Mr. George Anastas UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D

.C

. 20460

11021 Bridge Pointe , NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111
Dear Mr. Anastas: OFFICE OF A I R AND RADI A T I ON

Thank you for your letter dated March 3, 2015. We have considered your questions which are based on your assertion that the U.S. Department of Energy (D OE) , through it s Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), has transported and disposed of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WJ PP). We agree that Section 12 of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (P L 102-579 , as amended by PL 104-201) (W IPP LWA) prohibits the transportation to and disposal of SNF or H LW at the WIPP. However, we disagree with yo ur contention that the DOE has disposed of HLWand SNF at the WTPP.
As part of its waste characterization in spections and its WIPP compliance recertification process, the U .S. Environmental Protection Agency revi ews the DOE waste characterization information on an ongoi ng basis to make sure that HL Wand SNF are not dispos ed at the repository. Our reviews of ANL · s remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) waste characterization documentation , documented in the Agency's multiple ANL waste characterization in spection reports (see the li st of docket citations included in response to question 2 in the accompanying enclosure), have found that no waste disposed at the WJPP vio lates the WIPP LWA prohibition on the transportation and disposal of HLWand SNF at the facility. Instead , based on the EPA's review of DOE documents. the Agency believes that the W IPP is only receiving an d disp os ing ofTRU waste, as allowed under Section 7 of the WIPP LWA. Also, there are several prescribed checks and balances (as outlined in DOE Order No. 435.1) that each TRU waste site must formalize; therefore. inclu sion of HL W or SNF in TRU was te containers would not go unnoticed and unchecked. In addition, required compliance with regulations of external federal and state entities and associated penalties minimizes the potential for such an unlawful action.
Our enclosure to this letter addresses each of the qu est ions o utlined in your March 2015 correspondence. Although these comments were submitted as a public subm ission related to the DOE's WIPP 2014 Compliance Recertificati on Application, the EPA considers you r letter as an inquiry spec ific to TRU waste characterization activities at ANL. He nce , we decided to respond to your letter in advance of our June 2015 inform al public meeting s, as you requeste d. We will also include this correspondence in the docket associated with the 20 14 WIPP Rec ert ificati on (EP A-HQ

- OAR-2014-0609).

ln1erne 1 Add r ess (UR L ) • hltp :// www.epa

. gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegelable Oil Based Inks on 100° Postconsurner

. Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paper

### Again , we thank you for your inte r est in the WIPP. Should you have any further questions , please do not hes itate t o contac t us.

Enclosure

cc: Frank Marcinowski , DO E /HQ Alton Harri s , DOE/HQ Joe Franco , DOE/CBFO Sue Stahle , E PA/OGC EP A WIPP Team / Docke t r ector Radiation Protection DivisionEn clo s u re Responses to George A nasta s
- March 3, 20 15 Letter Que s tion 

### 1. What actions wi II EPA take regarding the transport and disposal of HLW and spe nt nuclear fuel at W lPP consistent with other ac tion s by the EPA where an organization violated EPA Permit/Regulatory Requirements? Re s ponse: To date, after conducting more than 1 00 TRU waste characterization site inspect ions a t TRU waste sites within the DOE complex , the EPA has not seen any evidence of the transport a nd di sposal of HLW and SNL at the WIPP. Hence , no act ion has been necessary. Que s tion 2. EPA inspected A rgonne National Laboratory prior to September 2013. Did the EPA in spection(s) uncover the fact that Argonne was planning to ship comi n g led TRU w ith HLW and SNF to WIPP? Re s ponse: In accordance w ith the 40 CFR 194.8 re gu latory changes th at were finalized in 2004 , the EPA performed a baseline site inspection at ANL in Septemb e r 2006 , and ap proved ANL's RH TRU waste cha racte rizati o n program in J anuary 2007 (see www.regu l ation s.gov , EPA

HQ-O AR-2006-0881 ). Per 2004 regulatory changes, the site

- specific baseline approval must identify Ti e r 1 (Tl) changes as the type of modification s that the Agency must approve prior to their implementation by an approved site. These may include characterization of new waste stream(s), use of a new or modification to a n existing p iece of characteri zation equipment and/or changes to approved procedures. As such , since the 2007 baseline approval at AN L , the EPA ha s approved te n Tl c han ges includi ng the following five approvals of ANL's remote-handled (RH ) waste stream , Argonne East R emote Handled D ebris Mix (AE RHD M , from K Wing Analytical Laboratory g love boxes):
./ September 20 I 0 approval of K Wing AERHD M Debris (see www
. regulations.gov, E PA -H Q-OA R- 200 1- 00 12- 0449 ) ; ./ September 20 I 0 approval to add additional containers of the same waste stream to the previous ly approved lot (see www.reg ul ations.gov, E PA-HQ -O AR

