-CCP operators per forming VE and was also not**  **identified during review by the Independent Technic al Review (ITR) and Site Project**  **Manager (SPM) review. 6** 

• **EPA Concern No. INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-005CR: When perfor ming VE for container No.**  **NT070705R, INL-CCP VE operators failed to record th e presence of rubber gloves**  **although this item was clearly called out on the A/ V recording multiple times. Procedure**  **CCP-TP-113, Attachment 2, Section 3, Waste Packagin g Data was incomplete for this** 

**container.**

• **EPA Concern No. INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-006CR: The correct container number was not**  **consistently used by personnel during the original VE. VE operators verify the absence**  **of prohibited items and the container inventory by signing the VE data form (Attachment**  **2, CCP-TP-113); due to the identification errors, I NL-CCP may not be able to do this for** 

**container No. NT070705R.**

• **EPA Concern No.INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-007CR: INL-CCP reco gnizes the importance of**  **secure storage for in-process containers by requiri ng lids to be replaced and secured using**  **a Tamper Indicating Device (TID) in procedure CCP-T P-113. During the original**  **packaging, in-process containers were covered with a plastic sheet or blanket but were**  **not sealed to prevent addition or removal of waste items. INL-CCP VE operators were**  **unable to verify that the contents of SWBs had not been changed.** 

**Late January 2009, INL-CCP responded to EPA’s conce rns and these were evaluated during the**  **February 2009 evaluation discussed below.**

6.2 February 2009 Evaluation

**On February 2, 2009, EPA performed a one-day follow -up, inspection to assess INL-CCP’s**  **responses to the EPA concerns generated during the initial T1 assessment in December 2008, as** 

**described above. Each concern is summarized below along with the status of each following the**  **February 2009 evaluation:**

Concern INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-001C, Final: **Training on document CCP-AK-INL-09 for the four VE personnel listed on the LOQI for SQS Progra**  **m dated December 9, 2008, was performed on November 19, 2008. However, copies of CCP’s Add**  **endum H – SQS Waste Characterized at INL for these personnel were dated between 1 and 2**  **days before the training took place. EPA does not consider signing off on training before th**  **e training is completed to be a desirable practice.** 

Status **: This concern did not require a response from C BFO and no further action is required.** 

Concern INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-002CR, Final: **INL-CCP uses procedure CCP-TP-113 to generate and record VE data of CH TRU waste. INL-C**  **CP uses procedure CCP-TP-163 to determine that existing A/V recordings used to gene**  **rate VE data include all the required information pertaining to the waste in each contain**  **er. Although INL-CCP intends to use these procedures in concert, they do not adequately refer**  **ence each other and do not clearly state how they are used for this type of VE. Draft Revision**  **B of CCP-TP-113,** CCP Standard ContactHandled Waste Visual Examination **, contained language that would allow VE data to be generated from not only A/V recordings but also any**  **packaging record. For example, Section 2.6.4 defines VE of Records as: “VE performed using**  **existing audio/video media of waste 7** 

**packaging or waste packaging data forms acceptable in accordance with CCP-TP-163,**  CCP Evaluation of Waste Packaging Records for Visual Ex amination Records.” **EPA rejected the proposed revisions to procedure CCP-TP-113.** 

Status: **The INL-CCP response was unacceptable. EPA, DOE HQ and CBFO had a series of** 

**discussion to resolve this concern. The results of these discussions are given in section 6.3** 

**below.**

Concern INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-003CR, Final: **During the inspection EPA reviewed the existing VE generated using A/V recordings for thre**  **e of the six containers processed to-date by INL-CCP. From the recordings it was not possible t**  **o determine that two of the three containers were empty at the start of the original VE event.**  **This information is necessary to confirm that prohibited items were not present in the containers**  **and therefore, these containers should have been rejected. A requirement to verify that the bo**  **ttom of each container was empty prior to commencing packaging was not included in the draft**  **revisions of CCP-TP-113, Revision 13, Draft B and CCP-TP-163, Revision 2, Draft A provide**  **d to EPA for review. EPA rejected the proposed revisions to procedures CCP-TP-113 and CCP**  **-TP-163.**

**EPA interviewed selected NTS waste packaging person nel via teleconference. Court Fesmire and**  **Patsy Gilbert from CBFO observed the interviews. A summary of information gained during the** 

