Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Technical Assessment Team Report March 17, 2015 SRNL-RP-2014-01198 Revision 0 DISCLAIMER This work was prepared under an agreement with and funded by the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government or its employees, nor any of its contractors, subcontractors or their employees, makes any express or implied: 1. warranty or assumes any legal liability for the accuracy, completeness, or for the use or results of such use of any information, product, or process disclosed; or 2. representation that such use or results of such use would not infringe privately owned rights; or 3. endorsement or recommendation of any specifically identified commercial product, process, or service. Any views and opinions of authors expressed in this work do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, or its contractors, or subcontractors. Printed in the United States of America Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy _________________________________________________________________________________ SRNL-RP-2014-01198 Revision 0 March 17, 2015 Page 2 of 277 Keywords: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, WIPP, transuranic, TRU, drum Retention: Permanent Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Technical Assessment Team Report SRNL-RP-2014-01198 Revision 0 _________________________________________________________________________________ SRNL-RP-2014-01198 Revision 0 March 17, 2015 Page 3 of 277 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................................6 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................... 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................. 12 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 13 2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 14 3.0 WIPP TAT ASSESSMENT STRATEGY ......................................................................................................... 17 3.1 TAT INVESTIGATIVE CONSTRAINTS ..................................................................................................... 17 3.2 TAT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AREA OBJECTIVES .......................................................................... 18 3.3 TAT METHODS OF INQUIRY .................................................................................................................... 19 3.4 UTILIZATION OF NATIONAL LABORATORY EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE .............................. 22 4.0 OVERARCHING CONCLUSION AND KEY JUDGMENTS ......................................................................... 23 4.1 CONTENTS OF 68660 WERE CHEMICALLY INCOMPATIBLE. ........................................................... 23 4.2 DRUM 68660 BREACHED AS THE RESULT OF INTERNAL CHEMICAL REACTIONS THAT GENERATED HEAT AND PRODUCED GASES THAT BUILT UP PRESSURE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE DRUM VENT AND SEAL. ................................................................................................. 27 4.3 DRUM 68660 WAS THE SOURCE OF THE CONTAMINATION IN WIPP P7R7. .................................. 33 4.4 INITIATION OF THE THERMAL RUNAWAY WAS INTERNAL AND NOT CAUSED BY PHENOMENA OUTSIDE DRUM 68660. .......................................................................................................... 34 4.5 THERMAL AND MECHANICAL EFFECTS RESULTED IN THE MOVEMENT OF MATERIAL DURING THE RELEASE EVENT AND CAUSED THE DAMAGE OBSERVED IN P7R7; THE RELEASE DID NOT RESULT FROM A DETONATION. .................................................................................................. 36 5.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................................... 38 APPENDIX A. TAT APPROACH TO MITIGATING UNCERTAINTIES ........................................................... 39 APPENDIX B. SAMPLING INTEGRATED SUMMARY REPORT .................................................................... 42 APPENDIX C. ANALYSIS INTEGRATED SUMMARY REPORT ..................................................................... 48 APPENDIX D. MODELING INTEGRATED SUMMARY REPORT ................................................................... 76 APPENDIX E. DRUM CHARACTERIZATION INTEGRATED SUMMARY REPORT ................................. 150 APPENDIX F. REACTION CHEMISTRY AND HYPOTHESES ....................................................................... 182 APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF REACTIVITY TESTING ................................................................................. 