Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/23 /14

1 

## Summary U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) Agency Public Meeting

on U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Planned Change Request to Modify the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) Panel Closure System

Albuquerque, New Mexico January 23, 2014

Meeting attendees are shown on the attached sign

- in sheet.

Welcome & Introductions

The facilitator, Doug Sarno of Forum Facilitation Group, welcomed participants to the second of two public meetings on the Waste Isolation Pilot Program ( WIPP )

. He said that we ar e in the middle of a 60

- day public comment period that ends on February 3 for a formal rulemaking . Because this is a rulemaking proceeding, Sarno said that EPA had offered a second session this evening, but so far we have not received any requests for this . We’ll end no later than 4:00 PM today, depending on how many comments we receive. Our intent is to document every comment and question on the record. Comments will be limited to those directly pertinent to the rulemaking. We will be summarizing
comments, and do no t have a court reporter for ver batim comments. If you have written comments, please submit them to EPA at this meeting and they will be included in the public record for the project. He informed participants that EPA has agreed to discuss other n on

- rulemaking issues and answer other types of questions after closing this formal meeting. He asked participants to please use the microphones at the table when speaking , and to be respectful of others.

Sarno asked e veryone to introduce themselves. Attendees included:

Project Staff:
Tom Peake

– EPA Radiation Protection Division, Director of Center for Waste Management and Regulations.
Jon Walsh

– EPA Radiation Protection Division

, Center for Waste Management Kathy Economy

– EPA Radiation Protection Division, Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Russ Patterson

– DOE Carlsbad Field Office Chris Camphouse

– Sandia N ational Laboratory

Sean Dun agan

- Sandia National Laboratory
Mik e Gross

– consultant George Basabilvaso

– DOE Director of Safety & H e alth , Carlsbad Field Office George Helstrom

– DOE L egal Services Ray Lee

– EPA Center for Radiation Information & Outreach Doug Sarno

– F orum F acilitation G roup Debra Duerr

- F orum F acilitation G roup

Participants: Trais Kliphuis

- New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED)

Susan Lucas Ka mat

– NMEDSummary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/23 /14

2 Coleman Smith

– NMED H az ardous W aste Bureau
Ricardo Maestas

– NMED Hazardous Waste Bureau
Steve Holmes

– NMED Hazardous Waste Bureau
Tom Klein

– URS Project Manager for panel closure redesign
Rick Chavez

Eric Domi co

– WIPP
Lokesh Chaturvedi

- interested citizen Norbert Rempe

– independent counselor

Scott Kovac Sylviana Diaz

- Doinelle
Janet Greenwald

– Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping ( CARD )
Don Hancock

Tom Peake welcom ed participants to the meeting, and observed that there are some familiar faces here today. He said that t oday we will present a summary of what DOE is requesting and how EPA has
reviewed that request , as well as EPA’s conclusions.

Presentation

Jon Walsh reported that DOE has asked to change the panel closure design at the WIPP. Because a specific design was originall y approved, a new rule must be written in order to modify it. EPA’s regulatory process is complete, and EPA has concluded that t he WIPP will continue to co mply with t he facility approval. EPA issued the proposed rule on December 3, 2013.

Walsh explained the concept of a panel closure. A waste panel is a group of mined rooms connected by tunnels, or drifts. When a panel is filled, the DOE intends to seal the se drifts wit h engineered structures called panel c losures. He showed a graphic that indicated planned locations of panel closures and explosion bulkheads.

DOE originally submitted four design options, and EPA selected Option D because it was the most physically robust and closely matched the panel closure that was previously modeled. Option D was a concrete panel closure that would use a concrete monolith to close off the drifts

. DOE has now concluded that Option D woul d be expensive to install , and would interrupt WIPP operations . The new proposal is for a Run

- of

- Mine Salt Panel Closure System (ROMPCS). This system would fill the drift with about 100 feet of salt, rather than concrete. Characteristics and advantages of this ROM system were
addressed.

Kathy Economy described the project background, DOE’s modeling, and EPA’s review . She n oted that WIPP must comply with EPA’s standards. A performance assessment (PA) calc ulates possible releases of
radioactive materia ls ove r the 10,000

- year regulatory period. The focus of the analysis is to determine if the releases will meet the required exposure levels. The PA needs to account for all potential future events and p rocesses (FEP) in operations though the 10,000

- year period. Panel closures are a “feature”
and therefore need to be modeled. EPA determined that a new PA would be needed for this proposal due to the number and type of changes being proposed by DOE in September 2011 (known as PCS

2012PA)

. Since then, EPA has held se veral technical meetings.

