# Presentation: 787253

## WIPP Site Selection and Early Site Studies

- Carlsbad Field Office
- U.S. Department of Energy

- WIPP Site Selection and Early Site Studies

- Nov. 2008

## National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concludes that the most promising disposal option for radioactive wastes is in salt deposits.

**National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concludes that the most promising disposal option for radioactive wastes is in salt deposits.**

- “Salt at great depth ‘flows.’  It will encapsulate any waste placed at depth and isolate it from the surface environment for eons.”

- “The great advantage is that no water can pass through salt.  Fractures are self healing..”

## Salt can be mined easily

**Salt is known to flow slowly under the pressure of overlying beds, and therefore will consolidate around the waste and isolate it in place**
**Salt is essentially impermeable**
**Fractures in salt are self healing**
**Salt that has existed underground for millions of years will almost certainly remain stable for millions of years into the future**
**Salt has high thermal conductivity compared to most crustal rocks**
**Wide geographic distribution (many potential sites)**

**Bedded Salt****Chosen Purposefully, for Siting US Defense Nuclear Wastes**

## Site Selection Criteria*(established in 1960’s by early investigators [ORNL])

**Geological Criterion**** ****- **The geology must protect the repository from breaching by natural phenomena.  The geology must also permit safe operation of the repository
**Hydrology ****Criterion**** - **The hydrology must provide high confidence that natural dissolution will not breach the site.  Accidental penetrations (unintentional human intrusion) should not result in undue hazards to intruder or subsequent generations.
**Tectonic Stability Criterion**** ****- **Natural tectonic processes must not result in a breach of the site and should not require extreme precautions during the operational period of the repository.
**Physical-Chemical Compatibility**** ****- **The repository medium must not interact with the waste in ways which create unacceptable operational or long-term hazards.
**Economic/Social Compatibility Criterion**** ****- **The site must be operable at reasonable economic cost and should not create unacceptable impact on natural resources or the biological/sociological environment.

***** while the waste poses a significant hazard to man

## Initial candidate sites are soon focused on bedded salt deposits in relatively remote areas

**1968-1971 experiments at existing salt mines near Lyons Kansas**

**Initial candidate sites are soon focused on bedded salt deposits in relatively remote areas**

**Nearby oil production (holes through a shallow and thin salt salt section)  provided easy targets for critics and the Lyons site became politically troubled very quickly**

**Local politicians from Carlsbad, NM learn of problems at Lyons (1972), and actively pursue AEC to explore nearby potash district for candidate sites **

**Delaware Basin turns out to be deepest and thickest, but nearby oil production and potash mining still make site selection controversial**

## Site Selection Constraints

**Copy of 1978 site selection map with candidate sites**

**Site Selection Constraints**
- - Nearby oil production (arbitrary 2-mile limit)- Nearby mine workings- Underlying brine potential- Dissolution fronts- Political boundaries

- Final site selection (Los Medanos) only after several nearby changes and consideration of county line

## Initial characterization (minimize disturbance)

**Initial characterization (minimize disturbance)**

**1976**

## 1970 - AEC establishes new category for transuranic waste, distinct from low-level radioactive waste.  Land disposal of TRU terminates and retrievable storage begins

**In the meantime.....**

**Radioactivity**

**Dose Rate**

**...****.disposal options for waste from power production versus weapons production begins to diverge in the 1970’s**

**Volume**

**Radioactivity**

**RH**

**CH**

**RH**

**CH**

## Congress passes the DOE National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1980.

**December 29, 1979**

- Act authorized DOE to construct WIPP and to seek New Mexico endorsement to operate a geologic repository for waste generated for defense purposes (weapons development waste).  Firmly separated weapons production waste disposal from power production waste disposal in the US.

- Substantial influence by both local and state politicians to proceed.  Economic impact (jobs) drove influence but “good science” demanded at every step!

- Senator Pete Domenici

## Surface construction of WIPP begins 1981

**Surface construction of WIPP begins 1981**

## Underground excavation at WIPP begins.  First underground rooms are completed in 1983.

## 1988 – Engineered Facility – Ready for Waste Disposal

**1988 – Engineered Facility – Ready for Waste Disposal**

- But.....11 more years required to gain regulatory approval

## Major WIPP events (1 of 3)

**1957****	****NAS recommends geologic disposal especially in salt**
**1968****	****Experiments begin in salt at Lyons, Kansas salt mine**
**1972****	****Lyons site rejected (both politically and technically)**
**1972****	****By August, ORNL begins Carlsbad studies**
**1975****	****Initial WIPP site selected (several nearby changes made as site specific characterization proceeds) **
**Public Law 96-164 authorizes WIPP for Defense TRU waste****	****- separates weapons waste disposal from power production**
**1980****	****FEIS Published**
**1981****	****Site and design validation work begins**
**1983****	****Site validation, full-facility construction starts**
**1985****	****EPA issues 40 CFR 191**
**1987****	****DOE applies RCRA rules to WIPP**
**1988****	****WIPP technically ready – but politics steps in.........**

