Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/22 /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

Carlsbad, N ew M exico January 22, 2014

Meeting attendees are shown on the attached sign

- in sheet.

Welcome & Introductions

The facilitator, Doug Sarno of Forum Facilitation Group, welcomed participants and noted that this is a formal rulemaking meeting; as such, comments and questions should be pertinent to thi s subject.

Written comments may also be submitted to Mr. Ray Lee of EPA or to the meeting recorder for inclusion in the public record. There will not be a formal transcript, but detailed notes will be taken. Participants were asked to use a microphone when speaking.

Sarno asked the EPA and DOE agen c y represen tatives to introduce themselves. They are:

Jon W alsh, EPA Radiation Protection Div ision Tom Peake, EPA Radiation Protection Division, Director of Center for Waste Management and Regulations Kathy Economy, EPA Center for W aste M anagement Ray Lee, EPA Center for Radiation Information & Outreach

Russ Patterson , DOE C ompliance M anag er George Basabilvaso, DOE Director of S afety & H ealth

Tom Peake explained that the proceedings will be documented throu gh notes. He informed that participants that no comments or conversation about the subject outside of this meeting would be
included in the record

. The re will be two presenters today. Jon Walsh will explain the applicable regulations, and Kathy Economy wil l talk about technical issues related to DOE’s application.

EPA Presentation

The presentation will summarize DOE ’ s proposed WIPP panel closure change request, EPA ’s technical review of the request, and EPA’s proposed decision.

DOE has asked to change the panel closure design at the WIPP. The panel closure system was intended to prevent access to closed waste panels, to limit the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the waste, and to protect site workers from a hypot hetical methane or hydrogen explosion inside a filled waste panel. Because a specific closure design was originall y approved, a new rule must be written in
order to modify it so that the WIPP will continue to comply with t he facility approval. EPA issued t he proposed rule to address this change on December 3, 2013.Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/22 /14

2 Jon Walsh explained the concept of a panel closure, and showed a graphic that depicted planned locations of panel closures within the WIPP facility. He said that the original design, termed “ Option D ”,
was selected at the time because it was the most physically robust and closely matched the panel closure that was previously modeled. Components include d a concrete monolith to be constructed for panel closure. According to DOE’s Plan Change Req uest , Option D is expensive and could disrupt operations and affect worker safety. T he new application is to replace the concrete barrier with a Run

of

- Mine Salt Panel Closure System (ROMSPCS), which consists of mined salt emplaced between steel
bulkheads. This approach would fill the drift with about 100 feet of salt, rather than concrete. Characteristics and advantages of this proposed system were addressed. Because the salt is the native material already mined at the WIPP, th e ROMPCS is physically and ch emically compatible with the repository environment.

Kathy Economy addressed the project background, DOE’s modeling, and EPA’s review . She noted that WIPP must comply with EPA’s standards.

Originally, DOE used a Performance Assessment (PA) to model the WIPP disposal system . This calculates possible releases of radioactive materials over the 10,000

- year regulatory period

. The focus of the analysis is whether the calculated releases meet the radioactive release limits established by 40 CFR parts 191 and 19 4

. The PA needs to account for all potential future events and possibilities in operations though the 10,000

- year period. EPA determined that a new PA would be needed for this proposal due to the number and type of changes being proposed by DOE , and DOE su bmitted its analysis to EPA in September 2011

.

EPA’s independent analysis compared the Option D concrete structure with the proposed ROMSPCS proposal. A concern is whether and when the ROM salt would reach a stable value (similar to the
concrete monolith ). Economy explained EPA’s approach to assessing this. As a result of this analysis, EPA agrees that

, at 10,000 years, the ROM salt would be at a 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 . After 200 years the salt
becomes more consolidated and less permeable, keeping brine and gas in the waste panels. She showed a graph that compared previous modeling of th e concrete barrier with current modeling of the salt
barrier . This shows that EPA can be assured that the modified panel closure approach will comply with requirements. DRZ s ensitivity analyses were also performed, and confirmed compliance.

In summary, EP A’s review and documentation are now complete. DOE’s calculations and EPA’s alternate calculations both demonstrate that WIPP will continue to comply with the regulatory release limits. Economy noted that this is just a summary of the highlights of EPA’s t echnical 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.

Jon Walsh repeated t hat the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 2013

. This initiated the public comment period . The proposed rule modifies Condition 1 of the criteria for the
certificati on and recertification of the WI PP ’s compliance with the disposal regulations , which addresses
the panel closure design. This is a very narrow rulemaking relating specifically to this single topic. EPA’s proposed condition will be b ased on sys tem performance rather than design . The revised rule does notSummary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/22 /14

3 dictate the design DOE must use, but requires DOE and EPA to assess the technical merits and performance of that design

.

EPA’s Ray Lee explained the documents that were available at the sign

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

He told participants how to submit comments by visiting the website : www.regulations.gov
Attn: Docket ID No. E PA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0684

Participant Comments & Questions

Mayor Dale Jan way, Mayor of Carlsbad The Mayor said he u nderstands and supports this proposal. Carlsbad residents support this change and
have become familiar with it ove r the last year. The NM Dept of Environment is also proposing a similar thing. In regard to volatile organic compounds ( VOCs ), the Mayor is happy to know that workers will not face any additional risk, and that the proposal will save millions of dollars while posing no additional risk. We know that salt does an excellent job of containing radionuclides, which is why WIPP is located where it is to begin with.

