Appendix D
DOE’s Response to the Committee’s Interim Report
In response to the committee’s interim report, the Department of Energy (DOE)-Carlsbad Field Office transmitted a summary of proposed resolutions or action items for the following draft of its characterization plan.
D.1 DOE’s Response
DOE’s response to the committee’s interim report consists of two following two elements: 1) a letter containing DOE’s proposed resolution and action items as a result of the committee’s findings and recommendations and 2) an attachment to the letter, named Attachment 1. The letter and its attachment are presented in Boxes D.1 and D.2, respectively.
BOX D.1 DOE’s Response to the Committee’s Interim Report PROPOSED RESOLUTION/ACTION ITEMS Concerning NAS Finding and recommendation #1: We have reevaluated the characterization information needs consistent with this recommendation. The process considered long-term repository performance information needs, safety and technical considerations, regulatory requirements, and legal requirements and led to the development of a discreet list of Characterization objectives. Attachment 1 is the result of this effort. Attachment 1 [see below] is being used to revise the Characterization Implementation Plan in the EPA submittal, as well as the WAP in the RCRA submittal. Attachment 1 also indicates whether or not we believe the characterization objectives require confirmation, and the methods we will propose in the submittal documents to obtain the characterization information. Concerning NAS Finding and recommendation #2: The aforementioned Attachment 1 is the result of the reevaluation process we conducted as proposed by the NAS WIPP Panel. Example 1: The list of prohibited items in the draft WAP (July 2001) will not be included as a specific list in the next draft WAP. With the exception of residual liquids, these “items” will be excluded from the list of prohibited items, but will continue to be dealt with by determining the hazardous waste numbers and prohibiting D001, D002, and D003. This effectively drives the decision from the container level to the stream level where hazardous waste code assignment decisions are typically made. The hazardous waste code(s) determination will be accomplished using AK. The 1% free liquid criteria was retained as a RCRA operational compliance consideration rather than for safety or performance reasons. The next draft WAP will be modified consistent with this change. See Attachment 1 for the rationale and justification for hazardous waste numbers and residual liquids. Example 2: CBFO may, in the future, choose to remove the metals limits set in the CCA. |
Until this change is made, the proposed RH-TRU characterization program must continue to require tracking of metals. Contrary to the NAS statement (“severe consequences”) the CBFO believes the “limits” do not impact the program, and the proposed characterization method of counting containers is simple to implement. For other reasons steel is the preferred material for waste containers, but the “limit” does not prohibit the use of other materials. The DOE anticipates that a minor amount of CH-TRU waste and no RH-TRU waste will be shipped in non-metal containers. We therefore do not view the consequences of the limitation as severe. Example 3: The NAS is correct in pointing out that Summary Category Groups (SCG) have no impact on long-term repository performance. SCG is in the current CH RCRA Permit in order to affect a decision on what kind of waste analysis is required by the Permit (S3000 and S4000 waste streams must be sampled and chemically analyzed). No sampling and analysis is proposed for RH-TRU waste, however the SCG requirement is retained in the program because it allows for an easy method of accounting for cellulosics, plastics, and rubber (CPR), which are related to repository performance. Since SCG determination is relatively easy and is part of the EPA program anyway, it will be included in the RCRA program as an activity complying with 40CFR264.13. Concerning NAS Finding and recommendation #3: The re-evaluation discussed for Finding #1 considered characterization objectives from a performance driven perspective as well as from regulatory and legal aspects. Nearly all resulting characterization objectives are unrelated to repository performance or to safety/technical considerations. New supporting documentation will clearly show the basis for each characterization objective. Concerning NAS Finding and recommendation #4: Consistent with this recommendation, DOE is preparing completed characterization documents for three major RH-TRU sites. These documents will be submitted directly to the EPA for its approval through the formal rulemaking process, and they will also be submitted to the NMED as examples along with a new draft request for RCRA Permit modification. Concerning NAS Finding and recommendation #5: Submittals to both the NMED (RCRA compliance) and the EPA (40CFR194 compliance) are being redrafted to balance flexibility with standardization as appropriate. The characterization documents discussed for Finding #4 will provide detailed