**interviews is included in Attachment B. The inform ation gathered by EPA was sufficient to**  **address concerns for the waste packaged to date wit h regard to the condition of the containers**  **prior to packaging activities. However, EPA does r equire CBFO to revise its packaging process**  **so that the A/V recordings show that containers are empty prior to any further packaging**  **activities. EPA acknowledges that all NTS personne l interviewed were cooperative and**  **provided the requested information without hesitati on. CBFO NTP personnel committed to**  **ensuring that all containers packaged in the future at NTS will be supported by A/V records that**  **establish that the each waste container is empty pr ior to beginning packaging.** 

Status **: This concern is resolved based on interviews of NTS waste packaging personnel who**  **confirmed that containers were empty prior to loadi ng of waste. EPA wanted similar assurance**  **for NTS waste not yet packaged. This was addressed during EPA, DOE HQ and CBFO** 

**discussions. The results of these discussions are given in section 6.3 below.** 

Concern INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-004CR, Final: **Attachment 2 of CCP-TP-113, Section 3, Waste Package Data, for container No. NT070694R included**  **“Gloves, Gaskets” as WMP Iron-based metals/alloys. Review of the VE recording clearly**  **showed these items to be rubber. The two INL-CCP VE operators performing the event did not i**  **dentify this error nor did the ITR or the SPM identify it.** 

Resolution: **The data sheets for the subject containers when co rrected to respond to the**  **Corrective Action Request (CAR) issued by CBFO Qual ity Assurance (QA) program will be** 

**sent to EPA.**

Status: **This concern is resolved, contingent upon receipt of the corrected data sheets.** **8**

Concern INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-005CR, Final: **The VE recording missed recording latex rubber gloves for container No. NT070705R where the**  **items were called out more than ten separate times and were clearly identified. CCP-TP**  **-113, Attachment 2, Section 3, Waste Package Data does not include these items and is th**  **erefore incomplete. The data sheets for the subject containers when corrected to respond to the**  **Corrective Action Request (CAR) issued by CBFO QA program will be sent to EPA for review.** 

Resolution: **The Data Sheets for the subject containers have b een corrected and will be**  **presented to EPA for review after closure of the CA R issued by CBFO QA to address this issue.** 

Status: **This concern is resolved, contingent upon receip t of the corrected data sheets.** 

Concern INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-006CR, Final: **The VEE performing the original VE event incorrectly identified container No.NT070705R as NT**  **070702R twice. These errors were clearly recorded on the A/V recording but the INL-CCP VE op**  **erators either did not recognize or did not**

**record these errors.**

Resolution: **CBFO explained that while the misidentifications ha d occurred in the A/V record,**  **there was sufficient clarity regarding the containe r’s actual number. EPA accepts this**  **explanation.**

Status: **This concern is resolved.**

Concern INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-007CR, Final: **INL**

- **CCP procedure CCP-TP-113, Section 4.3.2, Note, contains the requirement: “Waste conta**  **iners SHALL be closed and have a Tamper Indicating Device (TID)/Lock applied when left unat**  **tended”. The containers examined during the original VE event were left unattended and were**  **only covered by a fire-proof blanket and plastic sheet per NTS procedures. While it is reco**  **gnized that INL-CCP had no control over the original event, secure storage of in-process contai**  **ners is recognized to be an essential element of the process that allows INL-CCP personnel to attest**  **that neither the containers nor their contents are tampered with or altered. Because the subject**  **containers were not stored securely, is unclear how INL-CCP VE operators can affirm that the contai**  **ners and their contents have not been**

**altered.**

Resolution: **The language in CCP-TP-113, Revision 13, Draft B wa s changed from “when left** 

**unattended” to “when access to the container is unc ontrolled”. EPA accepted this revision to the**  **procedure.**

Status: **This concern is closed, contingent upon receipt o f the revised procedure.** 

6.3 Discussions between EPA DOE HQ, and CBFO

**At the end of the February 2, 2009, surveillance in spection some components of two concerns**  **(Concern INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-002CR, Final and Concern INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-003CR, Final)**  **remained unresolved requiring discussions between E PA, DOE HQ, and CBFO staff. During** **9**

**these discussions these concerns were resolved as f ollows. The proposed INL-CCP VE process**  **(CCP-TP-163 in conjunction with CCP-TP-113) is appr oved provided that:** 