## Major politically motivated WIPP events after 1988 facility readiness (2 of 3)

**1989****	****No migration variance petition filed with EPA**
**1990****	****EPA grants conditional NMVP**
**1991****	****DOE again grants WIPP readiness**
**1991****	****DOE obtains WIPP Site Administrative Land Withdrawal**
**1991****	****State of New Mexico files for preliminary injunction**
**1992****	****Injunction issued, later PARTIALLY overturned**
**1992****	****WIPP Land Withdrawal Act passed; transfers land from DOI to DOE; established EPA as regulator**
**1993****	****In situ test plans with radioactive waste at WIPP site issued and then abandoned (tests to be performed at a national laboratory)**
**1995****	****DOE submits draft compliance application to EPA; draft RCRA permit to NMED**

## The steps to final regulatory approval - major WIPP events (3 of 3)

**1996****	****Amendment to WIPP Land Withdrawal Act removes WIPP land disposal restrictions from RCRA**
**1997****	****WIPP Disposal Phase Final Supplemental EIS issued**
**1998****	****EPA certifies that WIPP complies with 40CFR191**
**1998****	****NMED issues drafts of RCRA Part B Permit**
**1998****	****DOE announces intent to dispose of non-mixed waste**
**1998****	****New Mexico AG and others file suit over EPA certification**
**1998****	****NMED protests but later confirms initial LANL waste is****non-mixed**
**1999****	****1992 injunction voided by Judge Penn**
**1999****	****WIPP receives first non-mixed waste from LANL on March 26****~500 local citizens gather at WIPP to celebrate at 4:00am**

## Keys to Successful Siting & Licensing of WIPP (1 of 3)

**Existence of federal legislation authorizing and enabling WIPP to exist**
**Existence of a clear “benefit” for citizens of the state and local jurisdiction in which the repository is sited**
**Solid local support (with “clout”)**
**Competent technical oversight by the State of New Mexico (via EEG) **
**Phased approach:  feasibility, viability, licensing**
**Science focused on compliance:  knowing when enough is enough**
**Basic understanding of physical processes at work in and around the repository, coupled with **
**Conservative bounding cases, and**
**Persistence**

## Keys to Successful Siting & Licensing of WIPP (2 of 3)

**In-state**
**Independent**
**High integrity**
**Technical excellence**
**Solid reputation**
**Reputation enhanced through involvement in WIPP**
**Intense and early public outreach**
**Peer review**
**First electively by WIPP**
**Eventually required by the federal regulator**

## Keys to Successful Siting & Licensing of WIPP (3 of 3)

**Traceability**
**Transparency**
**Independent Review**
**Reproducibility**
**Retrievability**
**Applied to**
**Data**
**Models**
**Parameters**
**Software**

## Things to Avoid, If Possible

**The necessity to qualify existing scientific data**
**Imbalance among regulatory entities relative to the risk to public health and safety each seeks to regulate (hazardous [chemical] waste versus radioactive waste)**
**Do not ignore the emotional methods of the anti-nuclear activists**
**fear of trivial dose**
**deception**
**claims of falsification**
**attributing trivial errors to intent to deceive **

## Technical and Regulatory Lessons Learned at WIPP	

**One is most confident of the site and repository issues at the beginning of detailed investigation**
**Site studies will inevitably find “issues” the critics will utilize to pursue their case**
**Do not oversell or over-simplify the attributes of the site until they are confirmed**
**The site and repository design must be robust enough to withstand uncertainties in models or natural variation in physical parameters as detailed knowledge of site and relevant processes unfold**
**Independent expert review is essential to scientific credibility**
**Quality assurance must be applied reasonably and thoroughly on all project activities important to licensing**
**Data / information management is critical in regulatory review**

## Philosophical Lessons Learned at WIPP

**Credibility is paramount, both its establishment and its maintenance**
**Remember, an uninformed majority must be able to decide between a (credible) project position and the less than complimentary picture portrayed by critics**
**Repository science must be focused on compliance**
**There must be something credible to comply with**
**Setting repository performance criteria **_**before**_** siting studies begin provides a target to aim for**
**Persistence pays**

- For more information, visit www.wipp.ws