John Heaton

, C hairman of Mayor’s Task Force

Mr. Heaton t hanked participants for coming

. He explained that t he task force is made up of about 40
interested citizens who meet twice per month. They have a subcommittee to evaluate proposed changes, and they are very thorough in their evaluations and questioning of DOE . They will make recommendations to the larger task force. They unders tand the seriousness of any possible incident or mistake, and the effects they could have on any family or the community. He noted that the nuclear industry overall has proven much safer than the coal industry. A r obust explosion wall is an important

consi deration. The task force support s the safety wall as proposed, and believe s it will contain the potential VOCs, methane, and hydrogen that could negatively affect public health.

D ave S e pich , C hairman of the Task Force Subcommittee on Proposed WIPP Changes
Several members of the subcommittee are very familiar with mining processes and the way salt works and acts over time. They reviewed the proposed change and spent a great deal of time exploring the other options that were proposed, and they evaluated the “pros and cons ” of those options. The subcommittee believes this proposal protects workers well, and they support this new panel closure system as being the best option. They will continue to review any modifications in the future in order to protect the i nterests of the citizens of Carlsbad.

Jim Otts
Mr. Otts noted that he s erved in the N ew M exico Legislature for 12 years and has been involved in the rulemaking process since the beginning. He’s impressed with the technical work that’s been done. He
thinks this proposal will save money, which is important these days. He thinks that some of the savings can be used to enhance the concrete barriers. There was previously a lot of concern about whether the
waste could be retri e ved if necessary, but we are not to o concerned about that eventuality any more. However, this approach may make that easier if it was ever needed.Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/22 /14

4 Russell Hardy

, Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring & Research Center Mr. Hardy said he wanted to disclose that his company receive s a grant from DOE to conduct an independent monitoring program of WIPP for air, water, and soil. They also sample hydrogen, methane, and VOCs. They have not seen methane or hydrogen in samples, generally. Mr. Hardy is h appy to hear
that EPA has determined that there is no risk of additional releases from the proposed closure method

, and he supports the proposal . The y believe the ROM salt system w ill contain VOC s, as will concrete.

• Tom Peake asked for clarification of where and when samples are taken; Hardy gave details , and said they take about 1000 samples per y ear. Of these, they have seen no samples with methane, and only very small concentrations of hydrogen in a few samples.

Richard Doss
Mr. Doss is a l ifelong citizen of Carlsbad and a former mayor. He said the information h e received about the properties of salt, and the information he’s gotten about releases is appreciated. He thinks this is
viable and cost

- saving proposal.

Mark Schinnerer

, Carlsbad Development Department His group know s a lot about this project and they are always concerned about the continued safety of
the WIPP

. They want to make sure they understand all the risks and impacts. Their mission is to encourage growth and development in the community, so they need to make su re they a re comfortable with this proposal so they can assure business es of its safety; nuclear disposal is not something most people or businesses who might want to locate in the community are familiar with. They support the proposed change.

Robin Defer

, Exec utive Dir ector of Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
The Chamber is proud of what WIPP has done, and of its safety record over the years. This change is important and will help our community, and the Chamber support s it.

Diane Ventura, Senator Heinrich’s Office She asked for a contact person who they can reach out to and communicate with , particularly for questions regarding the Technical Support Document

.



### • Peake noted that EPA has a Congressional office that will coordinate this.

• Lee said that this process was used in the pre

- application process last year, through EPA’s OCIR
office.

• Seppich offered to have people contact him, since he has a complete file of questions and answers, including technical ones.

• Beverly Allen of Senator Tom Udall’s office also o ffered help as needed to expedite comment review, since they are interested in as quick an approval as possible.

Summary

Tom Peake informed participants that the p ublic comment period ends on February 3 , 2014 . After it closes, EPA will review comme nts received, determine how they are going to respond, and identify if they need to make any changes to the proposal and documentation. They will then make changes, go through internal agency review, and issue a Final Rule. Until they get all comments they can’t predict how long this might take; if most comments require no further action it will go more quickly.Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/22 /14

5 A participant asked h ow long EPA will take to make a decision if no action is needed. Peake noted that it will likely be “weeks and not months”; h owever, because EPA is a bureaucracy, they can’t give an unequivocal answer. In response to a question, he predicted that a decision will be made by the end of

2014.

Lee invited people to review comments on the website regulations.gov

, by click ing on the docket link. Interested parties can track comments this way. Peake said that i f participants have technical questions based on the technical document, please submit them to the website as well . This way, they can be viewed by the entire public. EPA r esponses will also be included in the docket. He said if question s relate

to DOE ’s proposed design, people can contact DOE directly, as well as submitting comments to the website. Ray Lee can provide more information on how to do this.

Adjourn

Doug Sar no closed the meeting by reminding participants that f ormal comments are due by February 3

. He reminded attendees to p lease sign in if they haven’t done so . A summary of this meeting will become part of the public record, but please submit full written com ments as well. Peake thanked everyone for coming.Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/22 /14

6Summary

– WIPP Panel Cl osure System Public Meeting 1/22 /14

7