U.S. Department of Energy’s Analytical Services Program

1. U.S. Department of Energy’sAnalytical Services Program George E. DetsisManager, Analytical Services Program Office of Corporate Safety Programs, HS-31 Presented before the DOE Annual Site Environmental Report Workshop October 26-28, 2010 Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois

2. Presentation Outline • Program Overview • FY2010 Radiological Waste Issues • Distribution of FY2010 Findings • Priority I Finding Context • FY2011 DOECAP Planned Audits

3. Elements of Analytical Services Program Systematic Planning and Data Assessment Tools and Training Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program Department of Energy Consolidated Audit Program

4. Analytical Services Program Mission Reduce data quality uncertainty Ensure waste accountability/disposition Identify potential DOE liabilities/risk for elimination/reduction

5. SPADAT Visual Sample Planning Improves quality of environmental field and facility sampling strategies Minimizing number of samples needed to meet regulatory requirements

6. Environmental Field Sampling VSP programming will automatically locate un-sampled areas and add samples to ensure hotspot detections

7. Within Building D&D Use of VSP to plan sampling designs and data analysis for Beryllium surveys and decommissioning or decontamination of buildings New tools for building setup from images/pdf files, furniture libraries, delineation of rooms, and multi-floor visualization.

8. Software Development Toolkits Program Accomplishments • Field training (6) – cost shared (2) • Grand Junction Office - November 3-4, 2009 • ANL – January 19-22, 2010 • LLNL – June 8-11, 2010 • ASP Workshop – September 24, 2010 • Hanford CHPRC Rad Techs – August 30-31, 2010 • Hanford CHPRC Soil and GW Experts – July 7-8, 2010 • Extensive VSP work with the Office of Legacy Management (Grand Junction Project Office) for ground water monitoring/trending software in support of long-term surveillance • Quick consultations with DOE field on VSP applications

9. MAPEP Background • Program Purpose: • To test and evaluate environmental analytical laboratory performance • To provide defensible data that instills confidence in DOE decision-making

10. MAPEP Background • Program Focus: • ISO 17025 & ISO 17043 Accredited PT Provider with traceability to NIST • Radiological, stable inorganic, and organic constituents • Soil, water, air filter, and vegetation media • Interaction with DOECAP and QSAS • MAPEP required for all laboratories performing analysis for DOE • Technical assistance

11. MAPEP Laboratories • MAPEP Laboratory Participants: • 110 Domestic Laboratories • 27 International Laboratories • Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Laboratories • New Zealand (1) • Brazil (1) • Ecuador (1) • Spain (1) • Cooperative Monitoring • Canada (2) • United Kingdom (6)

12. MAPEP Laboratories • MAPEP Laboratory Participants: • Middle Eastern Nations • Jordan (3) • Oman (1) • Kuwait (2) • Qatar (2) • Turkey(1) • Morocco (1) • Israel (1) • Lebanon (1) • Tunisia (1) • International Atomic Energy Agency (1)

13. The Fifth Annual Workshop forRadiation MeasurementsCross CalibrationDoha, Qatar

14. MAPEP Accomplishments • Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) • Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho • Construction of new RESL facility in Idaho Falls scheduled for completion in June 2011 • Proficiency testing results indicate that less than 1% failure rate of all analyses performed (approximately 14K annual analyses for about 1400 annual MAPEP samples) • MAPEP open to all laboratories supporting DOE’s missions and programs

15. Proficiency Testing Analyses Over 700 Samples Distributed to Participating Laboratories in MAPEP Series 23 (2010)

16. Proficiency Testing Analyses Consistent Growth in Samples Distributed and Total Analyses Performed by Participant Laboratories for MAPEP

17. DOE Consolidated Auditing Program DOECAP identifies and reduces the Department’s risks and liabilities, ensures defensible environmental data, and verifies radioactive and chemical waste disposition tracking/accountability/treatment/disposal. Overall Goal: Improve performance FY10 DOECAP Auditing Activities: 27 Analytical Environmental Laboratories - 26 audits - 1 laboratory closure audit 11 Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities - 8 radiological TSDFs - 3 non-radiological TSDFs

18. Radiological Waste Issues Waste Identification and Labeling Waste Storage and Processing Shipping Radiological Screening

19. Waste Identification and Labeling Materials were not recognized as wastes, and therefore not properly managed as hazardous, radiological, or mixed waste Waste was not being properly characterized Container labels were either illegible due to deterioration or were not visible due to improper orientation of the container

20. Waste Storage and Processing Waste not being disposed within regulatory time limits Unstable stacking of waste containers and pallets Insufficient lift compaction for Class A waste materials (under challenge) Potential worker exposure during radiological waste sorting processes

