Summary – WIPP Panel Closure 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, New Mexico

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 this 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 agency representatives to introduce themselves. They are:

Jon Walsh, EPA Radiation Protection Division

Tom Peake, EPA Radiation Protection Division, Director of Center for Waste Management and 

Regulations

Kathy Economy, EPA Center for Waste Management

Ray Lee, EPA Center for Radiation Information & Outreach

Russ Patterson, DOE Compliance Manager

George Basabilvaso, DOE Director of Safety & Health

Tom Peake explained that the proceedings will be documented through notes. He informed that 

participants that no comments or conversation about the subject outside of this meeting would be 

included in the record. There will be two presenters today. Jon Walsh will explain the applicable 

regulations, and Kathy Economy will 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 hypothetical methane or hydrogen explosion inside a filled 

waste panel. Because a specific closure design was originally approved, a new rule must be written in 

order to modify it so that the WIPP will continue to comply with the facility approval. EPA issued the 

proposed rule to address this change on December 3, 2013.
Summary – WIPP Panel Closure 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 included a concrete monolith to be constructed for 

panel closure. According to DOE’s Plan Change Request, Option D is expensive and could disrupt 

operations and affect worker safety. The new application is to replace the concrete barrier with a Runof-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, the ROMPCS is physically and chemically 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 194. 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 submitted 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 modify repository performance. 

During the first 200 years the salt 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 the 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 sensitivity analyses were also performed, and confirmed compliance.

In summary, EPA’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 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. 

Jon Walsh repeated that 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 

certification and recertification of the WIPP’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 based on system performance rather than design. The revised rule does not 
Summary – WIPP Panel Closure 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 Federal Register 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. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0684

Participant Comments & Questions

Mayor Dale Janway, Mayor of Carlsbad

The Mayor said he understands and supports this proposal. Carlsbad residents support this change and 

have become familiar with it over 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, Chairman of Mayor’s Task Force 

Mr. Heaton thanked participants for coming. He explained that the 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 understand 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 robust explosion wall is an important 

consideration. The task force supports the safety wall as proposed, and believes it will contain the 

potential VOCs, methane, and hydrogen that could negatively affect public health.

Dave Sepich, Chairman 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 interests of the citizens of Carlsbad.

Jim Otts

Mr. Otts noted that he served in the New Mexico 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 retrieved if necessary, but we are not too concerned about that eventuality any more. 

However, this approach may make that easier if it was ever needed.
Summary – WIPP Panel Closure System Public Meeting 1/22/14

4

Russell Hardy, Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring & Research Center

Mr. Hardy said he wanted to disclose that his company receives 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 happy to hear 

that EPA has determined that there is no risk of additional releases from the proposed closure method, 

and he supports the proposal. They believe the ROM salt system will contain VOCs, 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 year. 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 lifelong citizen of Carlsbad and a former mayor. He said the information he 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 knows 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 sure they are comfortable 

with this proposal so they can assure businesses 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, Executive Director 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 supports 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 offered 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 public comment period ends on February 3, 2014. After it 

closes, EPA will review comments 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 Closure System Public Meeting 1/22/14

5

A participant asked how long EPA will take to make a decision if no action is needed. Peake noted that it 

will likely be “weeks and not months”; however, 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 clicking on the docket link.

Interested parties can track comments this way. Peake said that if 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 responses will also be included in the docket. He said if questions 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 Sarno closed the meeting by reminding participants that formal comments are due by February 3. 

He reminded attendees to please 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 comments as well. Peake thanked everyone for 

coming.
Summary – WIPP Panel Closure System Public Meeting 1/22/14

6
Summary – WIPP Panel Closure System Public Meeting 1/22/14

7