5thResponseSubmittaltotheEPAEnclosure4Error#ErrorDescription Correction Originator Responsibility StatusDateofCompletion1 EPA Comment1-23-13 Missing Reference.Appendix SOTERM, Figure SOTERM-7caption cites Altmaier (2011) but thisreference is missing from the referencelist. Please provide this reference.This is a typographical error in Appendix SOTERM. The text will becorrected to read “Altmaier et al., 2008” which is already included asa reference in Appendix SOTERM, given below. The requestedreference is included in Enclosure 2. Figure SOTERM-7 is based onFigure 5 in this reference and shows the highest three CaCl2concentrations shown in the published Figure.This typographical error has been added to Enclosure 4,CRA-2014Errata Tracking.Reference:Altmaier M., Neck, V., Fanghänel, T., “Solubility of Zr(IV), Th(IV)and Pu(IV) hydrous oxides in CaCl2 solutions and the formation ofternary Ca-M-OH complexes,” Radiochimica Acta 96, (2008).EPA LANL-D. Reed Included infirst responsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in firstresponse,1/28/152 EPA Comment1-G-1 Reference Appendix QAPD-2014Not Provided.CRA-2014 Section 23, Models andComputer Codes, Section 23.5.7 states,"The DOE's quality assurance program, asapplied to the CRA-2014, is contained inAppendix QAPD-2014." The appendixhas not been provided. Please provide thisdocument.There was not an Appendix QAPD-2014 in the CRA-2014; therefore,the statement above is a typographical error in CRA-2014 Section23.5.7. The reference to Quality Assurance Program Document(QAPD) will be added to Section 23 References and the text will becorrected to read, “The DOE's quality assurance program, as appliedto the CRA-2014, is contained in the Quality Assurance ProgramDocument (U.S. DOE 2010)." The QAPD is already included as areference in the CRA-2014; however, a copy of the QAPD is includedin Enclosure 2.This typographical error has been added to Enclosure 4,CRA-2014Errata Tracking.EPA SNL-G. Safley Included infirst responsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in firstresponse,1/28/153 EPA Comment2-55-1 Incorrect Reference.IGP-2014, Section IGP-2.1 makesreference to 194.55(b)(1), should this be194.54(b)(1) “Existing boreholes...”?This is a typographical error in Appendix IGP-2014. The text will becorrected to read “Existing boreholes, as required by 40 CFR §194.54(b)(1)...”.This typographical error has been added to Enclosure 4,CRA-2014Errata Tracking.EPA SNL/JHAS. WagnerIncluded inthird responsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in thirdresponse, 4/8/15CRA‐2014ErrataTracking15thResponseSubmittaltotheEPAEnclosure4Error#ErrorDescription Correction Originator Responsibility StatusDateofCompletionCRA‐2014ErrataTracking4 EPA Comment2-23-2 Provide an Update of theDerivation of the Shaft Properties at theRepository Horizon."...In the CRA 2014 PA, however, itappears the material properties of theshaft at the repository horizon have notbeen updated to reflect the change. Pleaseconfirm this and identify how theproperties would change to reflect thechange in the panel closure design."The corrected length of the northernmost set of panel closures will beimplemented in future PA calculations and will be tracked inEnclosure 4,CRA-2014 Errata Tracking.EPA SNL-T. Zeitler Included infourthresponsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fourthresponse,5/29/1525thResponseSubmittaltotheEPAEnclosure4Error#ErrorDescription Correction Originator Responsibility StatusDateofCompletionCRA‐2014ErrataTracking5 EPA Comment2-32-S7 FEP W3 Heterogeneity of WasteForms.The screening argument citation of theCCA as the source of information on theheterogeneity of waste forms ignoreschanges that have occurred in the past 15years, including supercompacted wasteand mingling RH waste in shieldedcontainers with CH waste. Please updatethe information to reflect current wasteforms.SCR-6.1.2.1.2 Summary of New InformationThe waste inventory used for the CRA-2014 PA calculations has beenupdated as provided in Kicker and Zeitler (2013). Since these FEPsare accounted for in PA, inventory-related parameters may differ fromthose used in previous PAs; however, the screening decisions have notchanged and these FEPs are represented in PA calculations. The EPAapproved the use of the shielded RH container as an allowabledisposal container in WIPP (Edwards 2013). The impacts of thiscontainer upon WIPP performance were evaluated in Dunagan et al.