21. Shipping Incorrect weights, volumes, or units on shipping documentation Failure to verify sum of fractions unity evaluations Incorrect documentation due to incorrect interpretation of “environmental sample” exemption Incorrect Emergency Response Contact information

22. Shipping (cont.) Failure to properly retain shipping records (not scanned into records retention systems) Failure to properly train shipping personnel Unclear or insufficient shipping Standard Operating Procedures Acceptance of rail shipment prior to actual receipt

23. Radiological Screening Insufficient training and guidance for radiological screening activities and processes Failure to perform radiological screening Improper or indefensible radiological screening

24. Distribution of FY2010 TSDF Findings

25. Distribution of FY2010 Lab Findings

26. FY2010 Findings Review DOECAP conducted: 38 audits in FY2010 86% of all FY2009 audit findings were closed during FY2010: 88% of the Lab findings 82% of the TSDF findings New Findings Identified: FY2006 = 233 FY2007 = 340 FY2008 = 218 FY2009 = 273 FY2010 = 219

27. Priority I Finding(current programmatic definition) A factual statement issued by the DOECAP to document a significant item of concern, or significant deficiency regarding key management/programmatic control(s) or practice(s), which represents a concern of sufficient magnitude to potentially render the audited facility unacceptable to provide services to the DOE, or present substantial risk and liability to DOE if not resolved via immediate and expedited corrective action(s).

28. Priority I Finding(example issues) Key programmatic/systematic failures Imminent threat to worker or public safety/health Documented unlawful or unethical practices Significant data quality failures Failure to implement corrective actions/repeat deficiencies

29. Priority I Finding(programmatic context) A Priority I finding constitutes the highest censure the DOECAP can issue against an audited facility Each DOE contract holder using or potentially using the facility must determine for themselves if they will utilize a facility that has been issued a Priority I finding

30. Audit Findings • Priority II Finding: • Nonconformance with internal requirements/ procedures • Undocumented procedures/processes • Nonconformance with DOE requirements • Observation: • Isolated instances/minor deficiencies • Opportunities for improvement

31. Auditing Criteria -- USAGE INQUIRY FOR FY 2011 Multiple DOE field site contractual agreements with laboratories/waste vendor facilities Anticipated FY 2011/2012 Usage ($) Identify auditor participation (program line/field)

32. FY2011 Planned TSDFs Audits • Diversified Scientific Services, Inc., Kingston, TN • Energy Solutions, LLC, Oak Ridge, TN • Energy Solutions of Utah, Clive, Utah • Materials and Energy Corporation, Oak Ridge, TN • Perma-Fix Northwest, Richland, WA • Perma-Fix of Florida, Gainesville, FL • Waste Control Specialists, Andrews, TX • IMPACT Services, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN • Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Aragonite, UT • Clean Harbors Environmental Services, El Dorado, AR • Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Deer Park, TX

33. FY2011 Planned Lab Audits ALS Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO Lionville Laboratory, Exton, PA ALS Laboratory, Salt Lake City, UT MCL, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN American Radiation Serv., Port Allen, LA ORISE, Oak Ridge, TN B&W Y-12 ACO, Oak Ridge, TN RMAL, Oak Ridge, TN B&W RAC Laboratory, Lynchburg, VA Paducah Analytical, Paducah, KY BC Laboratories, Inc., Bakersfield, CA Portsmouth Analytical, Piketon, OH Caltest Analytical Laboratory, Napa, CA Shealy Environmental, Columbia, SC CEBAM Analytical, Inc., Bothell, WA Southwest Research, San Antonio, TX Davis and Floyd, Inc., Greenwood, SC Test America, Inc. Arvada, CO Eberline Analytical Corp., Oak Ridge, TN Test America, Inc. Earth City, MO Eberline Analytical Corp., Richmond, CA Test America, Inc. Knoxville, TN GEL Laboratories, LLC, Charleston, SC Test America, Inc., Richland, WA

34. A DOECAP LaboratoryAudit – in progress

35. A DOECAP TSDF Audit – in progress

36. Proficiency Test Preparation

37. ASP Program Contact Information George E. Detsis, Analytical Services Program (ASP) Manager Phone: (301) 903-1488 E-mail:  George.Detsis@hq.doe.gov Jorge Ferrer - DOECAP Manager, DOE -- Oak Ridge Phone: (865) 576-6638 E-mail:  ferrerja@oro.doe.gov Guy Marlette, MAPEP Coordinator, DOE -- Idaho Phone: (208) 526-2532 E-mail: marletgm@id.doe.gov Brent Pulsipher, VSP Coordinator, PNNL Phone: (509) 375-3989 E-mail: Brent.Pulsipher@pnl.gov