• **All waste packaged by NTS and sent to INL-CCP for f urther characterization and**  **disposal must have A/V recordings showing and stati ng that container was empty when**  **waste packaging began;**

• **For NTS waste containers currently at INL with A/V recordings not documenting that**  **containers were empty when used for packaging, NTS waste packaging personnel certify**  **that containers were empty; and**

• **INL-CCP when visually examining A/V recordings for NTS containers must document**  **that the A/V recordings show that the container was empty.** 

**The above conditions require that (a) DOE HQ revise s waste packaging instructions and (b) INL** 

**CCP revises CCP-TP-163 and CCP-TP-113 to incorporate above con**  **ditions as appropriate. This approval does**  not **include use waste packaging records alone to gener ate BDRs for CH TRU**  **waste containers without A/V recordings for disposa l at WIPP. EPA, in future, will separately**  **evaluate if waste packaging records alone from an u napproved SGS can be used by CCP to**  **adequately identify WMPs and estimate their weights , verify absence of prohibited items, and**  **validate that waste matches waste stream descriptio n when characterizing waste. This evaluation**  **will be a T1 change and EPA approval prior to imple mentation will be necessary.** 

6.4 Summary of Results

**During the December 2008 T1 evaluation, EPA evaluat ed the use of VE of A/V recordings from**  **previously- recorded waste packaging events to iden tify and document CH TRU components of**  **waste in waste stream ID-NTLLNL-S5400 being receive d by INL-CCP for characterization and**  **disposal in compliance with 40 CFR 194.24 requireme nts. EPA identified a total of seven**  **concerns: one that did not require a response and s ix that did require a response. These seven**  **concerns are described in the previous section and copies of all EPA concern forms are provided**  **in Attachment A. Upon receiving the INL-CCP respon ses EPA performed a follow up visit in**  **February 2009 to determine whether INL-CCP had adeq uately resolved all concerns. In**  **addition, EPA had several discussions with DOE and CBFO staff specific to Concern INL-CCP**  **CH-VE-T1-002CR, Final and Concern INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1- 003CR, Final. The status of each**  **EPA concern is provided below.**

• **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-001C: Concern closed.**

• **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-002CR: Concern closed, pending re ceipt of revised procedure.** 

• **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-003CR: Concern closed, pending re ceipt of objective evidence of** 

**corrective actions.**

• **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-004CR: Concern closed, contingent upon receipt of corrected data** 

**sheets. 10** 

• **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-005CR: Concern closed, contingent upon receipt of corrected data** 

**sheets.**

• **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-006CR: Concern closed.**

• **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-007CR: Concern closed, contingent upon receipt of revised**  **procedure.**

7.0 CONCLUSION

**During this T1 evaluation, EPA evaluated use of pro cedures**  **CCP-TP-163/CCP-TP-113 to generate VE BDRs from**  **NTS- generated A/V recordings of debris waste packa ged in SWBs and**  **55-gallon drums**

**. A total of seven EPA concerns were generated at t**  **he December 2008 evaluation and EPA performed a one-day follow-up in**  **spection February 2, 2009 to assess the INL-CCP’s responses to the EPA concerns.** 

**Subsequent to the February evaluation, EPA, DOE HQ, and CBFO personnel had discussions** 

**which enabled closure of the EPA concerns. Based on the information presented in this report** 

**, EPA approves the process of generating VE informati**  **on utilizing A/V recordings process (CCP TP-163), for all debris waste packaged at NTS (sent**  **to INL or destined for INL for further characterization and disposal by INL-CCP) that are**  **supported by A/V recordings. Using the approved VE process, INL-CCP will generate VE batch**  **data reports (BDRs) in accordance with the previously-approved procedure CCP-TP-113. Any**  **available written waste packaging records will be part of the acceptable knowledge (AK) and m**  **ay not be used for generating VE data. This approval requires that INL-CCP confirms by the VE p**  **rocess using the A/V recordings that waste has been packaged in containers verified to have be**  **en empty prior to packaging. At this time,**

**EPA is** not **approving the use of waste packaging records by th emselves for identifying WMPs**  **and estimating their weights. EPA will separately determine whether these records may be used**  **for the WC purposes by CCP when characterizing CH T RU waste packaged by small generator**  **sites (SGSs). Such use of waste packaging records will also be evaluated as a T1 change.** 