(2007).SCR-6.1.2.1.3 Screening ArgumentWaste characteristics, comprising the waste inventory andheterogeneity of waste forms, are described in the CCA, AppendixBIR. The waste inventory is accounted for in PA calculations inderiving the dissolved actinide source term and gas generation rates.The distribution of contact-handled transuranic (CH-TRU) andremote-handled transuranic (RH-TRU) waste within the repositoryleads to room-scale heterogeneity of the waste forms, which isaccounted for in PA calculationswhen considering the potentialactivity of waste material encountered during inadvertent boreholeintrusion (Appendix PA-2014, Section PA-3.8). The DOEimplements waste heterogeneity in waste forms through theassumption of random placement of TRU waste in the repository.This assumption includes all waste container forms and types. Detailsregarding the implementation of this assumption are provided in theCRA-2009, Appendix MASS-2009, Section MASS-21.0. Thisimplementation methodology has not changed as a result of theaddition of the shielded RH-waste container.This change has been added to Enclosure 4,CRA-2014 ErrataTracking.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infourthresponsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fourthresponse,5/29/1535thResponseSubmittaltotheEPAEnclosure4Error#ErrorDescription Correction Originator Responsibility StatusDateofCompletionCRA‐2014ErrataTracking6 EPA Comment2-32-S8 FEP W5 Container MaterialInventory.Please supplement the screening argumentwith an explanation of the implementationin PA of the material inventory ofshielded containers containing RH waste.SCR-6.1.3.2 FEP Number: W5FEP Title: Container Material InventorySCR-6.1.3.2.1 Screening Decision: UPThe Container Material Inventory is accounted for in PA calculations.SCR-6.1.3.2.2 Summary of New InformationThe masses of container materials associated with the waste inventoryfor the CRA-2014 have been updated as detailed in Van Soest (2012).The EPA approved the use of the shielded RH container as anallowable disposal container in WIPP (Edwards 2013). The impactsof this container upon WIPP performance were evaluated in Dunaganet al. (2007).SCR-6.1.3.2.3 Screening ArgumentThe container material inventory is described in Van Soest (2012) andis accounted for in PA calculations through the estimation of gasgeneration rates (see Appendix PA-2014, Section PA-4.2.5). In theCCA, Appendix WCL, a minimum quantity of metallic Fe wasspecified to ensure sufficient reactants to reduce radionuclides tolower and less soluble oxidation states. This requirement is met aslong as there are no substantial changes in container materials. Theinventory used for the CRA-2014 contains 3.69 x 107 kg of steel inpackaging (includes containers) materials. This value is up slightlyfrom 3.59 x 107 kg reported in 2008 (Van Soest 2012). Modelingassumptions related to the implementation of waste containermaterials can be found in Appendix MASS-2014, Table MASS-5.This change has been added to Enclosure 4,CRA-2014 ErrataTracking.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infourthresponsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fourthresponse,5/29/1545thResponseSubmittaltotheEPAEnclosure4Error#ErrorDescription Correction Originator Responsibility StatusDateofCompletionCRA‐2014ErrataTracking7 EPA Comment2-32-S15 FEP W28 Nuclear Explosions.Please modify the screening argument toaddress whether, in addition to “areduction of TRU radionuclides fromprevious estimates”, the quantities offissile radionuclides have also beenreduced.SCR-6.3.3.2 FEP Number: W28FEP Title: Nuclear ExplosionsSCR-6.3.3.2.1 Screening Decision: SO-PNuclear Explosions have been eliminated from PA calculations on thebasis of low probability ofoccurrence over 10,000 yrs.SCR-6.3.3.2.2 Summary of New InformationThis FEP has been updated to include the most recent inventoryinformation as presented in Kicker and Zeitler (2013). This newinformation does not change the screening argument or decision forthis FEP.SCR-6.3.3.2.3 Screening ArgumentNuclear explosions have been eliminated from PA calculations on thebasis of low probability of occurrence over 10,000 yrs. For a nuclearexplosion to occur, a critical mass of Pu would have to undergo rapidcompression to a high density. Even if a critical mass of Pu couldform in the system, there is no mechanism for rapid compression.Inventory information used for the CRA-2014 is presented in Kickerand Zeitler (2013). The updated inventory information for the CRA2014 shows a reduction of TRU radionuclides from previousestimates. Fissile radionuclides have reduced from approximately 3.1million curies for the PABC-2009 to 2.7 million curies for the CRA2014. Thus, current criticality screening arguments are conservativelybounded by the previous CCA screening arguments (Rechard et al.1996, 2000, and 2001).This change has been added to Enclosure 4,CRA-2014 ErrataTracking.