- 200 1-001 2-0340); ./ Septemb er 20 I 0 approval of additio n of 100 containers in October 2008 (see www.regulations.gov , EPA -l-IQ-OAR-200 1-0012-0450) ; ./ November 20 I0 approval of FEW debris (see wv.rw.regulat ions.gov , E PA-HQ-OAR- 200 1-001 2-0451); and ./ February 20 12 approval of K-Win g F EW waste stream (see www.regulatio n s.gov , EPA

HQ-OA R- 2001 -0012

- 0312)
All the above approvals required an E P A inspection/review of DO E-prepared supporting documentation describing the ori gin and radiolo g ical contents of the waste materi a l packaged in containers for WJPP d isposal. None of the documents reviewed indicate that HLW and SNF has been handl ed when analyzing test material in ANL's K Win g Analytical Lab oratory glove boxes. Que s tion 3

.What are E PA procedures to ass ure that comingled TRU, HLWand SNF are not shipp ed to , nor emplaced, at WIPP? Re s ponse: When TRU waste is being approved for WI PP disposal. the E PA rout inely evaluates acceptab le knowledge (AK) documents and interv iews AK and radiological c haracteri z ation expe11s to verify that n o HLW or SNL fuel has been comingled with TRU waste. TRU sites must provide up to date AK documents and radiological characteri zation records specific to 1every Tl change approval request. EPA pursues this verification step every time the Agency reviews revised AK documents (necessary to record what is being added to an approved RH waste stream) and radi o l ogical characterization re cords. For the five above listed Tl chan ge requests, the EPA followed the above verification s teps and evaluated accompanying radiological data to confirm that the ANL RI-I waste s tream b e ing proposed for WIPP disposal meets the definition of RH TRU waste. The Agency believes that ANL appropriate ly adhered to the DOE Order 435.1-1 when generatin g WIPP-compliant RH TRU AEHRDM waste resulting from analysis of test material consisting of fuel pin fines and debris not originating or associated with power o r plutonium production. Question 4. What volume and mass of SNF and of HLW from each DOE Generating Site has been transported and disposed at WIPP? R es pon se: The EPA ha s not seen any evidence of the transport and disposal of HLW and SNF at the WIPP. Question 5. What analysis of any criticality considerations has EPA conducted because of the emplacement of containers of SNF at WIPP? Response: Because the EPA has not seen any evidence of the transport and disposal of HL W and SNF at the WIPP , there has been no need for the Agency to eva lu ate any SNF- related critica lity issues. Question 6. Identi fy each container of HLW and SNF (any spent nuclear fuel, commercial, advanced United States reactor SNF, SNF origin ating from any foreign reactor , from any research reactor, any defense related SNF , any crit ic a l facility) disposed at W I PP by , at least, Generator s ite , Waste Stream Profile, Container Type , Container TRUCO N Code , Containe r Disposal Date and Container Lo cation (at least Panel and Ro om). Response: Because the EPA has not seen any evidence of the transport and disposal of SNF or HL W at the WIPP, there a re no waste containers in this category to identify. Question 7. Unde r what authority were these materials packaged, transported and disposed at WIPP? Response: Because the EPA has not seen any evidence of the transport and disposal of SN F or H L W at the W IPP , th ere is no need fo r any federal or state entity to authorize the stated activities. Question 8. Were the co ntain ers of HL W and SNF approved for the transport of these materials from Argonne to WIPP? 

### If yes , by what agency and when? Response: Because the EPA has not seen any evidence of the transport and disposal of SNF or HLW at the W IPP , there is no need for any federal or state entity to authorize the s tated activities. Q ue st ion 9. What are the EPA procedures to prohibit DOE from implementing internal guidance , directives or orders th at c ircumve nt EPA regula tory requirements? Response: The Agency's review and concurrence are necessary prior to DOE implementing any waste characterization-specific changes to its previously-approved procedures (e

. g., Waste Acceptance Criteria, Waste Characterization Program Im plementation Pl an) that incorporate the EPA's regulatory requirement s. The DOE ' s procedures implement various DOE O rders that cover the TRU waste management program. In addition , the EPA can review applicable DOE intern al guidance , directives o r orders to confirm that the DOE continues to ship only TRU waste to the WIPP for disposal in accordance with the WIPP L WA.

2