**In addition, upon EPA notification, INL-CCP and oth er EPA-approved CCP sites may use the**  **above approved process for characterizing CH TRU de bris waste packaged at other SGSs. When**  **characterizing SGS-generated CH TRU debris waste, C CP may only use the EPA-approved**  **waste characterization procedures. 11**  Attachment A

EPA Concerns Generated at the December 2008 T1 Eval uation

Inspection No. **EPA-INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1** Issue Number: **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-001C, Final**

Date: **December 9, 2008** 
Inspector: **Dorothy E. Gill**

Attachments? **YES NO**  Sample Size: **4 Individuals** Population size (if known): **4 Individuals**

Description of Issue: **Training on document CCP-AK-INL-09 for the four vis ual examination (VE)**  **personnel listed on the List of Qualified Individua ls (LOQI) for Small Quantity Site (SQS) Program dat**  **ed 12/9/08 was performed on 11/19/08. However, copies**  **of CCP’s Addendum H – SQS Waste Characterized at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) for these pe**  **rsonnel were dated between 1 and 2 days before the training took place. EPA does not consider signing**  **off on training before the training is completed t o be a**  **desirable practice.**

B. Regulatory Reference: **40 CFR 194.24(c)**

C. Site requirement(s): **Not applicable**

D. Discussed with: **Rhett Bradford, Dave Kimbro, Dennis Miehls**

E. Additional Comments: **During the first day of the inspection, CCP personn el were not available to** 

**discuss this concern.**

F. Site Response Information:

Site Response Required? **YES NO**  Site Response Due Date: **NA 12**  Inspection No. **EPA-INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1** Issue Number: **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-002CR, Final**

Date: **December 9, 2008** 
Inspector: **Dorothy E. Gill**

Attachments? **YES NO**  Sample Size: **2 Procedures** Population size (if known): **Not Applicable**

Description of Issue: **CCP uses procedure CCP-TP-113 to generate and recor d visual examination (VE)**  **data of CH TRU waste. CCP uses procedure CCP-TP-16 3 to determine that existing audio/visual**  **recordings used to generate VE data include all the required information. Although CCP intends to use**  **these procedures in concert, they do not adequately reference each other and do not clearly state how**  **they are used for VE of this type.** 

B. Regulatory Reference: **40 CFR 194.24(c)**

C. Site requirement(s): **Not applicable**

D. Discussed with: **Rhett Bradford, Dave Kimbro, Dennis Miehls**

E. Additional Comments: **During the first day of the inspection, CCP personn el were not available to** 

**discuss this concern.**

F. Site Response Information:

Site Response Required? **YES NO**  Site Response Due Date: **January 21, 2009 13**  Inspection No. **EPA-INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1** Issue Number: **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-003CR, Final**

Date: **December 10, 2008** 
Inspector: **Dorothy E. Gill**

Attachments? **YES NO**  Sample Size: **3 Containers** Population size (if known): **6 Containers**

Description of Issue: **During the inspection EPA reviewed the existing vis ual examination (VE)**  **audio/visual recordings for three of the six contai ners processed to-date by CCP. From the recordings**  **it was not possible to determine that two of the three**  **containers were empty at the start of the original VE**  **event. This information is necessary to confirm th at prohibited items were not present in the contain**  **ers and therefore, these containers should have been re**  **jected.**

B. Regulatory Reference: **40 CFR 194.24(c)**

C. Site requirement(s): **Not applicable**

D. Discussed with: **Rhett Bradford, Dave Kimbro, Dennis Miehls, Shane M iles** 

E. Additional Comments: **None**

F. Site Response Information:

Site Response Required? **YES NO**  Site Response Due Date: **January 21, 2009 14**  Inspection No. **EPA-INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1** Issue Number: **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-004CR, Final**

Date: **December 10, 2008** 
Inspector: **Dorothy E. Gill**

Attachments? **YES NO**  Sample Size: **1 Container** Population size (if known): **6 Containers**

Description of Issue: **Attachment 2 of CCP-TP-113, Section 3, Waste Packag e Data, for Container No.**  **NT070694R included “Gloves, Gaskets” as Waste Mater ial Parameter (WMP) Iron-based metals/alloys.**  **Review of the VE recording clearly showed these ite ms to be rubber. The two CCP VE operators**  **performing the event did not identify this error no r did the Independent Technical Reviewer (ITR) or t**  **he Site Project Manager (SPM) identify it.** 

