Summary – WIPP Panel Closure 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 are 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 not have a court reporter for verbatim 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 non-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 everyone 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 National Laboratory

Sean Dunagan - Sandia National Laboratory

Mike Gross – consultant

George Basabilvaso – DOE Director of Safety & Health, Carlsbad Field Office

George Helstrom –DOE Legal Services

Ray Lee – EPA Center for Radiation Information & Outreach

Doug Sarno – Forum Facilitation Group

Debra Duerr - Forum Facilitation Group

Participants:

Trais Kliphuis - New Mexico Environmental Department (NMED)

Susan Lucas Kamat – NMED 
Summary – WIPP Panel Closure System Public Meeting 1/23/14

2

Coleman Smith –NMED Hazardous Waste 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 Domico – 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 welcomed participants to the meeting, and observed that there are some familiar faces here 

today. He said that today 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 originally approved, a new rule must be written in order to modify it. EPA’s 

regulatory process is complete, and EPA has concluded that the WIPP will continue to comply with the 

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 these drifts with engineered structures 

called panel closures. 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 would 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 noted that 

WIPP must comply with EPA’s standards. A performance assessment (PA) calculates possible releases of 

radioactive materials over 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 processes (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 PCS2012PA). Since then, EPA has held several 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 concrete 
Summary – WIPP Panel Closure 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 will be at stable value.

She summarized EPA’s assessment of how the ROM salt proposal could modify repository performance. 

During the first 200 years the salt would be more porous than concrete, and would allow more brine 

and gas to form in the isolation units. After 200 years the 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 releases 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. The results of PA show EPA that with the modified panel closure, WIPP will comply with 

regulatory requirements. DRZ sensitivity analyses were also performed, and confirmed compliance.

She noted that this is just 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. 

Walsh 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 certification and 

recertification of the WIPP compliance with the disposal regulations for panel closure design. This is a 

very narrow rulemaking relating specifically to this single topic. EPA’s decision will be based on system 

performance rather than design; he noted that EPA does not need to dictate the design DOE must use, 

but needs 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 Federal Register 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 

recorded 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. EPA-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 Closure 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 agrees 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 Hancock

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 throughout 

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 imagines that DOE would use the salt mined 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 normal 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 equipment 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 rock salt loses its 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 Closure System Public Meeting 1/23/14

5

Janet Greenwald

Ms. Greenwald observed that it doesn’t make sense to her that barrels behind a concrete wall release

the same amount of radioactivity as barrels behind a salt barrier, 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 concrete 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 drilling intrusion. EPA models 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 whether 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 releases 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 was involved with EEG in 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 Thompson, 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 excavation 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.

Norbert Rempe

Mr. Rempe agrees with Mr. Chaturvedi. He thinks that 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 are both 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 opportunity cost in terms 

of safety. For example, putting in a concrete seal would offer opportunities 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 Closure System Public Meeting 1/23/14

6

Don Hancock

In the proposed rule there is no timeframe associated with panel closure installation. Does 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 if 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 actions? 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 change 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 repository 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 panel 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 repository 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 that EPA delay the final rule until NMED makes a final 

decision, or specifically say that the EPA rule does not affect the State 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 rule?

• 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 modification 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 Closure 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 community, 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 

constructing 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, and 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 Register notice. 

Are they ventilated?

• They are part of the overall design. Along with the closed 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 based on 

assumptions 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 know 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 permeable (to brine, air, other substances) than concrete.
Summary – WIPP Panel Closure 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 idea of EPA clarifying what is being approved, and also of what NMED will approve.

Regarding how EPA is revising Appendix A, Condition 1. [quoted], this needs to be reworded because it 

doesn’t say what EPA is actually doing, which is removing Condition 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 thanked 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 with participants off the record about any other 

questions or concerns they have that are not related to this rulemaking.
Summary – WIPP Panel Closure System Public Meeting 1/23/14

9