Responses to Letters from Southwest Research and Information Center (SRIC) to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Dated June 16, 2009, July31, 

2009, May 27, 2010, and to a Letter from Citizens Against Radioactive Dumping 

(CARD) to EPA 

DOE would like to first clarify the definitions of “WIPP-bound” waste and “Potential” waste. 

It is important to understand that the categories of “WIPP-bound” waste and “Potential” 

waste affect the inventory for performance assessment, but do not (in any way) affect the 

waste streams that can be physically shipped to and emplaced in WIPP, which are regulated 

by the WIPP waste acceptance criteria. 

“WIPP-bound” waste is the portion of the TRU waste inventory that is included in 

performance assessment calculations, based on acceptable knowledge and other available 

information (such as preliminary characterization data). “WIPP-bound” waste includes the 

waste streams that DOE anticipates will meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria, selected 

waste streams that are awaiting a formal defense determination, and waste streams that are 

awaiting an EPA site audit prior to shipment. The “common denominator” for WIPP-bound 

waste streams is that there is sufficient information for DOE to anticipate that the waste 

streams will meet the WIPP waste acceptance criteria, and the waste is therefore included in 

the inventory for performance assessment calculations. 

“Potential” waste is the fraction of the reported TRU waste inventory that lacks sufficient 

information (either regulatory or physical) to determine if these waste streams can meet the 

WIPP waste acceptance criteria. “Potential” waste streams are therefore excluded from 

performance assessment. “Potential” waste may become “WIPP-bound” waste once all 

regulatory and physical constraints have been resolved. When the status of a waste stream 

changes from “Potential” to “WIPP-bound”, the change is documented in the Annual TRU 

Waste Inventory Reports published by DOE. 

These definitions affect the inventory for performance assessment. These definitions do not 

affect the DOE’s commitment that only TRU waste which has met all the WIPP waste 

acceptance criteria will be shipped to and physically emplaced in the WIPP. 

1. Comment Summary: Stakeholders believe DOE should make the Comprehensive 

Inventory Database (CID) available to the public. 

References: SRIC letters to EPA dated June 16, 2009, July31, 2009, and May 27, 2010; 

 CARD Letter to EPA 

DOE’s Response: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will not provide the CID for 

public use. As explained during a meeting on April 30, 2008 with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), the New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED), and 

Page 1 of 7
interested stakeholders, the CID will not be made available to the public for a number of 

reasons:1) the database is operated on a SQL server and is not compatible with other systems, 

2) the data and relationships that can be deduced from the data in the CID are easily 

misrepresented without an in-depth knowledge of the data and how they are related, and 3) 

DOE has determined that the CID contains specific data, such as the curie amounts of all 

radionuclides and the specific storage locations of the radionuclides, that when combined 

could have a direct impact on national security. DOE has therefore classified all of the CID 

data and its associated documentation as official use only (OUO), and the CID cannot be 

distributed to the public use for these reasons. 

As an alternative to public distribution of the CID, DOE has provided SRIC an Excel 

spreadsheet containing the TRU waste inventory data found in the Waste Profile Forms in 

Appendices A, B and C of the Annual TRU Waste Inventory Report (ATWIR). This TRU 

waste inventory data in spreadsheet format was provided to SRIC and EPA for the ATWIR2008 and ATWIR-2009. DOE has also agreed to provide additional TRU waste inventory 

data requested by any stakeholder, with the provision that it will be screened for national 

security issues before it is released to the public. 

The EPA has reviewed the CID and the related information, performed audits of the 

inventory development process, and reviewed the inventory information for CRA-2009. 

DOE has provided answers to all of EPA’s CRA-2009 completeness questions regarding 

inventory, and the lack of the public availability of the CID is not a completeness issue. 

2. Comment Summary: Stakeholders believe that the Annual TRU Waste Inventory Report2008 (ATWIR-2008) is inaccurate, unreliable and incomplete in dealing with the defense 

determination. 

References: SRIC letters to EPA dated June 16, 2009, July31, 2009, and May 27, 2010 

DOE’s Response: The DOE believes that the Annual TRU Waste Inventory Report-2008 

(ATWIR-2008) does accurately and clearly deal with the defense determination issue. Waste 

streams that do not have an established defense connection are identified in the ATWIR-2008 

as either “Likely Defense Related” or “Pending Defense Determination”. The definitions 

provided in the CID data dictionary of these two categories are: “Likely Defense Related - 

No Defense Determination has been issued or initiated, but one is anticipated” and “Pending 

Defense Determination - A Defense Determination has been initiated but not yet issued”. 