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infourthresponsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fourthresponse,5/29/1555thResponseSubmittaltotheEPAEnclosure4Error#ErrorDescription Correction Originator Responsibility StatusDateofCompletionCRA‐2014ErrataTracking8 EPA Comment2-32-S19 FEP W45 Effects ofTemperature on Microbial GasGeneration.Please modify the screening argument toacknowledge the reduced thermal impactof seal concrete hydration because of theelimination of additional explosion wallsand the Option D monolith.This is a revision to Appendix SCR-2014, Section SCR-6.5.1.1.3.1.The revised text has been changed to read:This thermal rise is considered bounding due to the elimination ofconcrete from the panel closure systems. Because the new panelclosures will be constructed of mined salt, the overall mass ofconcrete emplaced within the repository will be significantlydecreased. More importantly, the emplacement of any constructedelement (e.g., shaft seals) of the repository will be done at or beforerepository closure. Therefore, any increase in temperature due toconcrete hydration will have abated by the time AICs are assumed tono longer prevent drilling into the repository.The revised text has been added to Enclosure 4, CRA-2014 ErrataTracking.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infourthresponsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fourthresponse,5/29/159 EPA Comment2-32-S20 FEP W53 Radiolysis ofCellulose.The reported reason for the screeningargument update is not consistent betweenTable SCR-1, where the update is due tonew radionuclide inventory, and SectionSCR-6.5.1.7.2 where the update is due tonew cellulose inventory. The screeningargument in Section SCR-6.5.1.7.3 refersonly to the new radionuclide inventory.Please reconcile the information.This is a revision to Appendix SCR-2014. The revised text of SectionSCR-6.5.1.7.2 has been changed to read:SCR-6.5.1.7.2 Summary of New InformationThis FEP has been updated with new waste inventory data.Decreasing waste inventory values lower the overall activity for allTRU radionuclides which indicate that radiolysis of cellulose will notbe a significant process. The screening argument and decision are notaffected by this change in inventory information.This change has been added to Enclosure 4,CRA-2014 ErrataTracking.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infourthresponsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fourthresponse,5/29/1565thResponseSubmittaltotheEPAEnclosure4Error#ErrorDescription Correction Originator Responsibility StatusDateofCompletionCRA‐2014ErrataTracking10 EPA Comment2-32-S1 FEP H21 Drilling Fluid Flow.Screening argument considers onlyboreholes intersecting the waste region.Please supplement the argument with adiscussion of boreholes that intersect thenon-waste regions and the consequence toPA calculations. Provide references andspecific information as to whetherboreholes penetrating non-waste regionscould result in the transport ofradionuclides between the waste and nonwaste regions, to overlying units, or to thesurface. Provide information, eitherdirectly or by reference, as to how deepboreholes penetrating the non-waste andwaste regions of the repository areaccounted for in the PA.This is a revision to Appendix SCR-2014, Section SCR-5.2.1.1. Therevised text that has been changed to address EPA Comment 2-32-S1is documented in blue font type in Enclosure 1 of DOE's fifthresponse submittal to EPA.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infifth responsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fifthresponse11 EPA Comment2-32-S2 FEP H22 Drilling Fluid Loss.The screening argument considers flowinto the repository from boreholes thatintercept pressurized fluid in underlyingformations but only for boreholesintersecting the waste region. In thecurrent BRAGLO model gas and brinereadily flow between the waste and nonwaste regions. A discussion and analysisof boreholes that could intersect the nonwaste regions and their impact on the PAneeds to be provided.This is a revision to Appendix SCR-2014, Section SCR-5.2.1.2. Therevised text that has been changed to address EPA Comment 2-32-S2is documented in blue font type in Enclosure 1 of DOE's fifthresponse submittal to EPA.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infifth responsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fifthresponse75thResponseSubmittaltotheEPAEnclosure4Error#ErrorDescription Correction Originator Responsibility StatusDateofCompletionCRA‐2014ErrataTracking12 EPA Comment2-32-S3 FEP H23 Blowouts.Screening argument considers onlyboreholes intersecting the waste regionand also pressurized Castile brine. In thecurrent BRAGLO model gas and brinereadily flow between the waste and nonwaste regions. Please supplement theargument with a discussion and analysisof boreholes that could intersect the nonwaste regions on the PA.This is a revision to Appendix SCR-2014, Section SCR-5.2.1.3. Therevised text that has been changed to address EPA Comment 2-32-S3is documented in blue font type in Enclosure 1 of DOE's fifthresponse submittal to EPA.