inventory information which will assist in determining what aspects of the program can be standardized and how to allow for flexibility in site programs. Concerning NAS Finding and recommendation #6: This Finding and Recommendation is also fully addressed by the Resolution discussed for Finding #1. DOE agrees with the Panel that the former DQO associated with Total Activity is legally based and not technically based. As a result of the re-evaluation process described in the Resolution to Finding #1, it will be removed from the draft regulatory submittal documents. Concerning NAS Finding and recommendation #7: After re-evaluating the approach to RH-TRU waste characterization, as discussed in Finding #1, DOE continues to believe that nearly all required RH-TRU waste characterization can be accomplished using AK. Therefore worker exposure is no longer a significant issue related to RH-TRU waste, and eliminating most characterization physical activities has minimized program costs. Characterization activities may still be required on a very small percentage of the RH-TRU waste inventory, but these activities will always be conducted in such a way as to minimize worker exposure. Concerning NAS Finding and recommendation #8 As suggested by the Panel, DOE will complete the “systematic evaluation” recommended by Taggart to conclusively demonstrate that current RTR technology is adequate for RH-TRU waste characterization use; however, the revised characterization program no longer requires that |
confirmatory data be generated. For the minimal use of NDA and RTR that will still be required in the overall program, the standard technologies currently being employed in the CH-TRU waste program are more than adequate. The RH Team recommended program (see Attachment 1) calls for NDE to be used only to detect 1% residual liquid and only for a small percentage of the total RH-TRU waste inventory (most RH-TRU waste will be repackaged or newly generated). Resolution of current RTR systems, even in high radiation fields, is adequate for this determination. Concerning NAS Observation #1: Example 1: The next draft of the regulatory submittals will clearly reference the supporting analyses, and each characterization objective will have an explicit pointer to its basis. Example 2: The redrafted documents will be purged of imprecise language and important terms will be properly defined. Example 3: After the re-evaluation discussed in Finding #1, CPR will not be measured, it will be conservatively assigned a weight (based on the analyses referred to in Observation #1). However, in general, other techniques are to be employed only for the few (and usually small) waste streams for which there are insufficient AK. There is no direct link between surface dose rate and total curies that is used by the proposed program, however in some individual cases for some individual waste streams, if enough is known about the waste stream (AK), surface dose rate measurements can be used to adequately estimate the activity. The Defense Waste determination for RH-TRU waste will follow the acceptable precedent that has been established in the CH-TRU waste characterization program. The modified EPA submittal will provide detail concerning the TRU versus LLW determination. The ten radionuclides are not important to repository performance (See RH Impact Assessment included in the EPA submittal). This requirement will therefore not be included in the revised submittal document. Concerning NAS Observation #2: Example 1: The statement made in Document 1 (the EPA submittal) was made in the context of what is significant relative to 40CFR194 and also allows that the EPA has the final decision regarding significance. The statement made in Document 2 (the RCRA submittal) was made in the context of what is significant relative to 20.4.1.900 NMAC. In addition, the NMED has made it very clear that they consider this to be a Class 3 modification. Example 2: The modified Documents will no longer require estimates for CPR, metals, or VOCs. Some method of assurance that there is less than 1% residual liquids in a waste container is still required to address RCRA operational requirements, however no statement of allowable uncertainties is derived since there is no technical basis for an uncertainty statement. Example 3: The redrafted supporting documents will make it clear that the origin of the 1% liquid requirement is from transportation, has no bearing on repository performance, and is only indirectly related to RCRA regulatory requirements. Concerning NAS Observation #3: The NAS is correct in the observation that VE and RTR are inadequate techniques for distinguishing the list of prohibited items in the previous draft. RTR or VE are suitable techniques for detecting and distinguishing residual liquids, and the reevaluation requested in Finding #1 has determined that RTR or VE will only be used for that purpose. See also the Resolution to Finding #8. |
NOTE: This table has been edited for formatting purposes. The emphasis (italicized and underlined text) was added by DOE-Carlsbad Field Office.
SOURCE: DOE (DOE-CBFO, 2002).