B. Regulatory Reference: **40 CFR 194.24(c)**

C. Site requirement(s): **Not applicable**

D. Discussed with: **Rhett Bradford, Dave Kimbro, Dennis Miehls, Shane M iles** 

E. Additional Comments: **None**

F. Site Response Information:

Site Response Required? **YES NO**  Site Response Due Date: **January 21, 2009 15**  Inspection No. **EPA-INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1** Issue Number: **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-005CR, Final**

Date: **December 10, 2008** 
Inspector: **Dorothy E. Gill**

Attachments? **YES NO**  Sample Size: **1 Container** Population size (if known): **6 Containers**

Description of Issue: **The VE recording missed recording latex rubber glov es for container No.** 

**NT070705R where the items were called out more than ten separate times and were clearly identified.**  **CCP-TP-113, Attachment 2, Section 3, Waste Package Data does not include these items and is therefore**  **incomplete.**

B. Regulatory Reference: **40 CFR 194.24(c)**

C. Site requirement(s): **Not applicable**

D. Discussed with: **Rhett Bradford, Dave Kimbro, Dennis Miehls, Shane M iles** 

E. Additional Comments: **None**

F. Site Response Information:

Site Response Required? **YES NO**  Site Response Due Date: **January 21, 2009 16**  Inspection No. **EPA-INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1** Issue Number: **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-006CR, Final**

Date: **December 10, 2008** 
Inspector: **Dorothy E. Gill**

Attachments? **YES NO**  Sample Size: **1 Container** Population size (if known): **6 Containers**

Description of Issue: **The visual examination expert (VEE) performing the original VE event incorrectly** 

**identified container No.NT070705R as NT070702R twic e. These errors were clearly recorded on the**  **audio/visual recording but the CCP VE operators eit her did not recognize or did not record these error**  **s.**

B. Regulatory Reference: **40 CFR 194.24(c)**

C. Site requirement(s): **Not applicable**

D. Discussed with: **Rhett Bradford, Dave Kimbro, Dennis Miehls, Shane M iles** 

E. Additional Comments: **None**

F. Site Response Information:

Site Response Required? **YES NO**  Site Response Due Date: **January 21, 2009 17**  Inspection No. **EPA-INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1** Issue Number: **INL-CCP-CH-VE-T1-007CR, Final**

Date: **December 10, 2008** 
Inspector: **Dorothy E. Gill**

Attachments? **YES NO**  Sample Size: **6 Containers** Population size (if known): **6 Containers**

Description of Issue: **CCP procedure CCP-TP-113, Section 4.3.2, Note, cont ains the requirement: “Waste**  **containers SHALL be closed and have a Tamper Indica ting Device (TID)/Lock applied when left**  **unattended”. The containers examined during the or iginal VE event were left unattended and were only**  **covered by a fire-proof blanket and plastic sheet p er NTS procedures. While it is recognized that CCP**  **had no control over the original event, secure storage**  **of in-process containers is recognized to be an ess ential**  **element of the process that allows CCP personnel to attest that neither the containers nor their conte**  **nts are tampered with or altered. Because the subject cont**  **ainers were not stored securely, is unclear how CCP VE**  **operators can affirm that the containers and their contents have not been altered.** 

B. Regulatory Reference: **40 CFR 194.24(c)**

C. Site requirement(s): **Not applicable**

D. Discussed with: **Rhett Bradford, Dave Kimbro, Dennis Miehls, Shane M iles** 

E. Additional Comments: **None**

F. Site Response Information:

Site Response Required? **YES NO**  Site Response Due Date: **January 21, 2009 18**  Attachment B Summary of Interviews with NTS Waste Packaging Pers onnel

**EPA interviewed selected NTS waste packaging person nel via teleconference. Court Fesmire and**  **Patsy Gilbert (CBFO) observed the interviews. A su mmary of the general information gained**  **during the interviews is presented below followed b y information obtained from interviews with**  **individual NTS waste packaging personnel.**

**General information from various sources:**

• **Approximately 15 SWBs have been rejected by INL-CCP and they will be repackaged to**  **remediate the reasons for rejection.**

• **This campaign consisted of 49 over-sized boxes (OSB ) from Lawrence Livermore**  **National Laboratory (LLNL), which were repackaged i nto SWBs. These were not all** 