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infifth responsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fifthresponse13 EPA Comment2-32-S11 FEP W20 Salt Creep.Please supplement the screening argumentwith a discussion of salt creep andconsolidation to the ROM salt in theROMPCS, and healing of the adjacentDRZ. Such a discussion can be found inCamphouse et al. (2012, Section 2.0.ERMS 557396). The screening argumentfor this FEP states that “Salt creep in theSalado is accounted for in PA calculations(the CCA, Chapter 6.0, Section 6.4.3.1).”The cited CCA section discusses theseFEPs only in the context of the wasteregion. In addition, this is the only FEPthat addresses DRZ healing, which isexpected to vary spatially.This is a revision to Appendix SCR-2014, Section SCR-6.3.1.2. Therevised text that has been changed to address EPA Comment 2-32-S11 is documented in blue font type in Enclosure 1 of DOE's fifthresponse submittal to EPA.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infifth responsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fifthresponse85thResponseSubmittaltotheEPAEnclosure4Error#ErrorDescription Correction Originator Responsibility StatusDateofCompletionCRA‐2014ErrataTracking14 EPA Comment2-32-S12 FEP W21 Changes in the Stress.Screening argument was combined withthat for W20 Salt Creep; please seecomments for FEP W20. Additionally,please supplement the screening argumentwith discussions of 1) the couplingbetween consolidation of the ROM salt inthe ROMPCS and healing of the adjacentDRZ (DRZ healing cannot occur until theROM salt is consolidated and applies aback stress sufficient to compress and healthe DRZ); and 2) lateral extrusion of theROM salt when under compressive stressfrom drift creep closure.This is a revision to Appendix SCR-2014, Section SCR-6.3.1.2. Therevised text that has been changed to address EPA Comment 2-32-S12 is documented in blue font type in Enclosure 1 of DOE's fifthresponse submittal to EPA.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infifth responsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fifthresponse15 EPA Comment2-32-S21 FEP W72 ExothermicReactions.Please supplement the screening argumentwith a discussion of the impact ofexothermic reactions in the waste panels.This is a revision to Appendix SCR-2014, Section SCR-6.3.4.1. Therevised text that has been changed to address EPA Comment 2-32-S21 is documented in blue font type in Enclosure 1 of DOE's fifthresponse submittal to EPA.EPA SNL/PIRUR. KirkesIncluded infifth responsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fifthresponse95thResponseSubmittaltotheEPAEnclosure4Error#ErrorDescription Correction Originator Responsibility StatusDateofCompletionCRA‐2014ErrataTracking16 EPA Comment3-C-11. Appendix SOTERMTypographical Errors/Errata. SectionSOTERM-3.6.1.3, Page SOTERM-67,line 3: Section SOTERM-3.5.1.1 andSection SOTERM-3.5.1.2 should beSection SOTERM-3.6.1.1 and SectionSOTERM-3.6.1.2Appendix SOTERM, Section SOTERM6.0 References:The correct date for thefollowing reference is 2010: Reed, D.T.,J.-F. Lucchini, M. Borkowski, and M.K.Richmann. 20092010. Reduction ofHigher Valent Plutonium by Iron underWaste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) -Relevant Conditions: Data Summary andRecommendations. LCO-ACP-09,LANL\ACRSP Report. Los Alamos, NM:Los Alamos National Laboratory.These are typographical errors in Appendix SOTERM-2014. The crossreferences in Section 3.6.1.3 should be SOTERM-3.6.1.1 and SOTERM3.6.1.2, as the EPA has noted. This sentence in Appendix SOTERM-2014 ischanged to read:The overall issue of a thermodynamic driver for higher-valent Pu oxides,although it has received much recent attention inthe literature, is not yetresolved, but has a relatively insignificant impact on the WIPP regardless ofthe mechanisms at work. A prolonged unsaturated phase in the WIPP couldlead to the formation of some PuO2+x, but this will be quickly overwhelmedin an aqueous environment and the higher-valent Pu will be reduced toPu(III/IV) species, as described in Section SOTERM-3.6.1.1 and SectionSOTERM-3.6.1.2. Both DBR and transport-release scenarios assume brineinundation and, correspondingly, the rapid introduction of reducingconditions.Although the plutonium internal report is labeled as a 2009 report, it wasfinalized in 2010 – so DOE agrees with the EPA that 2010 is the correct dateof reference for the report. The reference for this report is changed to thefollowing:“Reed, D.T., J.-F. Lucchini, M. Borkowski, and M.K. Richmann. 2010.Reduction of Higher Valent Plutonium by Iron under Waste Isolation PilotPlant (WIPP) - Relevant Conditions: Data Summary and Recommendations.LCO-ACP-09, LANL\ACRSP Report. Los Alamos National Laboratory, LosAlamos, NM.”A copy of this reference is provided in Enclosure 2.Also, “Reed et al. 2009” is replaced with “Reed et al.2010” in the followinglocations:SOTERM vi Figure SOTERM-15 captionSOTERM 18 Line 8SOTERM 36 Line 27SOTERM 62 Line 14SOTERM 65 Line 4 (Figure 15 caption)These typographical errors have been added to Enclosure 4, CRA-2014Errata Tracking.EPA LANL-D. Reed Included infifth responsesubmittal toEPASubmitted toEPA in fifthresponseEnd of CRA-2014 Errata Tracking10