She compared the Option D concrete structure with the proposed ROM salt panel closure system. A concern is whether and when the ROM salt would reach a stable value (similar to the concreteSummary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/23 /14

3 monolith) , especially given the process of salt creep closure in the repository . She explained EPA’s analysis for assessing this. EPA agreed that after approximately 200 years, and for the duration of the 10,000 year performance period , the properties of the ROM salt w ill be at stable value.

She summarized EPA’s assessment of how the ROM salt proposal could m odify reposit or y performance.

D uring the first 200 years the sal t would be more porous than concrete , and would allow more brine and gas to form in the isolation units . After 200 years t he salt becomes more consolidated and less permeable than concrete , keeping brine and gas in the waste panels. This would result in potentially higher emissions of these substances from hypothetical boreholes, which EPA is required to model.
Modeled releas es from WIPP for both panel closure systems, however, are below regulatory limits and are relatively similar. She showed a graph that compared the PCS

- 2012PA with the PABC

- 2009 , the PA previously submitted by DOE in its most recent recertification, and accepted by EPA as the baseline of compliance . Th e results of PA show EPA that with the modified panel closure , WIPP will comply with regulatory requirements. DRZ s ensitivity analyses were also performed, and confirmed compliance.

She noted that this is j ust a summary of the highlights of EPA’s technical review, which was complex and took more than one year. She invited participants to review the full document, copies of which were handed out to participants here and is also available at EPA’s website

.

W alsh explained that the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2013 at

40 CFR 194 . This initiated the public comment period, and outlines the criteria for the certificati on and
recertification of the WI PP compliance with the dis posal regulations for panel closure design. This is a very narrow rulemaking relating specifically to this single topic. EPA’s decision will be b ased on sys tem performance rather than design ; he noted that EPA does not need to dictate the design DOE must u se, but need s to assess its technical merits and performance. He said that the language was included in the original approval to allow for possible design changes in future.

Walsh reviewed EPA’s regulatory timeline for this change request, culminating on February 3 with the end of the public comment period. In conclusion, EPA has proposed to approve DOE’s proposal for the

Run

- of

- Mine Salt Panel Closure System (ROMPCS).

Ray Lee explained the documents that were available at the sign

- in table, which include an informational brochure on how to comment and participate in this process, the F ederal R egister notice, and EPA’s review technical report. These are all available on EPA’s website, as well.

He told participants how to submit comments . Although a summary of comments made today will be
record ed in the public record, Lee encouraged those interested to also submit written comments if desired. Direct your comments to:

www.regulations.gov
Attn: Docket ID No. E PA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0684

Comments & Questions:

Sarno offered to first address comments from anyone who has a time constraint today . No one did. Peake reminded participants that we have DOE and Sandia staff here as well to address comments.Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/23 /14

4 Don Hancock

Mr. Hancock quoted from 1998 Certification Decision on current used practices and the conclusions on
the Salado Mass Concrete mix. He asked if EPA still agree s with both of the conclusions noted?

• That’s what EPA believed at that time, but since then DOE has said they are not sure they can accomplish Option D, and has proposed this new ROMPCS that would have less of an impact and be less difficult to implement; therefore, EPA is allowing them to change it.

Don Ha ncock
If there were no panel closure system, would DOE show compliance?

• Installation of a panel closure tends to increase pressure, so an educated guess is that releases would be decreased without a panel closure since the gas and brine would dissipate thr oughout the system.

Don Hancock
There was a lot of discussion of run

- of

- mine salt

– where will it come from? Salt would not be brought in from outside the repository, would it?

• That would be an operations item. EPA imagine s that DOE would use the salt min ed out from the repository , stockpile it, and then transfer it to the closure area.

Don Hancock
Does EPA care where the salt comes from?

• It never was a question given that the salt is essentially a waste product that would be readily
available from norm al WIPP operations. There is sufficient salt from waste panel mining to fill the exhaust drifts where the panels are to be installed.

Don Hancock Three options were outlined for emplacing the salt; has DOE selected one?

• DOE would likely use existing equip ment to place it. EPA looked at reports and documents , and concluded that the compression of the salt after 200 years is very predictable, and the emplacement method would not make a significant difference to this. EPA has looked at the options and has not decided on a final emplacement method. Regardless of what method DOE uses to emplace, this would not be a change that would warrant another regulatory process.

Norbert Rempe This discussion is ridiculous and uses impractical “worst

- case” assumptions. ROM salt has been used in mines for over a hundred years, so there is no question about that. Has EPA looked at salt and potash mines in other places, including Europe, to evaluate how they do it? Where does the brine come from ?
He observed that disturbed roc k salt loses it s brine after a couple of years

.