BOX D.2 Attachment 1 Accompanying DOE’s Letter to the Committee (see Box D.1) ATTACHMENT 1 RH-TRU WASTE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM Objectives, Characterization Methods, Implementation Standards RH-TRU Team Rationale and Justification Introduction The RH-TRU Team has reached consensus on what the basic elements of an RH-TRU waste characterization program should consist of (i.e., characterization objectives, characterization method, and implementation). This consensus was achieved by taking a “performance based approach” and examining from the “ground up” what the minimum characterization requirements should be to satisfy 40CFR194.24 (EPA) requirements and RCRA (NMED) requirements. Previous recommendations, findings, and observations from RSI and NAS/NRC reviews were heavily considered, and as the re-evaluation process progressed, each potential requirement was examined with respect to its basis; that is safety, repository performance, legal, or regulatory. Table 1 for EPA requirements and Table 2 for NMED requirements present the RH-TRU Team consensus recommendations of what basic characterization elements should be used to build an EPA and NMED compliant RH-TRU waste characterization program. This paper explains the RH-TRU Team rationale or justification for each entry in the attached Tables, [see Box D.1] Table Definitions (Columns) and Entry Justification/Rationale There is a separate Table for the EPA related RH-TRU waste characterization elements and the NMED related RH-TRU waste characterization elements, however the column definitions are identical for both. Characterization Objectives: This column lists the necessary overall program objective that must be accomplished by collecting waste characterization information. It is the basic question being asked and stems from safety, repository performance, regulatory, or legal considerations. EPA Characterization Objectives
|
NMED Characterization Objectives
Note 1: The current HWFP for CH-TRU waste also includes residual liquid restrictions for internal containers (i.e., “Waste shall contain as little residual liquid as is reasonably achievable by pouring, pumping and/or aspirat-ing, and internal containers shall contain less than 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters of liquid in the |
bottom of the container.”). The RH-TRU Team did not retain these requirements for RH-TRU waste since their main purpose was related to eliminating the need to characterize liquids in internal containers (i.e., containers are RCRA “empty”). NMED Characterization Objective Number 1, Assign Hazardous Waste Numbers, requires the assignment of appropriate hazardous waste codes to containers, and the driver to further characterize liquids is eliminated. Note 2: In addition to liquids the September 2001 draft RH-TRU waste WAP included the following “prohibited items:”
The RH-TRU Team concluded that it is unnecessary to specifically identify these “items” in the WAP or as specific Characterization Objectives. Pyrophoric materials, explosives and compressed gases fall under the RCRA definition of reactives (D003) and therefore are precluded by NMED Characterization Objective number 1, Assign Hazardous Waste Numbers. All wastes with HWFP acceptable Hazardous Waste Numbers have been demonstrated to be compatible, and therefore NMED Characterization Objective number 1, Assign Hazardous Waste Numbers, assures that there are no incompatible wastes. PCBs are subject to EPA regulation under TSCA and are regulated regardless of whether or not they are included in a RCRA permit as a prohibition. Therefore the RH-TRU Team has not included any of these “prohibited items” in the proposed RH-TRU waste characterization program as specific characterization objectives.
Characterization Method: This column lists the general method to be used (as recommended by the RH-TRU Team) to accomplish the Characterization Objectives from the first column. EPA Characterization Methods
|
|
NMED Characterization Methods
|
Implementation: This column sets the standard of adequacy, sufficiency, or acceptability for the Characterization Methods selected in the adjacent column. EPA Implementation
|
NMED Implementation
|
DQO: The RH-TRU Team applied the DQO process to each element of the proposed RH-TRU waste characterization program in order to ascertain whether formal DQOs need be developed. The DQO process was designed by the EPA primarily as a decision making tool applied to sampling and analysis studies for contaminated site remediation; however the process remains useful in the RH-TRU waste characterization program as a screening tool to determine if DQOs should apply. The seven-step DQO process is described in “Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4.” Essentially DQOs establish what information is needed, and what level of quality the data should have associated with it, in order for a meaningful, risk based or consequence based decision to be made. “Data quality objectives (DQOs) for the data collection activity describe the overall level of uncertainty that a decision-maker is willing to accept in results derived from environmental data” (EPA SW-846). Using this process, the RH-TRU Team determined that there are no DQOs needed for the Characterization Objectives established for the RH-TRU waste characterization program. EPA and NMED DQOs
|
NMED element 3. QAO: The WIPP project has historically listed “accuracy,” “precision,” “representative-ness,” “comparability,” and “completeness” as the elements of QAOs. These are the same elements used in the EPA SW-846 (2.1) definition of DQOs. From an EPA perspective, QAOs are synonymous with DQOs, and thus the RH-Team established no QAOs for either EPA or NMED Characterization Objectives for the same reasons DQOs were not applicable. |
NOTE: This copy has been edited for formatting purposes. The emphasis (italicized text) was added by DOE-Carlsbad Field Office. This table is part of the document DOE’s Proposed Resolution and Action Items in Response to the Committee’s Interim Report.
SOURCE: DOE (DOE-CBFO, 2002).
REFERENCE
DOE-CBFO. 2002. This material was submitted to the committee on January 18, 2002. This record is publicly available.