202 ATTACHMENT 1. TAT MEMBER QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................... 228 ATTACHMENT 2. WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT (WIPP) FEBRUARY 14, 2014 EVENT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT TEAM (TAT) CHARTER ........................................................................................................... 257 ATTACHMENT 3. WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT EVENT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT TEAM PROJECT PLAN .................................................................................................................................................... 260 _________________________________________________________________________________ SRNL-RP-2014-01198 Revision 0 March 17, 2015 Page 5 of 277 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1. Panel 7 Room 7 configuration 14 Figure 2-2 Visual evidence of breach of drum located at position 16-4 in P7R7 at WIPP 15 Figure 3-1 Notional depiction of WIPP TAT investigative strategy to reduce uncertainty in event analysis 22 Figure 4-1. Processing of parent Drum S855793 to produce sibling Drums 68660 and 68685 24 Figure 4-2.TAT Model of Drum 68660 contents and distribution based on x-rays of Drum 68660 25 Figure 4-3. Calculated temperature profiles in Drum 68660 after 70 days. 29 Figure 4-4. Thermogravimetric-mass spectroscopy (TG-MS) analysis of debris from the release 30 Figure 4-5. Analysis results for case with original estimate of properties and “slow” loading (left) matches 32 observed damage seen in post-event photograph of Drum 68660 showing discoloration and lid displacement (right). Figure 4-6. Fire and radiological event locations within WIPP 35 Figure A-1. Notional depiction of WIPP TAT investigative strategy to reduce uncertainty in event analysis 41 Figure B-1. Swiffer multi-sampler, PVC sampler, and Multi-sampler device being deployed on a fifty-foot 43 rod to sample 15-5. Figure B-2. Delrin®/Teflon® sampler, shown with Teflon® vial in the collector and with Teflon® vial 44 sealed for sample transport. Figure C-1. SEM (A) and EDS (B) analysis of the debris from the parent drum. 53 Figure C-2. (a) Particle under white light and a 10x objective. (b) Particle illuminated by an excitation band 56 of 375-425 nm observing the emission of 475 nm and longer. (c) The emission spectra of particle (blue) overlaid with the typical kitty litter (red). Figure C-3. Optical microscopy of R15 C5 particles. 57 Figure C-4. Optical Microscopy of R15 C5 particles. 57 Figure C-5. (a) SEM image of particles collected from R15 C5 and (b) Representative EDS of sample. 57 Figure C-6. (a) SEM of small particles from R15 C5 and (b) EDS of particles. 57 Figure C-7. Elongated piece of steel from the sample collected from the lip of R16 C4. 58 Figure C-8. Polarized light microscopy image of (a) salt-like particles from R15 C5 and (b) “hairy” particle 58 from R15 C5. Figure C-9. SEM analysis of salt particles from R16 C4. 59 Figure C-10. SEM-EDS of small Pu particle associated with hairy salt particle from R16 C4. 59 Figure C-11. SEM-EDS of a small particle of Pb associated with the hairy salt particle from R16 C4. 59 Figure C-12. Radiograph of job control solid waste layer in Drum 68660 showing the glove-box glove. 60 Figure C-13. SEM-EDS analysis of sample from the lip of R16 C4 showing a bismuth particle. 61 Figure C-14. XRD analysis of the R15 C5 sample. 62 Figure C-15. TG-MS analysis of debris from R15 C5 under argon 63 Figure C-16. MS analysis of the evolved gases from the decomposition of R15 C5 under argon. 63 Figure C-17. FTIR spectra of the solid R15 C5 sample compared to Swheat Scoop® 64 Figure C-18. (a) Pictures of where ATR-IR data was collected on black particle 4 (blue dot) and black 65 particle 5 (red dot) in subsample R16 C4. (b) Overview picture of subsample R16 C4, loose powder that was collected from the Swiffer sampler that was landed near the lip of the drum that breached (R16 C4). (c) IR spectra of black particle 4 (blue) and black particle 5 (red). Figure C-19. FTIR spectra of cellulose (chromatography paper) and nitrocellulose at room temperature. 66 [Coatas, 2014] Figure C-20. FTIR of the CH2Cl2 extract of R15 C5. 67 Figure C-21. FTIR spectrum of a particle collected from the methylene chloride extract of R15 C5 67 compared to cellulose and Swheat Scoop®. Particle is similar to cellulose. Figure C-22. MgO collected from R14 C2. 70 Figure C-23. Sample collected from R16 C4 using Swiffer head. 70 Figure C-24. MgO sample collected from super sack in Panel 7 Room 7. 70 Figure C-25. Dark particles found in the MgO samples from R14. 71 Figure C-26. XRD of MgO from R14 C2, R14 C4 and a