• Yes, EPA is aware of ROM salt being used in other mines, but for this analysis we looked only at

WIPP

- specific salt being used at WIPP.

Janet Greenwald
Did EPA calculate releases to the Culebra aquifer ? If not, why not?

• As part of the PA, EPA looked at the volume of brine that gets up to the Culebra aquifer

. The amount of brine coming in is the same for both concrete and salt barriers

.Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/23 /14

5 Janet Greenwald
Ms. Greenwald observed that it doesn’t make sense to h er that barrels behind a concrete wall release
the same amount of radio activity as barrels behind a salt bar rier, given the brine intrusion. What technology are you basing that opinion on?

• The amount of brine getting to the Culebra is the same for a concre te or salt barrier. This is based on EPA’s performance assessment computer models (BRAGFLO), which has been used for the past 25 years. The radionuclides in the brine are not going through the panels, but could go up a borehole to the Culebra during a dri lling intrusion

. EPA model s the processes that look at interactions of materials and calculate pressures. If the repository is punctured, then that is what creates the release of fluid and possible radioactivity up through the borehole and into the
Culebra

. The model showed that the amount of brine flowing through the Culebra was the same
for both scenarios. To clarify, the brine does not flow horizontally through the panel closure seals, but flows vertically up through boreholes.

Janet Greenwald Clarify w hether the original scenario included the entire repository being flooded.

• The original scenarios have never changed, and they are for each individual panel being possibly
flooded with fluid.

Janet Greenwald
Would release s be the same or less with a salt closure? She can’t believe that the salt would be less permeable than a concrete wall.

• For the first 200 years, the salt is more permeable, but in the long term is less permeable than

concrete.

Lokesh Chaturvedi
Mr. Chaturvedi said that he w as involved with EEG i n 1979 when the original certification was proposed.

He was initially surprised when DOE did not select a design and just presented four options during the
Certification. When Option D was selected they assumed it was the most robust option, but he always had personal doubts about it. He feels that the salt proposal is an improvement. His question is why don’t we trust salt, and what purpose is there in relying on concrete? After reading the application and other reports

, such as Hanson and Thomp son, he concludes that this is a good idea, and is a reasonable solution for 10,000

- year containment. It also reduces cost. He believes that operational issues can be easily resolved. He concurs with EPA. Regarding brine, it does come out when the excavati on is first made, but it dries up over time and you don’t see much anymore; heat and pressure is produced. If the borehole goes deeper, there is a possibility of finding brine reservoirs in the Castile formation . You can’t necessarily compare this to salt mines in Germany.

Norber t Rempe Mr. Rempe agrees with Mr. Chaturvedi. He t hinks tha t ROM salt closure is simpler, more cost

- effective, and safer than concrete block. To respond to Ms. Greenwald’s concerns, the mandated concrete barrier
and the ROM salt ar e bot h shielding against radiation; the concept would replace 20 feet of concrete
with 100 feet of salt

. EPA and other federal agencies do not consider the lost opport unity cost in terms of safety. For example, putting in a concrete seal would offer opport unities for lots of industrial accidents during construction; he noted that there was a “near miss” during construction of the explosion isolation wall in Panel 2. EPA should consider non

- radioactive risk associated with proposals.Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/23 /14

6 Don Hancock
In the proposed ru le there is no timeframe associated wit h panel closure installation. D oes EPA care when this is done, as long as it’s before the repository closure?

• No.

Don Hancock Mr. Hancock asked for more specificity to the decision on exactly what actions require EPA rulemaking approval. As an example, he asked i f the design is for a minimum of 100 feet of ROM salt, would 99 feet be a change that needs to be approved, or not? What does the term “any” mean in relation to future regulatory and rulemaking act ions? He finds the proposed rule perplexing in this regard. It’s not clear what EPA is actually saying it’s approving

– isolation walls, bulkheads, 100

- foot salt wall? For example, the DOE design has bulkheads placed so additional bulkheads can be added

– so, would additional bulkheads in the future require separate approval? Is the number of bulkheads, for example, an issue, and if that number changes will additional approval be needed?

• EPA would refer to the design document that was submitted with the cha nge request ; that is the design that’s being approved

.

• EPA is not concerned with what happens during repository operation ( which is regulated by Mine Safety and Health Administration and NMED ), but only with the state of the panel closure system at reposi tory closure. We look at long

- term performance; bulkheads don’t come into play for this, but are only for operational purposes.

• Please submit this comment to the docket so that EPA can consider and answer it.