The difference between these two categories is primarily the information available to 

anticipate the outcome of the defense determination process. In either case, DOE confirms its 

commitment that no waste will be emplaced in the WIPP unless it has met all the WIPP’s 

waste acceptance criteria, including a formal defense determination when required. 

Page 2 of 7
“Likely Defense Related” is assigned to waste streams that DOE anticipates will be defense 

related, although a comprehensive acceptable knowledge (AK) review is not complete at this 

time. Since these waste streams are anticipated to pass the defense determination, the DOE 

includes these waste streams in the category of WIPP-bound waste. Waste streams that are 

“Likely Defense Related” are included in performance assessment (PA). If a waste stream 

fails to pass its defense determination, it would be removed from the inventory of WIPPbound waste in the next update of the Annual TRU Waste Inventory report. 

Waste streams designated as “Pending Defense Determination” are assigned to the category 

“Potential” TRU waste pending a formal defense determination. Insufficient information is 

available through AK to evaluate the status (defense or not) of these waste streams. Waste 

streams that are “Pending Defense Determination” are not included in the inventory for PA 

because the likelihood of them being determined to be defense related is lower than for the 

waste streams designated as "Likely Defense Related". 

The Nuclear Radiation Development Site, Inc (ND) and the West Valley Demonstration 

Project (WV) are the only two sites that have waste streams that are identified in the 

ATWIR-2008 as a “Potential” TRU waste stream based on the lack of a defense 

determination. A formal defense determination for the waste streams from these two sites 

has been requested and is currently in process. All other waste streams identified as 

“Potential” TRU waste streams in the SRIC letters are categorized as “Potential” TRU waste 

because of insufficient characterization data or because the waste streams need treatment 

and/or repackaging to comply with the Land Withdrawal Act and the WIPP’s waste 

acceptance criteria. As stated above, no waste will be emplaced in the WIPP unless it has 

met all regulatory and disposal regulations, including formal defense determinations when 

required. 

The only discrepancy in the ATWIR-2008 report is with the two Framatome waste streams, 

FR-MOX-T01 and FR-MOX-MT02. The ATWIR-2008 identified these two waste streams 

as “Pending Defense Determination”. However, these waste streams should have been 

classified as “Likely Defense Related” because DOE anticipated them to be defense related 

and because a formal defense determination had not been initiated. This misclassification of 

the two Framatome waste streams does not affect PA for the CRA-2009 because these two 

waste streams were identified as WIPP-bound and in any case were included in the inventory 

for the PA for CRA-2009. 

DOE has provided answers to all of EPA’s CRA-2009 completeness questions regarding 

inventory. As in the CCA and CRA-2004, waste categorized as “Potential” TRU waste has 

not been included in the inventory used for PA in CRA-2009 and subsequent Performance 

Assessment Baseline Calculations. The Annual TRU Waste Inventory Report-2008 

(ATWIR-2008) provides accurate information related to the defense determination of 

individual waste streams at the time of its publication, so there is no completeness issue 

associated with the ATWIR-2008. 

Page 3 of 7
3. Comment Summary: Stakeholders believe some sealed sources are prohibited at the WIPP. 

References: SRIC letters to EPA dated June 16, 2009, July31, 2009, and May 27, 2010; 

 CARD Letter to EPA 

DOE’s Response: Sealed sources may be disposed at the WIPP, provided they meet all the 

requirements of the WIPP waste acceptance criteria. This is a requirement of both the EPA 

compliance certification and the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. 

The SRIC letter dated July 31, 2009 states: “Appendix A includes waste stream MC-W002 

which contains lithium sources”. In the Annual TRU Waste Inventory Report- 2008 

(ATWIR-2008), waste stream MC-W002 is identified in Appendix C which is the appendix 

that contains “Potential” TRU waste and is not found in Appendix A which is WIPP-bound 

TRU waste. Since sealed sources are not explicitly identified as an excluded waste form at 

WIPP, the classification of MC-W002 is not a completeness issue. 

4. Comment Summary: Stakeholders believe that the Annual TRU Waste Inventory Report2008 should contain all waste DOE intends to ship to the WIPP during the period after CRA2009 and before the third compliance recertification application is submitted in 2014. 