**from the same waste stream.**

• **There were 37 55-gallon drums, consisting of waste from LLNL, Lawrence Berkeley**  **Laboratory (LBL) and EG&G. Some of this waste was repackaged into new 55-gallon**  **containers; the remaining waste was loaded into SWB s.** 

• **The 55-gallon containers will be subjected to RTR.**

• **To date, INL-CCP has only conducted VE on waste fro m waste stream NTLLNL-S5119,**  **listed in CCP-AK-NTS-001, Revision 9.**

• **The following are waste streams identified for prep aration at NTS:**  **NTLLNL-S3900 - approved waste stream, sludge will b e subjected to RTR**  **NTLLNL-S5400 - approved waste stream, present campa ign**  **NTLBL-S3900 - LBL, not an approved waste stream NTLBL-S5400 - LBL, not an approved waste stream**  **NTLRC-S5400 - Lynchburg Research Center, 1 drum, no t an approved waste stream**  **NTS-EG&G-HET - EG&G, not an approved waste stream NTS-TTR-HET - Tonopah Test Range, 1 drum, not an ap**  **proved waste stream**

• **ALVI 1**  **waste was not accepted by INL-CCP because of insuf ficient AK. Only ALVI and**  **containers rejected by INL-CCP remain to be process ed.** 

**1 ALVI was not defined.** **19**

**Information listed by NTS Waste Packaging Personnel :** 

**Jon Tanaka, Waste Handler**

• **Standard waste boxes (SWBs) are stored in a secure area and if they were not empty at**  **this stage they would be rejected for use at that t ime. The secure area is a “quality area”**  **with administrative controls such postings lines to ensure only permitted personnel enter** 

**the area.**

• **SWBs are inspected for damage prior to use and filt ers are installed and this inspection is** 

**documented.**

• **SWB inspection takes place outside of the building used for packaging.** 

• **After container is moved inside the contamination a rea the lid is removed and the SWB is**  **wrapped in heavy duty plastic. This wrapping is on ly applied to “free standing” SWBs**  **(see below).**

• **SWBs are then moved into the high contamination are a (HCA) where packaging takes**  **place.**

• **There are two configurations used for packaging whi ch were designated for ease of**  **reference by EPA as “free standing” and “bag out”.**

• **The “free standing” SWBs do not have plastic liners . “Bag out” SWBs have a plastic** 

**liner.**

• **There is no specific check for container emptiness but the waste handlers would always**  **report this type of situation to a supervisor.**

• **There are two cameras in the HCA. These are fixed but the Waste Examination Expert**  **(WEE) can change the angle of view and it should be possible to see the bottom of the**  **“free standing” containers packaged.**

• **“Bag out” containers are loaded through a port and are not physically in the HCA. There**  **is no camera available at present to visually demon strate that these containers are empty.** 

• **Mr. Tanaka has been qualified since August 24, 2000 8 when packaging of the waste**  **began.**

**Sherry Peczka, WEE :** 

• **An A/V check is performed prior to packaging activi ties using a bar code permanently**  **positioned by the loading port. 20** 

• **Loading configuration of the SWB is recorded.**

• **Main responsibility of WEE is to record the waste i tems loaded. WEE can communicate**  **with all personnel in the HCA. This includes a Rad iological Control Technican.** 

• **Provides direction to Waste Handlers.**

• **WMPs are recorded electronically.**

• **In process containers are covered with both plastic and a fire blanket. HCA is secured at**  **all times. Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) is a D OE requirement which flows down**  **to sites. Sites decide what will be implemented, i n this case in process containers are**  **covered with both plastic and a fire blanket.**

• **Ms. Peczka, has been qualified since August 24, 200 08 when packaging of the waste**  **began.**

**Laura Kinstad, Waste Handler:**

• **Iron workers are present in the HCA and they have e xperience to distinguish between**  **different types of metal.**

• **Ms. Kinstad has been qualified since August 24, 200 08 when packaging of the waste**  **began.**

**Mike Mccullough, Waste Operations Manager:**

• **The packaging area is secure and locked at night an d to get into the HCA breathing**  **apparatus is required.**

**Rick Wagner, Division Manager:**

• **Operations began in August and training started bef ore this. Numerous readiness reviews**  **were performed prior to the start of packaging.**