Don Hancock What kind or whether there is a pa nel closure is not important at closure

– what is important is the system that New Mexico Environmental Department ( NMED ) needs to approve, regardless of what EPA does or approves. So, the NMED process is what’s important; this will take longer because DOE ’s application includes the panel closure as well as a modification to the r epository configuration and a

New volatile organic compound ( VOC ) monitoring protocol. The EPA should not dictate what the panel closure system should be. Therefore, he requests th at EPA delay the final rule until NMED makes a final decision, or specifically say that the EPA rule does not affect the S tate of New Mexico’s decisions

Don Hancock
Mr. Hancock is not greatly concerned about what happens at facility closure, but does have concerns about some operational aspects like VOC emissions that are within the purview of other agencies. He wants to make sure that what EPA does will not interfere with NMED authority or decisions.

Don Hancock What’s the schedule for issuing a final ru le?

• This will depend on the comments EPA receives . We need to evaluate comments, develop responses, and develop a final rule. We expect that can happen this year.

Don Hancock He is concerned that NMED will not be able to finalize their permit modificatio n within the year given the magnitude of the modifications DOE has submitted. Also, if EPA issues a final decision and NMED decides to go another route, would that cause another regulatory change?Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/23 /14

7 • That would be something EPA would have to consider if and when it happened. These are good comments and we want to make sure you submit them officially so that we consider them during the final rule.

Sylviana Diaz Doinelle Will the current crew be doing the work, or will it be contracted out? She is concerned about cost

overruns.

• DOE has a contract for current operations, and those people would be responsible for closure.

John Heaton Speaking on behalf of the Carlsbad comm unity, he noted that from our perspective, we are very concerned about safety for workers, for the community, and for the region. We rarely look at the economics of what might be saved in dollars from this or other proposals. He gave an example of

construc ting an explosion wall. VOC releases are also of concern. He noted that DOE needs to consider both operational and long

- term impacts, and therefore he believes that the “complete mine” is being monitored and regulated by the range of relevant agencies , an d all aspects of it are safe, especially in terms of worker safety. To suggest that a “silo” approach to regulation is being taken here is not correct.

Scott Kovac

Mr. Kovac is unclear about the purpose of the steel bulkheads mentioned in the Federal Regi ster notice

. Are they ventilated?

• They are p art of the overall design. Along with the c losed panel with salt in front of it, the bulkheads restrict access, and also restrict VOC emissions.

• Yes, they serve a purpose for ventilation. They will be crushed by creep closure of the repository , so they are not considered consequential to long

- term performance.

What is the status of monitoring behind closed panels now?

• DOE has a permit to monitor for VOCs and hydrogen methane for panels 3

, 4 and 6

.

Norbert Rempe Mr. Rempe feels that the original closure process that was put together in the 1990’s was “screwed up”, with a number of options. EPA did not require a closure system, which speaks to their competency. The fact that we’re still talking about it after all these years proves how ridiculous the government is. In other countries there have been closure systems since the mid

- 1800s. The problem now is that everything needs to be modeled instead of looking at practical experience; models are base d on assumpti ons that nobody can prove. He’s much more comfortable with practical experience in the mining industry than with mathematical models. For example, creep has been proved in salt and potash mines for generations, and models are not needed to prove it. We also kn ow that salt will ultimately compact to the original density from experiences in Austria.

Janet Greenwald When we say that compressed salt is a better barrier than concrete, are we saying that salt is less permeable to brine water?

• Yes, intact salt is less pe rmeable (to brine, air, other substances ) than concrete.Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/23 /14

8 Norbert Rempe To expand on that answer, the crushed salt has the same properties as the salt before it was mined. In
the Permean basin there are 3

, 000

- foot thick salt beds, deposited 250 million years ago; 35 million years ago some magma intruded into the salt along with CO2, which is still trapped there. This is practical proof that the salt is tight even to gas under high pressure for periods of up to 25 million years.

Lokesh Chaturvedi Mr. Chaturvedi quoted from section B of the Federal Register notice regarding a description of the ROMPCS design, observing that this may be a source of the uncertainty expressed here. Therefore, he
endorses the id ea of EPA clarifying what is being approved, and also of what NMED will approve. Regarding how EPA is revising Appendix A , Condition 1. [quoted], t his needs to be reworded because it doesn’t say what EPA is actually doing, which is removing C ondition 1 but accepting the change request for the design. There is a better explanation in Section 5 later in the notice, for reference.

Summary

Doug Sarno thank ed everyone for their attention and time. Please be sure to submit written comments to Ray Lee today or through the website by February 3 . Tom Peake thanked everyone for coming, and noted that we had very good comments. He expressed appreciation to the DOE staff who attended to answer questions.

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned. EPA offered to talk now w ith participants off the record about any other questions or concerns they have that are not related to this rulemaking.Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/23 /14

9