References: SRIC letters to EPA dated June 16, 2009, July31, 2009, and May 27, 2010; 

CARD Letter to EPA 

DOE’s Response: The 2008 inventory used for PA is a snapshot in time with a cutoff date 

of December 31, 2007. The data reported in this inventory addresses the TRU waste 

currently stored and projected at the TRU waste sites along with the waste that has been 

emplaced at the WIPP. The Annual TRU Waste Inventory Report reflects the best estimate 

of the known TRU waste inventory at the time of the data cutoff, including DOE’s 

expectations for “Likely Defense Related” waste streams (see the response to Comment 2). 

Beyond the judgment for “Likely Defense Related” waste streams, the Annual TRU Waste 

Inventory Report does not try to anticipate future changes in WIPP-bound waste streams. It 

is not possible to anticipate future changes to the inventory because decisions by the 

generator sites, by the DOE, or by the regulators of the WIPP can have a significant impact 

on the inventory of WIPP-bound waste. For example, a generator site may process a WIPPbound waste stream into low level waste or a waste stream may not be determined to be 

defense-related, thereby removing waste streams from the WIPP-bound inventory. The DOE 

captures these inventory changes through its updates to the Annual TRU waste Inventory 

Report. DOE believes this stakeholder issue is outside the scope of CRA-2009 because 

inventory changes are captured on an annual basis and should therefore not be a 

completeness issue for CRA-2009. 

Page 4 of 7
5. Comment Summary: Stakeholders believe that waste prohibited at the WIPP and contained 

in Appendix C of the Annual TRU Waste Inventory Report-2008 (ATWIR-2008) should be 

removed completely from the report. 

References: SRIC letter to EPA dated July31, 2009 

DOE’s Response: The Land Withdrawal Act defines the types of waste that can be disposed 

at the WIPP, and DOE has no intention of disposing of prohibited waste in the WIPP. Waste 

that is identified as “Potential” TRU waste is discussed in ATWIR-2008, Section 4 and the 

Waste Profile Forms for these waste streams are found in Appendix C of the same report. 

Waste streams are identified as “Potential” TRU waste when there is not enough information 

available to determine whether or not the waste can meet all the WIPP’s waste acceptance 

criteria for disposal at the WIPP. DOE believes that the list of “Potential” TRU waste streams 

in the annual inventory reports assists in maintaining transparency and communication with 

stakeholders and EPA, and should not be removed from the report. 

“Potential” TRU waste streams are not included in the inventory for performance assessment 

(PA). Since “Potential” TRU waste streams are not included in the PA for CRA-2009, this is 

not a completeness issue. 

6. Comment Summary: Stakeholders believe that DOE’s recent decision to ship high carbon 

tetrachloride waste containers from the Idaho National Lab (INL) to the WIPP in Ten Drum 

Overpacks (TDOPs) should be considered as part of CRA-2009 

References: SRIC letter to EPA dated May 27, 2010 CARD Letter to EPA 

DOE’s Response: The shipment of TDOPs from Idaho to the WIPP will not have a 

significant impact on the performance assessment (PA) for CRA-2009. The hydrologic 

models and porosity surface for PA represent the waste as randomly distributed throughout 

the repository. The potential impacts from alternate waste forms and alternate packaging 

containers were analyzed by the PA for the Planned Change Request for the Advanced 

Mixed Waste Treatment Project (Hansen et al., 2004). Based on that PA, DOE concluded 

that explicit representation of the specific features of the waste and its associated packaging 

is not warranted in PA since PA results are relatively insensitive to the effects of such 

features. DOE also concluded that total releases are essentially unchanged by the use of 

different porosity surfaces for alternate waste forms and their containers. 

Although total releases may be insensitive to the use of alternate waste containers, the 

inventory does consider the types and numbers of waste containers. 

More specifically, the inventory reported in the Performance Assessment Inventory Report 

(PAIR) considers the types and numbers of waste containers when determining the mass of 

container materials and emplacement materials. 

Page 5 of 7
The container materials reported in the PAIR are based on the masses of iron, cellulose, 

plastic, rubber and lead for each container type. The only container material that increases 

when waste is shipped in the TDOP relative to 55-gallon drums is the mass of iron because 

the TDOP does not contain any cellulose, rubber, plastic or lead materials. Increasing the 

mass of iron has no significant impact on PA because the WIPP already complies with the 

minimum mass of iron required in the repository. In addition, the mass of iron is generally 

not depleted in each realization for PA, so adding more iron will not cause significant 

changes to the PA for CRA-2009 (Nemer and Clayton 2008, pg 123). 

