Mr. George Anastas 

UNITED ST ATES ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

11021 Bridge Pointe, NE 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87111 

Dear Mr. Anastas: 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

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 (DOE), through its Argonne National Laboratory 

(ANL), has transported and disposed of high-level radioactive waste (HL W) and spent nuclear fuel 

(SNF) at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WJPP). We agree that Section 12 of the WIPP Land 

Withdrawal Act (PL 102-579, as amended by PL 104-201) (WIPP LWA) prohibits the transportation to 

and disposal of SNF or HLW at the WIPP. However, we disagree with your contention that the DOE has 

disposed of HL Wand SNF at the WTPP. 

As part of its waste characterization inspections and its WIPP compliance recertification process, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reviews the DOE waste characterization information on an ongoing basis to make sure that HL Wand SNF are not disposed 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 inspection reports (see the list of docket citations 

included in response to question 2 in the accompanying enclosure), have found that no waste disposed at 

the WJPP violates the WIPP L WA prohibition on the transportation and disposal of HL Wand SNF at 

the facility. Instead, based on the EPA's review of DOE documents. the Agency believes that the WIPP 

is only receiving and disposing 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. inclusion of HL W or SNF in TRU waste 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 questions outlined in your March 2015 correspondence. 

Although these comments were submitted as a public submission related to the DOE's WIPP 2014 

Compliance Recertification Application, the EPA considers your letter as an inquiry specific to TRU 

waste characterization activities at ANL. Hence, we decided to respond to your letter in advance of our 

June 2015 informal public meetings, as you requested. We will also include this correspondence in the 

docket associated with the 2014 WIPP Recertification (EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609). 

ln1erne1 Address (URL) • 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 interest in the WIPP. Should you have any further questions, please do not 

hesitate to contact us. 

Enclosure 

cc: Frank Marcinowski, DOE/HQ 

Alton Harris, DOE/HQ 

Joe Franco, DOE/CBFO 

Sue Stahle, EP A/OGC 

EPA WIPP Team/Docket 

rector 

Radiation Protection Division 
Enclosu re 

Responses to George Anastas - March 3, 20 15 Letter 

Question 1. What actions wi II EPA take regarding the transport and disposal of HL W and spent nuclear 

fuel at WlPP consistent with other actions by the EPA where an organization violated EPA 

Permit/Regulatory Requirements? 

Response: To date, after conducting more than 100 TRU waste characterization site inspections at 

TRU waste sites within the DOE complex, the EPA has not seen any evidence of the 

transport and disposal of HLW and SNL at the WIPP. Hence, no action has been necessary. 

Question 2. EPA inspected Argonne National Laboratory prior to September 2013. Did the EPA 

inspection(s) uncover the fact that Argonne was planning to ship comingled TRU with 

HLW and SNF to WIPP? 

Response: In accordance with the 40 CFR 194.8 regulatory changes that were finalized in 2004, the 

EPA performed a baseline site inspection at ANL in September 2006, and approved ANL's 

RH TRU waste characterization program in January 2007 (see www.regulations.gov, EPAHQ-OAR-2006-0881 ). Per 2004 regulatory changes, the site-specific baseline approval must 

identify Tier 1 (Tl) changes as the type of modifications 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 an existing piece of characterization 

equipment and/or changes to approved procedures. As such, since the 2007 baseline 

approval at ANL, the EPA has approved ten Tl changes including the following five 

approvals of ANL's remote-handled (RH) waste stream, Argonne East Remote Handled 

Debris Mix (AERHDM, from K Wing Analytical Laboratory glove boxes): 

./ September 20 I 0 approval of K Wing AERHDM Debris (see www.regulations.gov, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-200 1-00 12-0449); 

./ September 20 I 0 approval to add additional containers of the same waste stream to the 

previously approved lot (see www.regulations.gov, EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-001 2-0340); 

./ September 20 I 0 approval of addition of 100 containers in October 2008 (see 

www.regulations.gov, EPA-l-IQ-OAR-2001-0012-0450); 

./ November 20 I 0 approval of FEW debris (see wv.rw.regulations.gov, 

EPA-HQ-OAR-200 1-0012-0451); and 

./ February 2012 approval of K-Wing FEW waste stream (see www.regulations.gov, EPAHQ-OAR-2001 -0012-0312) 

All the above approvals required an EPA inspection/review of DOE-prepared supporting 

documentation describing the origin and radiological contents of the waste material 

packaged in containers for WJPP disposal. None of the documents reviewed indicate that 

HLW and SNF has been handled when analyzing test material in ANL's K Wing Analytical 

Laboratory glove boxes. 

Question 3. What are EPA procedures to assure that comingled TRU, HL Wand SNF are not shipped to, 

nor emplaced, at WIPP? 

Response: When TRU waste is being approved for WIPP disposal. the EPA routinely evaluates 

acceptable knowledge (AK) documents and interviews AK and radiological characterization 

expe11s to verify that no HLW or SNL fuel has been comingled with TRU waste. TRU sites 

must provide up to date AK documents and radiological characterization records specific to 

1 
every 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 radiological characterization records. For the five above listed Tl change 

requests, the EPA followed the above verification steps and evaluated accompanying 

radiological data to confirm that the ANL RI-I waste stream being proposed for WIPP 

disposal meets the definition of RH TRU waste. The Agency believes that ANL 

appropriately adhered to the DOE Order 435.1-1 when generating 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 or plutonium production. 

Question 4. What volume and mass of SNF and of HL W from each DOE Generating Site has been 

transported and disposed at WIPP? 

Response: The EPA has not seen any evidence of the transport and disposal of HL W 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 evaluate any SNF-related criticality 

issues. 

Question 6. Identify each container of HLW and SNF (any spent nuclear fuel, commercial, advanced 

United States reactor SNF, SNF originating from any foreign reactor, from any research 

reactor, any defense related SNF, any critical facility) disposed at WIPP by, at least, 

Generator site, Waste Stream Profile, Container Type, Container TRUCON Code, Container 

Disposal Date and Container Location (at least Panel and Room). 

Response: Because the EPA has not seen any evidence of the transport and disposal of SNF or HL W at 

the WIPP, there are no waste containers in this category to identify. 

Question 7. Under 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 WIPP, there is no need for any federal or state entity to authorize the stated activities. 

Question 8. Were the containers 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 WIPP, there is no need for any federal or state entity to authorize the stated activities. 

Question 9. What are the EPA procedures to prohibit DOE from implementing internal guidance, 

directives or orders that circumvent EPA regulatory 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 Implementation Plan) that incorporate 

the EPA's regulatory requirements. The DOE's procedures implement various DOE Orders 

that cover the TRU waste management program. In addition, the EPA can review applicable 

DOE internal guidance, directives or 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