The PAIR also uses container types when determining the mass of emplacement materials, 

such as plastic slip sheets. The emplacement materials used in the WIPP are made from 

cellulose, plastic and rubber (CPR). The TDOP doesn’t use emplacement materials when it 

is emplaced in the WIPP, so the mass of CPR materials decreases when 55-gallon drums are 

replaced with TDOPs. However, this is a small difference that will not have a significant 

effect on PA. 

The SRIC letter dated May 27, 2010 questions if the number of TDOPs would exceed the 

physical space available at the WIPP because of inventory scaling. The inventory is scaled to 

ensure that it completely fills the repository. The calculation of the scaling factors for CH 

TRU waste and RH TRU waste are documented in the PAIR. This scaling factor is only 

applied to the projected waste in the inventory. Since the Idaho waste streams referred to the 

SRIC letter contained no projected waste, scaling does not increase the number of TDOPs in 

the repository. 

DOE believes that the shipment of TDOPs from Idaho to the WIPP has no effect on the PA 

used for CRA-2009 and is not a completeness issue. 

DOE References: 

Hansen, C.W., L.H. Brush, M.B. Gross, F.D. Hansen, B.-Y. Park, J.S. Stein, and T.W. 

Thompson. 2004. Effects of Supercompacted Waste and Heterogeneous Waste Emplacement 

on Repository Performance. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM. ERMS 533551. 

Nemer, M.B., and D.J. Clayton. 2008. Analysis Package for Salado Flow Modeling, 2009 

Compliance Recertification Application Calculation. ERMS 548607. Carlsbad, NM: Sandia 

National Laboratories. 

Comment Summary: Stakeholders believe there should be a written report concerning the 

movement of well heads at the WIPP. 

References: CARD Letter to EPA 

Page 6 of 7
Page 7 of 7

DOE’s Response: DOE has provided many written reports on the geohydrology of the 

Culebra formation, including the changes of well heads near the WIPP site. This written 

information includes Appendix HYDRO-2009 and Appendix TFIELD-2009 in the 2009 

Compliance Recertification Application (CRA-2009) and Attachment TFIELD to Appendix 

PA in the 2004 Compliance Recertification Application (CRA-2004). These reports and their 

supporting references provide extensive documentation of the DOE studies concerning the 

Culebra flow model and the changing hydrologic heads in the Culebra on and near the WIPP 

site. 

On June 30, 2009 Rick Beauheim of Sandia National Laboratories provided a briefing based 

on many years of hydrogeologic studies at the WIPP site. A copy of the power point slides 

used for this presentation has been provided to the EPA and the public. The technical 

content of this briefing is based on the written documentation and supporting references 

identified in the first paragraph of this response. 

 DOE disagrees with the CARD contention that there is not a “written report concerning 

movement of well heads at the WIPP”, and this is therefore not a completeness issue. 

7. Comment Summary: Stakeholders believe that Section 194.27 of CRA-2009 is incomplete 

because it does not accurately reflect current information regarding the Disturbed Rock Zone 

(DRZ) conceptual model. 

References: SRIC letter to EPA dated June 16, 2009 

DOE’s Response: 

The current conceptual models for the DRZ and for cuttings/cavings were found to be 

adequate for implementation in PA by the Conceptual Models Peer Review Panel (Wilson et 

al., 1996). No new deficiencies or scientific concerns have been identified in these two 

conceptual models since the original peer review. There is therefore no need to expand the 

description of peer reviews in Section 27 of the CRA-2009, and this is not a completeness 

issue. 

DOE Reference: 

Wilson, C., Porter, D., Gibbons, J., Oswald, E., Sjoblom, G., and F. Caporuscia, 1996. 

Conceptual Models Peer Review Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Carlsbad Area Office, Office of Regulatory Compliance. July 1996. 

8. Comment Summary: Stakeholders believe DOE should include the suspension of 

shipments from Idaho and Los Alamos in the CRA-2009 application. 

References: SRIC letter to EPA dated June 16, 2009 

DOE’s Response: The timing of waste shipments from the generator sites to the WIPP is 

not an input for performance assessment or the CRA documentation. The suspensions of 

shipments from specific sites are operational issues and are not a completeness issue for 

CRA-2009.